wikipedia

Note the wikipedia article/entry that you’ll be talking about and post the link to your blog

 I have researched on the Boston marathon bombings and here is the link to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_bombings

Read the article and comment on the content and tone. Is there anything that stands out?

What stands out about the article is the style they used. It seemed ad though that it was a story being told and each section had a breakdown of the article. The Boston bombings was a tragic story and people that have endured this tragedy. This story is still new and it is still developing each and every day.

What kinds of things are people talking about regarding the contents of the article?

 In the article, they discussed what happened, the cause, the reaction, the people who were involved with it and the investigation that took place after the event. The constantly discussed the idea of terrorism since these two individuals had made these bombs, which was influenced by Islamic beliefs, which has been what the United States has focused on since the 9/11 attacks. This tragedy might not have had the exact same impact that the 9/11 attacks had, but this story had made an impact to the hearts of Americans, especially in Boston, who continue to grieve from this.

Are there any common themes regarding the type of changes or the type of content that is discussed?

 Some of the themes based on the type of changes or the type of content being discussed is the involvement of suspects in this investigation and the history of these suspects. It first started as two suspects, but now the list has expanded. They have also updated the history of both the main suspects from other incidents they have had prior to this one.

Who is having these conversations? Can you learn anything about the people engaging in these discussions?

It seems as though these conversations are between the people who wrote this article and the people who were gathering information. The conversations between people such as the FBI to the public or what the father said to the public about his sons are conversations that provide people information about the topic of discussion. What I have learned through these conversations is how much they got on these suspects in such short period of time. Technology today has made it easier for people to get information and to get what we want.

Are there any ‘voices of authority’ that you can see in these discussions? What is the tone like?

There are officials from the FBI, CIA and other government departments who have been involved with this case. There were other people that were involved in this case that were important as well. The tone was professional and they knew what they were saying when they had information that they can show on Wikipedia.

How do we judge the value of contributors when we really don’t know who they are?

 Society views the value of the contributors based on their title. People assume that based on their title, that there information is valid. The Boston bombings though has a lot of evidence to back up what has happened. Many people have come up with ideas as to alternatives as to what has happened. But they do not enough evidence such as the people in this article.They knew that they had enough time to tell the people exactly what happened, truthfully.

Have a look at the development of the article from beginning to end – how did this article develop?

 It started with a general overview of the article. From the beginning, it started with what was going on before the event happened. The article discussed people checking the area for bombs before the marathon, and then leading up to the climax of the article, where the bombs exploded. After this, began the middle part of the article where they discussed searching for both of the suspects, until it reaches the end of the article where one suspect was killed and the other suspect was captured. The remainder of the article, which is like the prologue of the article, discussed additional information about the story, such as other suspects, other cases where these suspects were involved in, their motives etc.

What kinds of changes were made to the article? (ie grammar to content themes)

As far as grammar is concerned, there has not been any changes to article. This story is a month old and the information is still fresh to people.

What kinds of information are tolerated and accepted as wikipedia entries, and which ones aren’t?

 Based on the contributor of the entries, based on what is accepted and what isn't. The entries for this article seem legitimate because the contributors are people that are valid. Many of the references were from television corporations such as CNN,FOX,CBS, that reported what happened in Boston. Other sources were also part of this article and they were also viable.

Who are the contributors to the content of the article? Same group of people or different individuals?

Based on the references of the article, the majority of the contributors were traditional media sources. There were also several newspaper companies who had input on this article as well. As far as people who inputted on this article, it seemed that they were different people, but they were inputting the same content into this article. They came from all over the world, which has made it possible through social networking and the connections that people have with people.

How often do you use wikipedia? How do you use it – Reader or contributor? What kinds of issues have you seen (before the week’s lecture) regarding wikipedia? Has your opinion of wikipedia changed at all (or the article that you chose) with this exercise?

I use it every so often to look at stories, but mostly people. Whether it be people that I saw from a movie or from a music video, I use it to get some history about them. I am a reader when it comes to looking at it on Wikipedia. Some issues I have seen regarding Wikipedia is the info being put in an article or the history about a person. Some of the info may not be as accurate. My opinion of Wikipedia still has not changed before this exercise. I think that Wikipedia is a viable source to get information from, but it should be a primary source to receive information because they information may not be accurate. Social media has made receiving information much easier to get because it is instant. Though the info on social media is raw, it is more reliable because it is from people who are part of a problem that is happening.

Provide some thoughts about the Wikileaks Documentary we viewed in lecture, reflecting on the issues offered in the film.

Some issues include what Wikileaks can protect and what government  agency should allow for Wikileaks to protect. Government documents are private and having an organization like Wikileaks to protecting these documents, there is going to be some problems to arise. Whether it be what the employees are doing with these documents, to the actual technology, it must be able to protect these documents and not create any tension.