Monday, August 29

Today in class, we began to work through the concepts and structure of definition arguments. The warm-up today asked you to define a term (sport) and to place specific types of activities either inside or outside of that definition. We will continue to practice these kinds of definition arguments throughout this unit.

Second, I answered questions about your common first week project. Please remember that your projects are due tonight at 11:55 pm (See Common First Week Project Submission Reminder below).

Third, we discussed definition arguments, the traditional structure for a Circular_definition_of_circular_definitiondefinition argument essay, and the overall purpose and usefulness for a definition argument in a variety of contexts. We covered the major types of definition (dictionary, extended, operational) and talked about how these types should all work together in order to create a definition that is neither too broad, too narrow or circular.

Fourth, we discussed tips and techniques for active reading, textual annotation, and working through dense academic texts. Active reading and taking good notes are hugely important skills that we will continue to emphasize throughout this semester, as you will need to master both to do well in this course and throughout your college career.

Finally, as a group, you worked to combine both your new understanding of definition arguments and your abilities to work through and annotate a text. You used the readings from the homework to examine a source that might be used in a definition argument concerned with the meaning of the term “legitimate research source.” We will come back to these sources on Wednesday to continue to discuss whether or not Wikipedia belongs inside or outside of that classification.

You should post your team’s summary/analysis of your reading section in the comments below (1 post per team, but include first names and last initial for each team member as well as your section number). This post should include:

  1. A summary of the source’s main argument and a break down of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
  2. An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos)
  3. An analysis of the target audience for the source
  4. An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
  5. An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
  6. One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
  7. Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).

Each group will work on the following source from Chapter 12 of Practical Arguments (available on TSquare)

  • Group 1: Reading starting on page 411: “The ‘Undue Weight’ of Truth on Wikipedia
  • Group 2: pg 414: “A False Wikipedia Biography”
  • Group 3: Pg 417: “Anonymous Source is Not the Same as Open Source”
  • Group 4: pg 421: “Wikipedia: About” and “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: About”
  • Group 5: pg 425: “Wikiphobia: The Latest in Open Source”
  • Group 6: Pg 428: “Wikipedia With Caution”

HermioneLibrary4

Homework (UPDATE FROM SYLLABUS)
1. Read WOVENText Chapter 18 (Section on Annotating Texts ONLY pg 663-669). Put off reading Ch. 6 & 17 until Sept 7.

2. Read the PDF of Mintz, “Preface and Chapter 1” available on TSquare. Practice your active reading and annotations as you read – pay careful attention to looking up/defining terms you don’t know and being able to articulate the main arguments of each chapter.

3. Read the summary/analysis of Wikipedia articles from the rest of the class in the comments below and begin to brainstorm a thesis statement for the (imaginary) definition essay about Wikipedia as a legitimate research source.

4. Reminder: Your Common First Week Video Project 

is due TONIGHT by 11:55 pm. You will need to complete the following steps to successfully turn in your video project:

  1. Upload the video to YouTube.
  2. Locate the appropriate assignment on TSquare for “Common First Week Project”Submission Instructions for TSquare
  3. Copy/paste the link to youScreen Shot 2016-08-23 at 8.28.32 AMr YouTube video into the text box
  4. Confirm the honor pledge by checking the box
  5. Click “Submit” prior to the deadline of 11:55pm

About DrFitz

@DrFitzPhD
This entry was posted in Instructor Posts, Section B2, Section C2, Section J5 and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Monday, August 29

  1. James Bronsted says:

    James Bronsted
    William Li
    Sereym Baek
    Marc Larvie
    Alex Lopez

    People cannot post minority opinions on Wikipedia and rather Wikipedia functions as a filter for reliable sources. These practices lead to incorrect information being represented.

    Ethos is mostly used in the article. The author leverages his expertise on the subject against the popular opinions he disagrees with. He also refers to the evidence that he has reviewed in the past, which is an appeal to logos. Pathos is not used extensively in the article. However, the conclusion may be construed to appeal to pathos since it invokes an image of him shouting the truth, unable to be heard.

    The source is targeted at professors and other members of institutions of higher learning who hold minority views backed by good expertise and evidence. The article was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, an online weekly publication aimed at members of institutions of higher learning. It was published in February 2012.

    The source is against Wikipedia as a legitimate research source. The article claims that Wikipedia engages in filtering for reliable sources rather than truth-seeking among different opinions.

    Quote: “Wikipedia is not ‘truth,’ Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”

  2. Suehyun Jin says:

    Group2
    – Susan Jin
    – Laura Calderón
    – Sean Joplin
    – Seokho Jin
    1. A summary of the source’s main argument and a break down of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
    Anyone can edit wikipedia articles, “sometimes by people with Malice”
    Even when information is proven false, there is no way to find out who wrote the false information. Almost Legally impossible to get service providers to give client information.
    Congress protects those who deface wikipedia.

    2. An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos).
    Pathos: When he mentions “a highly personal story” “This could be your story” he uses pathos to be convincing.
    “When I was a child my mother lectured me on the evils of “gossip”. She held a feather pillow and said, “If i tear this open the feathers will fly into the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow.” That’s how it is when you spread mean things about people.”
    Logos: “Sections 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker”.
    Ethos: he is an important person, and even his life was falsely presented. He talks about how he had always heard of Great Wikipedia is, but it spread false information about his life.

