Criterion E- Evaluation

Criterion A-
In Criterion A, we were supposed to research and investigate about wikipedia/wikiality. We had to learn what they were, and how they were run, edited, posted, created, etc. We also had to evaluate the reliability of wikipedia. We especially had to focus on the editing and posting aspect of wikipedia because that's what wikipedia/wikiality was all about: people editing and refining it constantly. We also had to find the relationship and importance of wikiality/pedia in our lives and society. Then we had to site all our sources properly. Then, we had to create a method of finding inaccuracies on wikipedia with my partner Brooke. Then I had to our method by finding an inaccuracy on wikipedia by:
- finding a suspected inaccuracy
- saving and citing the suspected inaccuracy
- then research to back up our corrections with citations
- then post the evidence.

We followed the guidelines/requirements of this criterion quite well. We answered what a wiki was, who creates them, why use them, who edit them. We described the relevance of wikipedia in our lives and society, and why they are especially important for our generation. Then with Brooke, we investigated where wikipedia gets their information from. We also tried to explore in depth how wikipedia is edited, how inaccuracies are found and we investigated the reliability of Wikipedia itself. Then with Brooke, we created a method for finding inaccuracies on wikipedia. The only problem was that we answered how to correct an inaccuracy correctly, but not really on how to find one (except pure luck). Then, we explored different wikipedia sites and found an inaccuracy on the Chuck site ( A spelling error). Then we saved it, and posted it on our blogs.

We could have done a better job in this criteria if we had explored the reliability and the history/creation of wikipedia, and where they get their information from since we only went through it very lightly.

Criterion B-
In this criteria, we had to post the wikipedia section that we planned to correct on our blogs and describe the suggested change. Then we had to show our corrections on our blogs, highlighting the incorrect information we wished to correct. Then we had to cite our sources (MLA). Then we had to make a list of 3 design specifications for our final wikipedia correction.

We followed this criterion well too. We posted the section that we planned to correct, giving our suggested changes, then we gave the dictionary definition as well as all the other pertinent sites in MLA format. Then we gave our 3 design specifications.

We could have improved on this criterion by giving more design specifications. We were very limited to giving redundant design specs since our change was very minor and quite insignificant.

Criterion C-
No C

Criterion D-
In this criteria, we had to first read and sign the "wikipedia responsibility agreement" then had to get it approved by Mrs. Wilson. Then we had to make the correction on Wikipedia including correct sources.

We did sign the agreement, got approved, and made the changed. but we could not include the source in wikipedia itself since it was a spelling error.


Evaluation-
Our project was a success. We have checked to see if anyone has changed our change, but no one did. It stands proudly. As much as I hate to admit, I doubt there will be a major influence in humanity/society. I mean, a spelling editing, at maximum, would have an influence on a little child reading the article (who is not a good speller) and now knows how to spell chagrin. Another influence can be that now people understand the paragraph more profoundly, since the spelling error could have marred the intention of the article itself.

It also met all the design specifications. Our spelling correction was accurate, it was properly cited, and we also made sure of our spelling correction. So it met all the design specs.