Wikipedia is all about everyday people getting involved. If you know a subject really well why not share it so everyone can learn the information?
"Wikipedia empowers students to take seriously what they have learned in other classes, to see their own research as having potential value in a larger enterprise, and to take greater responsibility over the accuracy of what they have produced. Much as young people become more critical consumers of media when they have engaged in production activities, young people ask better questions about the nature of scholarship and research when they contribute to Wikipedia." (Jenkins, 2007)
Step One:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
I found this statement might be bias because we do not know who the scientist are that were picked for the survey. They could have picked only scientists that shared the same views as them. Also the other 10%'s view was not mentioned at all.
"Wikipedia empowers students to take seriously what they have learned in other classes, to see their own research as having potential value in a larger enterprise, and to take greater responsibility over the accuracy of what they have produced. Much as young people become more critical consumers of media when they have engaged in production activities, young people ask better questions about the nature of scholarship and research when they contribute to Wikipedia." (Jenkins, 2007)
 |
| Global warming - the battle of the elements by Hjortur Smarason |
Step One:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
I found this statement might be bias because we do not know who the scientist are that were picked for the survey. They could have picked only scientists that shared the same views as them. Also the other 10%'s view was not mentioned at all.
"Global warming has been detected in a number of natural systems."
Reference List:
Ansary, T. (2004, 11 10). A textbook example of what's wrong with education. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy
Jenkins, H. (2007, June 26). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/2007/06/what_wikipedia_can_teach_us_ab.html
Ruff, G. (2005, 2 8). No books, no problem: Teaching without a text. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy
"A number" is not a specific amount. It doesn't say whether it's the majority or minority.
Step Two:
"Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade). Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation."
Step Two:
"Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade). Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation."
I found this statement first in Wikipedia then in the Journal of Physics.
"Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01 C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons."
This statement from American Policy Roundtable disagrees with the statement from the Journal of Physics.
Considering the statement from Wikipedia can be found all over in journals I feel like it is reliable.
Step Three:
When an article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions means they are to limit or remove user privileges.
Step Four:
Q. Doesn't water vapor cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?
A. Water vapor is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases therefore will increase the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse effect. This is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, while water vapour does not act as driver of climate change, it does amplify existing trends.
This statement from American Policy Roundtable disagrees with the statement from the Journal of Physics.
Considering the statement from Wikipedia can be found all over in journals I feel like it is reliable.
Step Three:
When an article and its editors are subject to General Sanctions means they are to limit or remove user privileges.
Step Four:
Q. Doesn't water vapor cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?
A. Water vapor is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases therefore will increase the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse effect. This is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, while water vapour does not act as driver of climate change, it does amplify existing trends.
This question and answer is found in the Wikipedia Global Warming talk page.
The statement below is from The Reality of Climate Change and agrees with the above statement from Wikipedia.
Naturally occurring water vapor (clouds) make up as much as 95% of all greenhouse gases.
Step Five:
In Long-term impact of carbon dioxide emissions section of the talk page Enescot gives his view on why it should be added to the Wikipedia article of global warming. He not only gives his personal reason why but he backs it up with scientific facts. In the classroom this could be shown to students before they write a paper. It will show them that while yes their opinion matters sometimes they need facts to back it up. Also they could be assigned to look up a topic and try to add information on to a Wikipedia page.
Step Six:
NewsAndEventsGuy seems to know what he is talking about. The way he argues his points makes me believe he has studied a lot on Global Warming.
Enescot on the other hand does not make me feel that way. The only information he has on his page is that he is currently doing edits on global warming.
"Obviously, publishers create products specifically for the adoptions in those three key states. They then sell the same product to everybody else, because basals are very expensive to produce -- a K-8 reading program can cost as much as $60 million. Publishers hope to recoup the costs of a big program from the sudden gush of money in a big adoption state, then turn a profit on the subsequent trickle from the "open territories." (Ansary, 2004)
How is it fair that publishers only write their textbooks for bigger states? Shouldn't they not pick favorites? Textbooks should show all facts not just the facts the key states want.
Wikipedia does not just tell the facts the key states want. Then again how could they? Wikipedia is a non profit organization. What does that mean? That means all the big states with all their money has no say on what Wikipedia. Also who writes the textbooks? Do we really know? Now if you would get on Wikipedia you can see who writes the page. Now they might have funny user names but you can click on them and see if they really know what they are talking about and usually they do. Another good point is how many of us have seen an error in a textbook? Either a spelling one or a grammatical error. Why spend so much money on a textbook that has errors in it?
"You don't learn stuff from textbooks," one student wrote. "You just memorize for a test, then forget it." (Ruff, 2005) I for one can agree with this wholeheartedly. After you read the text book so much you can even remember what page the information is on for your test. Once the test is over however you have to move on and read more. Not many students can remember everything they read. Although if it is hands-on and fun they are more likely to remember something about what they learned even years later.
Step Five:
In Long-term impact of carbon dioxide emissions section of the talk page Enescot gives his view on why it should be added to the Wikipedia article of global warming. He not only gives his personal reason why but he backs it up with scientific facts. In the classroom this could be shown to students before they write a paper. It will show them that while yes their opinion matters sometimes they need facts to back it up. Also they could be assigned to look up a topic and try to add information on to a Wikipedia page.
Step Six:
NewsAndEventsGuy seems to know what he is talking about. The way he argues his points makes me believe he has studied a lot on Global Warming.
Enescot on the other hand does not make me feel that way. The only information he has on his page is that he is currently doing edits on global warming.
"Obviously, publishers create products specifically for the adoptions in those three key states. They then sell the same product to everybody else, because basals are very expensive to produce -- a K-8 reading program can cost as much as $60 million. Publishers hope to recoup the costs of a big program from the sudden gush of money in a big adoption state, then turn a profit on the subsequent trickle from the "open territories." (Ansary, 2004)
How is it fair that publishers only write their textbooks for bigger states? Shouldn't they not pick favorites? Textbooks should show all facts not just the facts the key states want.
Wikipedia does not just tell the facts the key states want. Then again how could they? Wikipedia is a non profit organization. What does that mean? That means all the big states with all their money has no say on what Wikipedia. Also who writes the textbooks? Do we really know? Now if you would get on Wikipedia you can see who writes the page. Now they might have funny user names but you can click on them and see if they really know what they are talking about and usually they do. Another good point is how many of us have seen an error in a textbook? Either a spelling one or a grammatical error. Why spend so much money on a textbook that has errors in it?
"You don't learn stuff from textbooks," one student wrote. "You just memorize for a test, then forget it." (Ruff, 2005) I for one can agree with this wholeheartedly. After you read the text book so much you can even remember what page the information is on for your test. Once the test is over however you have to move on and read more. Not many students can remember everything they read. Although if it is hands-on and fun they are more likely to remember something about what they learned even years later.
Reference List:
Ansary, T. (2004, 11 10). A textbook example of what's wrong with education. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy
Jenkins, H. (2007, June 26). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://henryjenkins.org/2007/06/what_wikipedia_can_teach_us_ab.html
Ruff, G. (2005, 2 8). No books, no problem: Teaching without a text. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/textbook-publishing-controversy
No comments:
Post a Comment