    3. An analysis of the target audience for the source
    The article was from USA today which targets wide range of audiences such as wikipedia authors and people who would use wikipedia as a main source of information, such as students, teachers, and, possibly, professors. He expresses his anger to his “anonymous biographer” who published false information about his past and the irresponsibility of Wikipedia representatives who could not find the publisher. Also, he convinces readers that wikipedia could be the source of gossip and they should not trust wikipedia because the authors does not hold any responsibility to the inaccurate information.
    4. An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
    November 29, 2005, USA Today (Newspaper)
    5. An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
    Against Wikipedia being classified as a legitimate source. Says that it took four months for information to be corrected, even though someone had clearly seen it by editing out a typo.
    6. One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
    “Nothing was ever proven”
    “Authors are unknown and virtually untraceable”
    “So we live in a Universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communication and research- but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects”.

    7. Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).
    Wikipedia did promptly change the false the information once they were notified of its falsehood.
    theguardian article “Can you trust wikipedia?” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/oct/24/comment.newmedia

  3. Khalil Newell says:

    Khalil Newell
    Jacob Blevins
    Winston Berger
    Cameron Small
    1. This article is an informational guide to Wikipedia and to the IEP. It gives both positives and negatives of Wikipedia. These articles both display how Wikipedia cares more about releasing as much quantity of info as possible while the IEP cares more about the quality of the information.
    2. Logos- statistics of Wikipedia, show good numbers to reinforce that Wikipedia is not as bad as it seems
    Ethos- different languages, so different characters
    3. Audience- People uncertain of Wikipedia’s legitimacy, also those interested in using the information from Wikipedia.
    4. Published: January 30, 2012, Wikipedia, Online Article
    5. The article seems to be against Wikipedia due to the comparisons between it and the IEP; it shows that the IEP is more reliable.
    6. “Anyone with internet access can write or make changes to Wikipedia articles…” What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. “most of the articles in the IEP are original contributions by specialized philosophers.
    7. We all agree that the IEP is better than Wikipedia when it comes to being a legitimate resource. The IEP article Could have used more to enhance its argument against Wikipedia.

  4. Caleb McCullough says:

    Group 5 8/31/16
    Caleb McCullough, Owen Rosini, Andrew Morris, Edwin Lopez
    1. A summary of the source’s main argument and a break down of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
    His main argument is that it should not be considered a valid source because it is open and anyone can edit. It is anonymous so people without expertise, or with ill intent, can manipulate the information without any consequence.
    2. An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos)
    He mainly used ethos by implying his expertise as a teacher who has dealt with and led a movement at his college for formal anti-wikipedia policy. He also used logos by systematically attacking the credibility of Wikipedia and its editors by using arguments of how easily and anonymously you can manipulate the articles.

    3. An analysis of the target audience for the source
    Faculty of academic institutes like universities and high schools. He is attempting to benefit the quality of their programs by convincing them that Wikipedia is an illegitimate source and will undermine their teaching effectivity. It is also for students so he can make them aware of the pitfalls of using Wikipedia despite its convenience.
    4. An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
    This source was a Middlebury College student weekly newspaper. It was published on April 11th 2007. This article was timed well with the popular movement against Wikipedia in the academic world.
    5. An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
    This source is strongly against Wikipedia being classified as a legitimate research source. The author mentions that it can be used as a tool to find sources, and that it carries boundless information; however, it is not reliable enough to be used as a source itself within any formal assignments.
    6. One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
    “But Wikipedia at its worst excites similarly intense passions because anonymous, non accountable editors can include, through ignorance or malice, misinformation that may or may not get ‘fixed’”
    7. Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).
    He fails to acknowledge that Wikipedia however unreliable as a standalone source can be quite useful when synthesized with other articles that confirm and support its points. Also with time having passed things have changed and the editing process is probably different than it was when the article was written.

  5. Christopher Josey says:

    Group 3 – Christopher J., Bura I., Morgan L., Denny L.
    Passage – pg. 417 “Anonymous Source Is Not The Same As An Open Source”

    1) Stross doesn’t believe that Wikipedia is a credible source. He argues against collectivism among multiple editors, especially editors who are unqualified to edit articles. Stross believes that Wikipedia would benefit from having a single authority. He also believes that Wikipedia’s semi-protection doesn’t do enough to protect from “drive-by-pranks”, which severely tampers with entries, especially biographies.

    2) Stross utilizes logos in his arguments. He uses many statistics, and he likes to compare Wikipedia with other credible sources (Encyclopaedia Brittanica). He does use ethos by using evidence from Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales. However, he never uses pathos because he doesn’t establish an emotional appeal.

    3) Stross mostly addresses students who may think about using Wikipedia as a source in their work, teachers who may consider allowing Wikipedia references, etc.

    4) “Anonymous Source Is Not The Same As An Open Source” is an essay published by the New York Times on March 12, 2006.

    5) Stross is definitely against Wikipedia being classified as a legitimate research source.

