User:AmaniSensei/HUMN4472Journal

Hi everyone my name is Amani. I'm super excited about this course. I am thrilled to learn about science fiction. There are a lot of definitions of science fiction thrown around the internet. According to Wikipedia, science fiction is speculative fiction or science fantasy. However, I have a better definition of science fiction. I believe science fiction is where one's imaginative play heavily coincides with science. In other words, its a genre of fictional literature whose content is imaginative, but based in science. It relies on facts, theories, and principles as support for its settings, characters, and plot-lines, which is what makes it different from a fantasy. Some would say all this is just imaginative. I would say but it is at least plausible.

Any historian would tell you that there isn't anything new up under the sun. And that, often history repeats itself in one way or another. So, it did not surprise me to learn how much science fiction has influenced technology. I thought the assigned video was splendid.^[1] People may believe in coincides, however there are no such things as coincidences in this universe or what we appear to be reality. Gadgets and devices like wrist-phones and spaceship, or planes for that matter, did not come about on it's own. All it takes is someone's creative imagination to bring it about. The best way to predict your future is to create it. It frustrates me when I hear someone talk about a remarkable prediction. For example, Hugo Gernsback predictions of jukeboxes and vending machines. His imaginative power brought that into reality. He made what was invisible visible. Moreover, I sort of referenced this above, but science fiction is like a combination of two concepts, science and fiction. Some may call it hard and soft science.^[2] I prefer looking at it as one concept, because in its true essence it is only one concept. Hard science strictly follows scientific facts and principles, while soft science is more of a social science. If one look at the research today, you would realize that the 'normal' scientific laws do not apply all the time according to quantum mechanics. Therefore, all we know may be a lie. What we know to be true may be false. What is false may be true. With this new perspective science fiction does not seem silly at all. It all depends on your level of perception.

Many of us have heard the phrase you only get one chance to make an impression. I was totally impressed after the evaluation of my Wikipedia article^[3]. I choose Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. This is ironic. I decided to performed my evaluation of the article we were assigned to read. An article on how to remain neutral. In other words, I critiqued the article that was critiquing/ giving out the guidelines on how to have a neutral point of view. First and foremost, the layout was very condense and easy to read. Everything was easy to clarify, the article did not leave me confused. Furthermore, the article had a sound argument and appeared very neutral. The article passed everything according to what was on Niklas Göke, “How to Edit Your Writing in Three Passes.”^[4]. The article was pretty much head on. Although I expect this from an article that supposed to teach you how to create a neutral point of view. It would be very embarrassing if the article page did not follow the advice it was circulating. Two highlights of this article is that, a table of contents were included and there were no visuals. This is important, because in order to remain neutral one must re-frame from colors. Colors tend to sway people. If I had one complaint, it would be that it did not include a link to a not so neutral article. This would have strengthen their argument tremendously. According to Niklas Göke, it is imperative to enter the state of mind of a "hater"^[4]. It was great that the article displayed an example of what to do, but it is also important to include an example of what not to do. Advice on not doing something, and showing an example of what not to do are two different things. This is where I believed the article failed; it should have included a link. I recommend including a link under Section 11. This would have been the prefect place to include an example of what not to do. Do not get me wrong this article is probably one of the most neutral Wikipedia pages out there. However, the article still has room for improvement. It is imperative that you "write, edit, review", and then write again^[4]. Overall, this article was very solid.

For this week's journal entry we were to pick a topic and comment on at least one other classmate’s post. I have fulfilled these requirements. Furthermore, I find myself using Wikipedia more. Not just for class purposes but for personal uses. Wikipedia is a great place for information. You never know something until you experience it. Several instructors have told me Wikipedia is a great place for information, but I didn't really believe it. One reason, because you can easily change the information. However, as I been using Wikipedia more and more I'm coming to trust it a little more.

For this week's Journal entry we were assign to start and find an article to edit. However, I choose to create an original article. Therefore, I do not have to improve an existing article for this process. There is one interesting thing I learned. I learned that Wikipedia automatically generates bots that detects if an image does not meet the licensing and third party requirements. I thought that the notification would be sent by a human carrier rather than a system. However, it's easier if a bot does the work. It would take forever if an individual had to sniff through every Wikipedia page. Computer code makes everything better most of the time. I say most of the time because I received a notification from a bot that it removed one of my images. I found this ironic because I utilized the Wikipedia's search image feature to obtain the photo. I know that you should be cautious using images from google or other websites, but in my case I used Wikipedia itself. The image was a cover of the movie, Matrix. There is a possibility that I could have posted the image again, but I choose not to. Without the image, it made the page appear more clear and concise. A classmate even praised the page for this exact feature. Hence, the comment in the next journal. This was the biggest thing I learned this week. But I also learned that Wikipedia does include graphic interchange format. I thought they didn't until I ran across one. Individuals prefer not to used them because they can be a hit or miss. It all depends on your purpose and your target audience. If you are talking about how the earth rotates then a graphic interchange format would be great. I soaked up a lot of information this week. I was familiar with some of information from the training module, but it's great to see things actually in play. I will comment on at least one other classmate’s post and attempt to show ways to improve the language, such as fixing grammatical mistakes on an article. Lastly, as far as adding citations and copyediting, these elements are going pretty smoothly. I am familiar with some of the functions now.

