Week 8

Verified, written by Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg, is a book about, as the cover states, “How to think straight, get duped less, and make better decisions about what to believe online.” It is very informal and digs deep into subjects that you thought you knew about. Chapters 6 and 7 are particularly important because they cover topics such as peer-reviewed articles, scholarly articles, and where to find them, Wikipedia, and finding research on Wikipedia. It sounds pretty basic and elementary, but Caulfield and Wineburg give you a new way of doing research—one that helps you get the most accurate information.

Chapter 6 begins with discussing peer-reviewed articles, what they are, and why. The purpose of getting a paper peer-reviewed is to get your paper checked by another researcher, or “peer,” and see if it needs to be fixed before publication. The authors explain that researchers study a specific topic and write about it, send their journal to an editor, the paper is edited and scanned to fit the criteria, then it is sent to the reviewers. These reviewers will analyze the essay, and either reject it, accept it, or leave it in a “limbo-like” state. It is a long task, but worth it in the end. Scholarly articles are also discussed in this chapter. Using Google Scholar as a scholarly source, Caulfield and Wineburg guide the reader using two examples. Google Scholar works similarly to Google (surprisingly) and lets you see information within the online articles. This chapter explains that using online articles on Google Scholar is great for a literature review, and then having it peer reviewed afterwards can help get your paper published. The following chapter shows another way to get your facts for research.

Chapter 7 puts a strong emphasis on Wikipedia’s change over the years and its reliability. Initially, the website had a bad reputation for the information, and students were warned to avoid it for facts; however, things have changed, and there are now standards for getting wiki articles published. Bots and humans are constantly monitoring the website so that people can get the information they need. The authors mention that Wikipedia is a good starting point for all kinds of research, and checking the citations on wiki pages is a good way to fact-check information. Wikipedia is constantly changing for the common internet user who is simply looking for facts.

On a completely different subject, CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) is something studied. Carrie Dils’s videos explain how to use it and its effects on markup. It is like HTML in the fact that it is all coding and has a particular syntax to get it done efficiently. It looks a bit complicated to the naked eye, but practice makes perfect. I can see how this would be extremely useful for freelance workers.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

3 responses to “Week 8”

  1. abbeys0121 Avatar
    abbeys0121

    Hi! I really like the breakdowns of the readings. I mention this in another comment on another peer’s post, but I really do enjoy seeing a classmate’s perspective and breakdown of our readings. It can sometimes make readings more understandable or point out things that I did not catch in the first read through, which is how I felt for your blog post. I think you did this really well and the structure of your writing is very strong. I would have liked to see you expand on the topic of CSS as much as you did for the other chapters.

  2. LKSOC1004 Avatar
    LKSOC1004

    I loved the section on Wikipedia. It really lays out why Wikipedia isn’t the massive problem that we were led to believe it was. While it certainly had a period where it wasn’t as trustworthy, I really enjoy having it as a resource for lighter researching or initial reading. I was actually able to see the human moderators arguing over a section in an entry I was reading through for the verification quest. There was a timestamped dialogue between moderators who were leaving comments to each other debating the application of the Wikipedia guidelines. It was very interesting to see. Plus, me being able to see that shows that Wikipedia is quite transparent in its practices.

  3. goosefeet22 Avatar
    goosefeet22

    You do a really good job of summarizing this section of Verified. I personally appreciated the breakdown of the academic source publishing process, as that was not something I had really known about before. I have used Google Scholar quite a bit in the past, but I don’t know if it has been affected by AI. Like we read about in the beginning of the semester, even academic articles can be hallucinated by AI, and so I stopped using Google Scholar just in case that was happening there. My favorite chapter was about Wikipedia. Like you mention, there are admin and bots there to address most of the issues that arise, which was really great information to learn!

Leave a Reply