    6) “Wikipedia’s reputation and internal editorial process would benefit by having a single authority vouch for the quality of a given article.”

    7) N/A as to extra pertinent information.

  6. DrFitz says:

    Moved from separate post – Andrea’s group

    1. Summary:

    A.Wikipedia is untrustworthy
    a.Open to everyone
    b.Autonomous
    c.However reversed easily
    d.Free to anyone to edit

    B. IEP
    a.Professional editors (scholars)
    b.Reviewed by many people before published

    2.Rhetorical skills

    A.Wikipedia
    a.Logos: lots of facts

    B.IEP
    a.Logos
    b.Ethos

    3.Target Audiences

    The intended audience is students, teachers, and researchers. These are the groups that will be using Wiki and IEP; thus, it is whether these groups of people find the two company’s reliable that matters. This audience cares about the accuracy of the information above all, which is why the both company’s focus almost only on this topic.

    4. Basic information:

    A.Wikipedia
    a.Publication date: January 30, 2012
    b.Type of publication: electronic/web page

    B.IEP
    a.Publication date: April 24, 2012
    b.Type of publication: electronic/web page

    5. Analysis For or Against

    This topic is neither for or against Wikipedia being a “legitimate research source.” Its purpose is to inform the pros and cons on this online encyclopedia, not to make defining statements about the websites authenticity. It goes from stating all Wiki articles are “verifiable against a published reliable source,” to warning readers that “newer articles may contain misinformation” (422).

    6.Definition argument

    A.Wikipedia
    a.Wikipedia is a live collaboration differing from paper based reference sources in important ways

    B.IEP
    b.he purpose of the IEP is to provide detailed, scholarly information on key topics and philosophers in all areas of philosophy.

    7. We all agree that the IEP is a better source for information

    Jackson Bailey, Michael Farrante, Andrea Guerrero, Dylan Fealtman

  7. Yingnan Zhang says:

    Group 5 — Zhang Yingnan, Zijin Luo, Adam Verga

    Our group read the passage The Latest In Open Source by Neil Waters. This passage was published in a student weekly newspaper on 2007.4.11, Middlebury Campus. Neil Waters wrote this passage to illustrate that Wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source, by pointing out these three reasons:
    1) Wikipedia allows anonymous, non-accountable editors to include misinformation due to ignorance or malice.
    2)Wikipedia is so ubiquitous that students tend to use it instead of searching for reliable sources which can cultivate their critical thinking ability.
    3)Wikipedia utilize scandals to keep its popularity.

    The major rhetorical appeals in this passage:
    Ethos: Neil Waters is a professor of Japanese Studies and History at Middlebury, which adds his credibility due to his reputation and professional perspective.
    Pathos: This passage was written from an angle as a professor, who thinks students should be responsible for their work and is eager to induce the students not to use Wikipedia as a source of citation. His passage is trying to persuade the students to make the correct choice.
    Logos: In this passage, Waters illustrates his point of view with clear logic, by pointing them out directly. He also used concession, definition, exemplification to demonstrate his point.

    The targeted audience of this passage are mostly passive audience–the college students, for it is a college newspaper aiming at college students who are also mostly included in Waters’ topic. That is, the students are receiving information from their professor. Also there may be a kind of possibility that this passage points at those concerted audience–those professor or teachers from other schools or colleges. These teaching faculties might know that Wikipedia is not reliable, but they are just looking for a person who could stand out to persuade them thoroughly and lead them to make a decision.

    Waters is definitely against the point that Wikipedia is a “legitimate research source”, since he clearly claimed his point of view at the beginning and the final part of his passage. “Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source.” “Wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source”. In the first paragraph, Waters presented his own anecdote related to Wikipedia, which was also the reason of the birth of the new policy that prevents students from using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Since Waters was actually the one who made the policy, he must support the points involved in the policy posed by himself. Then in paragraph four and five, Waters claimed three reasons why Wikipedia is so popular. Although it seems to be the greatest strength of Wikipedia, Waters refuted them one by one and came to the conclusion in paragraph six that “Wikipedia’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.”

    Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument:
    From my point of view, I totally agree with Water’s point “Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source.” This is also a question after the reading passage “Do you think this policy is fair?” on which I spend a long time struggling. I tried to persuade myself that it’s not fair, because people may not just use the information posted by those anonymous editors directly; they may also follow the links on the website to reliable sources that are created by well-known editors, such as thesis by prestigious professors or lab reports done by famous scientists. But finally, I still jumped to the conclusion that “It is fair”, because the links posted on Wikipedia are also provided by those anonymous and non-accountable writers. So even though the source leaded by that link is credible, it maybe not the right resource the user wants. So this is not an issue of “misinformation”; instead, it’s an issue of “misleading”, since there is a large chance that the links on Wikipedia just lead the users to a wrong track.

  8. Melissa Gurvitz says:

    1.The main argument of this article is that you can’t trust what is written down because there is no credible party that goes around and fact checks the articles. Experts from other online encyclopedias have asked “what does Wikipedia’s system off in place of an expert authority willing to place his or her professional reputation on the line with a signature attached to an article?” (417). Since no one has to single themselves out, there are no negative consequences to putting incorrect information. Another reason why Wikipedia is not a credible source is that many people have bene busted editing their own articles as well as there rivals including none other than the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales.

