EDUC 6816 - Wikipedia Analysis

Guiding Question: Does the Wikipedia article appear to be biased in any way or does it maintain neutrality?

Step One: If you find some information that seems to reflect a partiality, preference, or prejudice for or against a person, object, or idea copy and paste that information to your blog:
 
In general - this article was very scientific, with a lot of information and sources to back up the numbers it presented. I didn't many examples of bias, but I did find some word choices that made me think bias might be present:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. (Wikipedia)

This word choice seemed very strong to me, and meant to persuade.... although when I checked the reference, the word was taken straight from an IPCC report.

The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero.[29] (Wikipedia)

This stuck out to me as well, but on further examination, I think it's an example of neutrality.... If it omitted the word virtual, it would have been more biased.

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good. (Wikipedia)

This just struck me as out of place. It was expanded on, and seemed somewhat irrelevant. I felt this needed a separate Wikipedia article. I felt the authors were biased against conservative think tanks and included this as a "jab."  

 

Some people question aspects of climate-change science,[208][213][214] see: list of scientists opposing global warming consensus. (Wikipedia)

I'm not sure this is an example of bias or not, but I questioned the reason
 behind having this list. Is it to show how few scientists question 
global warming consensus? Is it to lend legitimacy to opposition of 
climate-change? (I don't necessarily need to know the answer to these 
question, but these questions make me think Bias is involved).

 
Step Two: choose a claim to verify. Using Google find two websites. One that supports the claim and one that disputes it.Use this Website Evaluation checklist to validate the sources.

The claim:

Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[98] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. (Wikipedia)

Web Page Evaluation Checklist - 1

Web Page Evaluation Checklist - 2


Step Three: Click on the "Talk link" at the top of the Wikipedia Page. What does it mean that this article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions?
 
 Editors can be sanctioned by administrators for disruptive edits including personal attacks and incivility. Sanctions can includes blocks to edit pages related to Climate Change for up to a year. Administrators are to be "uninvolved" The user can appeal the sanction. Uninvolved administrators means users who are not directly involved in current conflict on the topic. 

Wow - I followed the links into the section with more detail about specific user... That is interesting. I had a general notion that there were rules that governed the use of wikipedia entries, but I had no idea to what extent the rules ran for both editors and administrators. Nor, did I have any idea how the "governing body" and process worked. I definitely didn't understand everything on that page, but I understood that General Sanctions meant the article was tagged for intense review and scrutiny.

Step Four: Scroll down to the frequently asked questions section. Choose one of the questions and read the answer. Verify the answer using another online source.
 Does methane cause more warming than CO2?
(Wikipedia)
Web Page Evaluation Checklist - 3 (The Role of Methane)

 Step Five: Below the FAQ section read the section titled Section on natural systems. This is where Wikipedia editors discuss edits and concerns about accuracy and neutrality with articles in Wikipedia.  What did you learn about issues related to global warming? How does Does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school? Justify your stance using concrete examples.

This section focused too much on one study. This user felt that it also didn't include enough "caveats" to the extreme weather predictions. Reading this section (and the section I read further that outlines sanctions and the governing process), convinced me to a greater degree that Wikipedia could be a source used in schools. It is clear to me that controversial subjects (and, I'm assuming, non-controversial ones) are exposed to higher scrutiny that many creditable sources allowed within schools (newspaper articles, for example).

Step Six: NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) and Enescot (talk) are heavily involved in editing the Wikipedia article on Global Warming. Click on their names to see their profiles. Then read their pages. Again. how does this information make you feel about the credibility and validity of information on Wikipedia.Justify your stance using concrete examples.

Looking at the User pages of NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) and Enescot (talk) further confirms my stance that Wikipedia is a source that should be used in schools. There is open dialogue among users. A record of User edits are available to look for patterns. And a casual visitor can clearly see open discussion that happens behind the scenes- which is not available in print forms (and most digital forms ) from school-worthy sources.


Step Seven: How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities? What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks? Has your opinion changed? How? Why?

This has been an interesting, eye-opening, activity. I think the best way to integrate Wikipedia into a classroom activity is to use it as an excersise in information literacy. I think after students went through some sort of "Wikipedia: Behind the Scenes" Curriculum, they could then be "cleared" to use it as a source... maybe even if some checklist was involved that included looking at the user edits. Actually, using the checklist for verifiable sites could also be a good activity for any online source a student wanted to use. This checklist could be adapted based on grade level. 

Sources:

Berger, P. W. H. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/03_3.shtml 

Felix, R. W. (2013, February 06). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://iceagenow.info/2013/02/admits-solar-activity-play-significant-role-global-warming-report/

Phillips, T. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming