Post #4: Wikipedia Edits
When I first edited wikipedia, my edit actually got taken down (probably because I did not cite and source a credible article but I learned this time). For my wikipedia project, I edited a topic called the Fan Effect. This effect is a psychology effect that says that as more things are learned about a concept, the longer it takes for a person to retrieve it. I first became interested in this topic as I was searching for stubs to work on. I couldn’t find any I really liked so I thought, “Wait, how come I’m not researching on my own major?” So, I researched psychological stubs and randomly clicked this one. It was mostly empty and only had one sentence in it. I searched for articles on the Fan Effect on PsycArticles - a psychology database with a lot of articles about experiments and information about psychology. I first made a small edit by adding a sentence in and then I edited the original sentence by adding more details to it. Afterwards, I went to research more information about the articles and actually made my edits. I added a section on how the Fan effect works in the brain and a section on some possible theories behind the fan effect. I also added in a free use picture of a network of links that represents the fan effect idea.
My article was not marked unimportant by wikipedia users. It was difficult writing and researching my article because wikipedia does not allow any original experiments as part of the encyclopedia. I ended up combining many sources together to write the ‘Plausible Theories’ section and tried my best to sound neutral while writing. I had to go back and check my post many times to make sure that my writing was still there. The only edit someone made was to make some of the coding more concise. Other than that, no one has done anything else to my post and I just made a small grammar correction to it today. Although I did not receive any feedback, perhaps someone will find it and correct something I wrote. Another problem I had was that some of the experimental writing was very dense and difficult to read. It was demanding to decipher these words and clear up what the author wanted to say about the topic.
For this project, I learned how to write in a neutral, and easier tone for people to understand what I want to say. It was difficult for me to understand the articles, but eventually I got the gist of the points made in the articles and wrote what I thought was a simpler version of the articles. I also learned how difficult it is for people to accept an article on wikipedia and that it is not completely sourceless. Although there could be many articles that contain incorrect information, most are sourced and we could use those sources to our advantage. Although wikipedia is not completely credible, the information contained in it could be good for background knowledge before putting someone in a completely boring topic that he doesn’t want to research. It tells people if they are interested in a topic or not and its references can be used to extend research in that area.
wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_effect
Database: http://www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycarticles/index.aspx?utm_source=ljxpress&utm_medium=display_email&utm_campaign=psycarticles
Sources that I added: - Radvansky, Gabriel A. (June 1999). "The Fan Effect: A Tale of Two Theories". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128 (2): 198–206. - Radvansky and Zacks, Gabriel and Rose (September 1991). "Mental Models and the Fan Effect". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17 (5): 940–953. - Anderson and Reder, John and Lynne (June 1999). "The fan effect: New results and New Theories". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128 (2): 189–197. - Moeser, Shannon Dawn (March 1979). "The Role of Experimental Design in Investigations of the Fan Effect". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5 (2): 125–134.