    2. Logos – The arguments presented are mainly factual and strike to make readers question how they view Wikipedia. This is done by comparing the signature of Albert Einstein to a random IP address (417). This is also done by bringing to light the fact that a professional is not risking their own reputation for the credibility of the information. (417)
    Ethos – The author of this article brings up his own credibility by saying that he himself interviewed the author, “When I asked Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia” and therefore has a prior knowledge or more knowledge of this topic than the average individual.
    Pathos- The author strikes at our emotions by asking us to question what we think is sketchy or not when he says, “No expertise is required, nor even a name. Sound inviting?”.

    3. The target audience is anyone who uses Wikipedia to do research. This is primarily focused on college students and high school students.
    4. Published – New York Times, 2006. This is a credible source.
    5. This is against Wikipedia as a credible source
    6. “No expertise is required, nor even a name… The system rests upon the belief that a collectivity of unknown but enthusiastic individuals by dint of sheer mass rather than possession of conventional credentials, can serve in the supervisory role of editor”
    “The egalitarian nature of a system that accords equal votes to everyone in the “community” – middle school student and Nobel laureate alike- has difficulty resolving intellectual disagreements.”
    7. According to this article, Wikipedia can’t be defined as good source because it emphasizes the fact, multiple times, that it is so unclear who is writing these articles, therefore, questioning the legitimacy of the information. It can be Albert Einstein or a 1st grade child writing an article about their favorite celebrity. Another counter argument that is prevalent is that because Wikipedia is updated and edited by everyone around the world it can assumed that most of the population will act to be as correct as possible and will constantly update to be as factually correct as possible. Adding in this argument people who believe Wikipedia to be a legitimate source argue that Wikipedia is more reliable in comparison to Encyclopedia Britannica.

    -Michael McDonald, Bryce Matlock, Mira Patel, Melissa Gurvitz

  9. Evangelos Katsoudas says:

    Group 2: Shaan Patel, Sarah Bowling, Jackson Higgins, Vangeli Katsoudas
    Pg. 414

    1)
    Argument: Wikipedia is not a reputable source of due to the ease that people have to post false information and harm others.
    Someone posted false information about the victim John Seigenthaler, claiming that he was suspected to contribute to the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and also moved at some point in his life to the Soviet Union.
    The perpetrator was protected by the anonymousness of Wikipedia
    The false information was able to stay on Wikipedia for a long period of time
    The people who write false information are able to escape their IP addresses being blocked by simply sneaking in another way
    2)
    Ethos- The ethos appeal in this passage is that John Seigenthaler isn’t a suspected assassin despite the fact that Wikipedia claimed he was for 132 days.  He says that “one sentence in the biography was true.  I was Robert Kennedy’s administrative assistant in the early 1960s”.  By providing the information that was actually true, he was able to juxtapose that against the libel. The ethical quality of his argument was that it was clearly wrong to lie about an event so serious and also try to bring down the reputation of a person.

    Logos- The author uses logos by appealing to the fact that despite using legal means to find the person who wrote false information about him, he was unable to find justice for himself. Clearly there is a fault in the system if this was able to happen.

    Pathos-  The author of this passage largely used an ethos appeal to convince the audience that wikipedia is a malicious source of information. He does so by providing examples that people can relate to, like comparing Wikipedia to advice his mother said to him as a child. He compares his libel to “gossip”, which is something that is commonly experienced by most people. He compares people who contribute incorrect facts to Wikipedia to “poison-pen intellects”

    3) The target audience for this article is anyone who uses and trusts Wikipedia as a source for information. Mr. Seigenthaler discourages people to completely believe everything that is posted to Wikipedia. Mr. Seigenthaler was upset at the court system for not being able to file a lawsuit.

    4)
    USA Today published this article on November 29th , 2005. The false accusation against Mr. Seigenthaler was on Wikipedia for a total of 132 days.

    5)
    This source is against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source” because the article is about a story in which false information was input on a person’s page. This led to an investigation by Mr. John Seigenthaler to find the person who maliciously defaced his Wikipedia biography. Mr. Seigenthaler keeps mentioning the word “toxic” and “malicious” meaning he believes that Wikipedia should not be used as a legitimate research source.

    6) “When I was a child my mother lectured me on the evils of “gossip”. She held a feather pillow and said, If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and i could never get them back in the pillow. That’s how it is when you spread mean things about people. For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia”

    7) Nothing else to add

  10. Aaron Simon says:

    Group 5 Section J5: Aaron Simon, Rodrigo Salas, Nicholas Joaquin, Maggie Royal

    1. Wikipedia is not a valid research source for history purposes. The author who is making this claim is a history professor who noticed many of his students making the same errors on their final papers. The professor googled this error and it led him to Wikipedia. Following this, he resolved to change the history department’s rules and banned Wikipedia as a legitimate research source for history purposes.\
    2. Logos: Gives examples of when Wikipedia fails as a source
    Ethos: The author is a history professor, so, he knows what correct sources are like.
    Pathos: N/A
    3. The article was geared towards three audiences: Teachers, Educational Institutions, and Students. The article was geared towards teachers to give them a heads-up about the use of Wikipedia as a source. Educational Institutions need to be aware of the use of Wikipedia as a source and should make moves to ban Wikipedia as a source. Students should be aware to not use Wikipedia as a source.
    4. The article was published in the “Middlebury Campus”, the student-run newspaper at Middlebury College, on April 11, 2007.
    5. The article is against Wikipedia as a legitimate research source. The author takes his position by saying “Anonymous, unaccountable, unpaid, often non-expert yet passionate editors built Wikipedia, but their anonymity and lack of accountability assures that Wikipedia cannot be considered an authoritative source.”
    6. “But Wikipedia at its worst excites similarly intense passions, because anonymous, non-accountable editors can include, through ignorance or malice, misinformation that may or may not get ‘fixed’.”

  11. Anna Barefield says:

    Anna Barefield, Amrit Bhatia, Chunjun Jia, Tianyi Lius J5 Source 6

    1. Wikipedia should not be completely banned. It can be used as a reference but not as a citation!
    a. The articles are not always perfect
    b. Most university students can notice difference between Wikipedia and reliable sources
    2. Ethos- it appeared in the Stanford Daily
    3. The target audience is Stanford University students.
    4. The editorial was published March 8, 2007 at Stanford University, one month after Middlebury College forbade students from citing Wikipedia.
    5. It is against Wikipedia being classified as a legitimate research source and states that it should not be used as a citation.
    6. A legitimate research source “can provide credible resources”
    It is not a “user-generated Web site”

  12. Anna Pethel says:

    Group 1
    Anna Pethel
    Nicholas Huang
    Chris O’Brien
    Yunqing (JJ) Jia
    Blake Small
    Source 1

    1. This article argues that Wikipedia’s policies prevent information from being changed in its articles, even if the information posted is wrong and the person attempting to correct it is highly educated on the subject. Timothy Messer-Kruse (who did research and wrote books on the trials following the Haymarket Riot bombing of Chicago in 1886) noticed that Wikipedia posted a false statement on the trials for the crime, claiming that “The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing…”. Messer-Kruse explained how evidence was offered by experts, yet his educated and correct edits were continuously deleted by “Wiki-gatekeepers” because his information did not support the popular opinion, causing his claim to be considered “undue weight” (information that does not balance out to the popular opinion and is considered the minority).
    – Messer-Kruse has been researching the historical event for 10 years at the time of this article. The misinformation he attempted to correct happened to be the controversial issue that got him interested on the topic in the first place.
    – Messer-Kruse offers an explanation and support towards his claim that evidence actually was offered by experts in the trials. The experts discovered traces by the type of metal found in the bomb; this evidence was so overwhelming to one of the defendants that his lawyer admitted he spent the entire afternoon before the bombing building bombs (but his alibi was that the bombs were for self-defense).
    – Messer-Kruse tried to change the misinformation in the Haymarket riot article, but his changes were rejected by Wikipedia.
    – Wikipedia’s “undue weight” policy states that “articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description of more popular views.” Because Messer-Kruse’s claim contradicted the majority of (wrong) claims in the past, it was considered undue weight.
    – Wikipedia does not accept information based on the truthfulness of its citations; it accepts information based on how popular the claim is, whether facts stand behind that claim or not.
    – Messer-Kruse waited until his book on the subject was published. When he tried to change the article again, he was rejected once more with the excuse that even though his citations were credible, Wikipedia simply could not accept the changes due to policy.
    2. The author uses ethos (which is the appeal to ethics) in order to persuade the reader that ethically, his opinion should matter because he is highly educated. Messer-Kruse makes the argument that it is wrong to post false information on an “educational” website like Wikipedia. He also notes that the Wikipedia employees identified the fact that some information could be wrong, but they still keep it posted because it is what most people think is right. Ethically, the information should be corrected whenever it can be updated for the sake of curious readers who desire to learn about the Haymarket riot trials.
    3. The target audience for this source is one that appreciates correct information and respects intelligence. Messer-Kruse’s goal is to point out that Wikipedia is not reliable because their policies are not based upon truth but rather ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources, meaning that the most popular opinion will be posted. An audience that respects knowledge will be affected by this article because they will side with Messer-Kruse in his fight to share his knowledge.
    4. This article was published on February 12, 2012 in the Chronicle Review, which is a news source based in Washington, D.C. that shares news on higher education for college and university students, faculty, and administrators.
    5. This source is classified against Wikipedia as a “legitimate research source.” Messer-Kruse repeatedly explains how Wikipedia rejected his correction (despite his credibility) and insisted on posting false information, even recognizing that some of its information could very well be wrong.
    6. (1) “Wikipedia is not ‘truth’, Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”
    (2) “I hope you will familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia’s policies, such as verifiability and undue weight. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write ‘Most historians write that the sky was green, but one says that the sky was blue.’…As individual editors, we’re not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write.”…….”perhaps before another century goes by, enough of my fellow scholars will adopt my views that I can change that Wikipedia entry. Until then I will have to continue to shout that the sky was blue.”
    7. Other info

  13. Kathryn Popp says:

    8/31/2016: Practical Arguments “Undue-Weight”

    Katie P.
    Maria D.
    Kally Z.

    Wikipedia, although validated by many sources, is not factual.
    The author had the right facts but they could not be on Wikipedia because he was the only one that thought them.
    Publishers had been posting the same idea for many years and although he was right, he could not change it.
    2. The main rhetorical strategy is ethos; author has credible resources and his point of view is justified by his research.
    3. The audience is other fellow researchers that may want to change Wikipedia as well as Wikipedia readers that may think that Wikipedia is factual.
    4. It was published in 2012. Since the Internet changes so much in so little time, Wikipedia could’ve changed its undue weight policy.
    5. The author is against Wikipedia as a valid source. He states in his experience in trying to prove that his own research would be factual for Wikipedia that his information is correct, but Wikipedia will not publish it because it is not widely agreed upon information, thus, Wikipedia does not contain particularly “true” information.
    6. “Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable resources.” The words “verifiability” and “true” could be used as definition arguments. “True” could have ambiguous meanings just depending on the context and connotation of the word. What is truth? Does it mean factual? Or does it mean validated? This is a major definition that would need to be included in an argument. “Verifiability” is a term that is extremely vague and would have to be defined in order for the author to continue his argument. According to society, “verifiability” could mean factual; however, according to Wikipedia, “credibility” means “popularity”.
    7. Other information that may need to be included could be other examples of researchers trying to post their own research that may negate that of Wikipedia’s. Possible examples of people correctly changing Wikipedia articles and how they came around to do so would also help the author continue his argument in that an idea must be agreed upon by majority (despite truth) in order to have the power to be changed in Wikipedia.

  14. Davis Riddett says:

    Section C2 Group 2
    Davis R., Mingyuan Z., Brandon P.

    1. A. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
    1. People can make false articles
    2. False info can remain for long times
    B. Wikipedia authors are not accountable
    1. Wikipedia cannot trace authors
    2. Internet providers do not have to trace authors
    3. Congress protects authors from much legal action

    2. Ethos- John Seigenthaler was an assistant to Rob Kennedy, edited newspaper
    Pathos- “who conceived the sick, false, malicious ‘biography’”, “I was beyond surprised or hurt”
    Logos- Organized into different sections, quoted law, quoted Jimmy Wales conversation, cited Wikipedia’s budget for 2006

    3. The material was originally published in newspaper form for USA Today. It was intended for a broad yet professional adult audience. The article uses Standard American English.

    4. This article was published on USA Today on Nov 29, 2005. Published on the modern day, this article refuted the unreliable accusation on John Seigenthaler’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination, which happened more than 4 decades ago. The article’s publication is quite formal and we can find that the author, John Seigenthaler, was mad about the unproven accusation.

    5. This source is apparently against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source” because he impuned the certain ridiculous facts about his crime to Robert Kennedy’s assassinations. He mentioned the uncredential sentences about him in WIki as “toxic sentences” because nothing was ever proven.

    6. The following quotes form the backbone of his argument. Each statement was followed by numerous examples and explanations.
    “But searching cyberspace for the identity of people who post spurious information can be frustrating.”
    “Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online.”
    “Federal law also protects online corporations […] from libel lawsuits.”
    “Recent low-profile court decisions document that Congress effectively has barred defamation in cyberspace.”

    7. The article describes “low-profile court decisions” pertaining to internet defamation, but does not cite any specific cases. A real world example would greatly improve the author’s argument. Aside from this small detail, his argument was strong and well-structured.

  15. Zhengyang Weng says:

    Group 3 from Section C2: Zhengyang “Kris” W., Saksham G., Nick W.
    (Edited)

    A summary of the source’s main argument and a breakdown of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
    Wikipedia articles cannot be considered reliable. They give everyone’s opinion an equal weightage, regardless of their level of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Wikipedia does not have any ‘authority’ overseeing the publishing process to base its credibility on. In certain cases, the benefits of its model have outweighed potential detriments, providing surprising speed of publishing. However, this is not the norm. For instance, biographical articles have often been altered for the purpose of defamation. However, Wikipedia is not averse to criticism and is trying to improve. It has implemented some reform to mitigate abuse. However, more needs to be done. Wikipedia could choose to follow an ‘open source’ model, similar the one used by open source software, by adding a second stage of checks of articles by a designated authority.

    “An article cannot be judged as credible without knowing the auth or.”
    An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos)
    Ethos: Brand name of ‘The New York Times’ lends the author credibility. Since it would have carefully selected this author, its credibility extends to the author, and the opinion he expresses in the article.
    Logos: The author logically disects Wikipedia’s current model, with concrete examples of its failings, while giving credit where it was due. He also offers constructive advice rather than simply ranting about problems.
    Pathos: Author borrows Einstein’s likeability when he offers the reader a choice between Einstein and an IP number, with the implication that Einstein represents a model with supervision, and the faceless IP number represents Wikipedia’s current model. In doing so, he nudges the reader towards accepting his argument.
    An analysis of the target audience for the source
    The target audience would mostly be students and scholars (especially the millennial and Internet generations) who are looking for external reference online. The author, Randall Stross was trying to remind them of the importance of authority and credibility of the source material.
    Meantime, another group of target audience would be other bibliographers and contributors to the encyclopedia (encyclopedian as mentioned), as the article introduced this huge dispute among them.
    An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
    The original article was publicated on the Business Day section of the New York Times. This well-known publication guaranteed the article’s accessibility to all its target audiences. As part of the surging Internet Industry, the Wikipedia could well be considered as a start-up running smoothly. The Author, Randall Stross is a historian focusing on technology and business, therefore Wikipedia, with its extraordinary page view and controversial egalitarian nature, naturally came into his focus. The time of publication dates back to 2006, when the entire Internet industry was still booming and Wikipedia gradually gained its reputation as a reference and encyclopedia site.
    An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
    Against:
    Stross first addressed the problem of lack of ethos from anonymity and malicious editing – “flame wars”. He underscored the credibility issue comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose editor recruited authorities or even celebrities to add weight to the credibility. Also, Stross brought up the abuse of administrative power of the founder, Mr. Wales, editing his very own Wiki page and the other outrage directed to Wikipedia over the Internet. Stross displayed his stance at the very beginning of the article – expressively, “ I am unconvinced.” This source is also talks about how the millionth article added to wikipedia which was about the Jordanhill railway station in Glasgow was only a few paragraphs long, but just after one week it had more than 640 edits. It is hard to trust what is true on wikipedia when so many different people are changing and editing the information.
    One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
    “The egalitarian nature of a system that accords equal votes to everyone in the “community” — middle-school student and Nobel laureate alike — has difficulty resolving intellectual disagreements.”
    ‘”It makes me grind my teeth to hear Wikipedia compared to open source.” In every open-source project, he said, there is “a benevolent dictator” who ultimately takes responsibility, even though the code is contributed by many. Good stuff results only if “someone puts their name on it.”’
    “The wikipedia hive is capable of impressive feats. The english-language collection recently added its millionth article, for example. It was about the Jordanhill railway station, in Glasgow. The original version, a few paragraphs, appeared to say all that a lay reader would ever wish to know about it. But the hive descended and in a week, more than 640 edits were logged.”
    Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).
    N/A

    – Please ignore the previous post

  16. Steven Creech says:

    Group 4
    Steven C
    Spencer H
    Raghav B

    “Wikipedia About”
    1. This article seems to be an extended definition of Wikipedia. It explains that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone has access to edit and revise. It is a collaborative community where the people contribute their own take on a certain subject. Wikipedia is one of the largest reference sources.
    2. The article seems to appeal to a sense of credibility of Wikipedia, but relies on the fact of its popularity and convenience to justify its credentials.
    3. The target audience for this article is people who are trying to learn more about Wikipedia and what it is.
    4. The article was a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia accessed over the internet in January of 2012
    5. This article seems to acknowledge Wikipedia as a “legitimate research source” because it can be seen as a global collaboration where everyone can contribute their own insight on topics while correcting misinformation.
    6. “being verifiable against a published reliable source”, “what is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor”, “Unlike printed encyclopedias, Wikipedia is continually created and updated, with articles on historical event appearing in minutes rather than months or years”
    7. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute while other traditional encyclopedias rely solely on experts which makes Wikipedia a global community of knowledge.

    “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”
    1. The IEP is an online source that only has only experts being able to edit information. The IEP is a free source that anyone can access. It was created as a nonprofit organization to help scholars obtain a reliable source.
    2. The article appeals to the sense of credibility because it refers to the IEP’s staff as holding doctorates, and that many articles that are submitted get rejected, showing that articles that do appear are exclusive and highly reliable.
    3. The target audience would be people interested in learning about the IEP, what it is, and how it works.
    4. The article was accessed over the Internet in April of 2012
    5. This article doesn’t mention Wikipedia, but rather the IEP, but because it looks at the IEP as a highly credible source that was written by scholars, it seems to look down upon Wikipedia for its open editing ability.
    6. “the quality of our articles is at the same level as that of the best multi-volume encyclopedia”, “the authors are specialist in areas in which they write and are frequently leading authorities”
    7. Being a free source, the IEP allows for more credible articles than Wikipedia.

  17. Zhengyang Weng says:

    Group 3 from Section C2: Zhengyang “Kris” W., Saksham G.
    A summary of the source’s main argument and a breakdown of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
    Wikipedia articles cannot be considered reliable. They give everyone’s opinion an equal weightage, regardless of their level of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Wikipedia does not have any ‘authority’ overseeing the publishing process to base its credibility on. In certain cases, the benefits of its model have outweighed potential detriments, providing surprising speed of publishing. However, this is not the norm. For instance, biographical articles have often been altered for the purpose of defamation. However, Wikipedia is not averse to criticism and is trying to improve. It has implemented some reform to mitigate abuse. However, more needs to be done. Wikipedia could choose to follow an ‘open source’ model, similar the one used by open source software, by adding a second stage of checks of articles by a designated authority.

    “An article cannot be judged as credible without knowing the author.”
    An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos)
    Ethos: Brand name of ‘The New York Times’ lends the author credibility. Since it would have carefully selected this author, its credibility extends to the author, and the opinion he expresses in the article.
    Logos: The author logically dissects Wikipedia’s current model, with concrete examples of its failings, while giving credit where it was due. He also offers constructive advice rather than simply ranting about problems.
    Pathos: Author borrows Einstein’s likability when he offers the reader a choice between Einstein and an IP number, with the implication that Einstein represents a model with supervision, and the faceless IP number represents Wikipedia’s current model. In doing so, he nudges the reader towards accepting his argument.
    An analysis of the target audience for the source
    The target audience would mostly be students and scholars (especially the millennial and Internet generations) who are looking for external reference online. The author, Randall Stross was trying to remind them of the importance of authority and credibility of the source material.
    Meantime, another group of target audience would be other bibliographers and contributors to the encyclopedia (encyclopedian as mentioned), as the article introduced this huge dispute among them.
    An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
    The original article was publicized on the Business Day section of the New York Times. This well-known publication guaranteed the article’s accessibility to all its target audiences. As part of the surging Internet Industry, the Wikipedia could well be considered as a start-up running smoothly. The Author, Randall Stross is a historian focusing on technology and business, therefore Wikipedia, with its extraordinary page view and controversial egalitarian nature, naturally came into his focus. The time of publication dates back to 2006, when the entire Internet industry was still booming and Wikipedia gradually gained its reputation as a reference and encyclopedia site.
    An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
    Against:
    Stross first addressed the problem of lack of ethos from anonymity and malicious editing – “flame wars”. He underscored the credibility issue comparing Wikipedia to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whose editor recruited authorities or even celebrities to add weight to the credibility. Also, Stross brought up the abuse of administrative power of the founder, Mr. Wales, editing his very own Wiki page and the other outrage directed to Wikipedia over the Internet. Stross displayed his stance at the very beginning of the article – expressively, “ I am unconvinced.”
    One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
    “The egalitarian nature of a system that accords equal votes to everyone in the “community” — middle-school student and Nobel laureate alike — has difficulty resolving intellectual disagreements.”
    ‘”It makes me grind my teeth to hear Wikipedia compared to open source.” In every open-source project, he said, there is “a benevolent dictator” who ultimately takes responsibility, even though the code is contributed by many. Good stuff results only if “someone puts their name on it.”’
    Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).
    N/A

  18. Andrew Chang says:

    Group 6 – Harrison Skelton, Reuben Jones IV, Steffen Martin, Andrew Chang

    1. A summary of the source’s main argument and a break down of the major supporting points (this can be in outline form)
    – Banning Wikipedia as a source isn’t a bad thing, but Wikipedia shouldn’t be outright banned
    – Not a bad thing
    – Articles are too shallow for the depth required in university history essays
    – Run the risk of obtaining incorrect information
    – Even Jimmy Wales said so
    – Middlebury College went too far
    – Not using Wikipedia should be implied
    – Professors need to stress that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and students should look elsewhere for solid information
    2. An analysis of the major rhetorical appeals of the source (ethos, pathos, logos)
    – Logos: It’s the role of the professors to instruct the students on where to find more reliable sources of information, not the students’
    – Ethos: If Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, says banning Wikipedia as a source isn’t not a big deal, then it’s not a big deal
    – Pathos: We love Wikipedia as much as you do, and it really is a good source to get you primed for further reading. However, we aren’t citing our papers with it, and you shouldn’t either
    3. An analysis of the target audience for the source
    The audience would probably be professors at Stanford as a call to action for the professors not to outright ban Wikipedia as a source but strongly encourage their students to use non-Wikipedia sources.
    The audience can also be the students at Stanford. The article can also be seen as a reminder to Stanford students that using Wikipedia as a source is not a good idea.
    4. An analysis of the context for the source (publication date, place, type of publication, etc.)
    – Date: just a few weeks after Middlebury College actually banned Wikipedia. This suggests that the author just wanted to throw in his/her own opinion into the uproar that came from the news.
    – Author: most likely a student at Stanford, meaning he/she has all the more reason to feel the need to speak up about this issue, since it directly affects university students
    – Place: Stanford University. This makes the news of the ban a lot more relevant because another university banned the use of Wikipedia. The author feels that as a student at a different institution of higher education, he/she is obligated to speak out about this issue.
    – Type of publication: this is a school-wide newspaper, which means it will theoretically reach all students and faculty at Stanford. Therefore, the author will want his/her calls to action to be as accessible to his/her audience as possible.
    5. An analysis of whether or not this source is for or against Wikipedia being classified as a “legitimate research source”
    Against: “Wikipedia…is not something that should be cited in a serious academic context.” Basically, you shouldn’t use Wikipedia if you’re going to write a paper of any sort of intellectual heft.
    6. One or two key quotes from this source that might be useful in creating a definition argument.
    – “Naturally, because it is a user-generated Web site, the articles are not always perfect, and should not be relied on as much as actual class materials…”
    – “There are many Web sites that can provide credible resources, but Wikipedia is not one of them, nor does it purport to be. Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of told the Times that he does not even consider Middlebury’s action ‘a negative thing.’”
    7. Any other information that might be pertinent to the argument (may include disagreements within your team).
    N/A

Leave a Reply