I learned something interesting today. I did not know Wikipedia's software automatically creates a table of contents. As I created three plus head sections it was automatically created. One of my classmates actually confirmed this. I was unaware of this information until I looked at that classmates' post. Moreover, for this week's journal entry we were assigned to choose a topic of our choice and comment on at least one other student's post. I decided to let Wikipedia choose my article for me. Wikipedia randomly generated this article.  My assessment of the article is that it is a disappointment. The article needs some expanding. It lacked a lot of quality information. The article is about Alexander Gavrilov. Many of you have probably never heard of him, and neither did I. In order to make this individual more well-known I decided to do a little research. For starters, I did a quick google search. The only information I could find is the information on this website and it was basically the same information that was on the Wikipedia page. Next, I did a google scholar search and looked through some of the databases. I came up with no results. After reexamining the article, it seems to be a stub page. More than likely it will continue to be as such. In order to solve this problem we would need court records from his mother country. There is not much information about him on the web. All we know is that Alexander Gavrilov was a Russian literary critic and editor.^[5]

I have my topic for my final project. I have a clear sense of direction where I am going with my topic. I have already made up my mind. In order to keep things interesting I decided to look up some random topics for fun. I ran across this article. This article is rather informative. I was amazed with this article, compared to the previous one. The previous one lacked information, and this one has quite too much. This article has quite too much of a primary source(s). I always thought this was a good thing, however Wikipedia begs to differ. This was the first thing that jumped out at me. It is important to diversify your sources. Too much of one thing can be bad. This would not be a great topic because there is not a lot of secondary information available on this topic. I would have to take a field trip to gather more information. Although, that would not be a bad idea-don't have the time.

There are many interesting topics out there. The difficult thing is finding one. The Blacksmiths festival would be an interesting topic to cover. However, there is not much coverage on this topic. First and foremost, the festival doesn't even take place in the USA. So it wouldn't even be a quick field trip compared to some other topics. At first glance of the page, I wondered why they did not include an image. An image is a quick way to grab someone's attention. Furthermore, I learned that there are three settings you can place your picture. Also, I confirmed there is no way you can insert a video. You can only include a link. This keeps the information clear and concise. I learned that you can include a picture inside of a table.

It's journal eleven so it's time to start closing in on our topic. In the beginning we were assign to choose a topic and add on to it, or create an article on our own. I thought why not be original. I choose a topic that interests me. If I hadn't choose this current topic, I would have picked something surrounding video games, and how they can help school systems. In other words, virtual learning. Lastly, I did not develop a social media plan.

As far as the final project goes and as far as the requirement for this week's journal; I created an original article. Click consciousness.

No, I did not take a field trip. However, I am thrilled to find out who actually did. If any student did, I'm sure it was a cool experience. Next few things to accomplish is to finalize the final project and work on the reflective essay.

What an amazing yet challenging course. I learn a lot throughout this course. From day one I saw growth from within myself. And from day two and three I saw growth from my classmates. We really helped and aided one another throughout this course. During the article evaluation I learn that there are two kinds of articles. An article that gets its message across to the audience, and one that does not. Overall, I learn lessons from both types of articles. The bad ones showed me what not to do. The good ones showed my areas where I can improve on. My approach was very simple. At first glance, I asked myself, did this article pass or failed. Your first impression is usually everything. (Although, it’s not the end all by all). From there I looked at the minute details. I read the information and checked out the sources. I also learned that Wikipedia makes my job easier by labeling an article. Wikipedia has a ranking system. With stub being the least and star being one of the featured ones. I choose to create my own article so there wasn’t anything I needed to add. But if I did need to add anything, I would add something that the article was lacking. If it lacked information, I would have found information. If the article lacked visuals and graphs, I would have search for visuals and graphs. I would have done everything that was needed to get the article to a star status. There was no summary of my edits. I created my own. I did add pictures to my article. It did make the page seem more sophisticated. I believe everyone has their way of doing things. What works for me may not work for somebody else and vice versa. My advice/contribution is to do what works for you. I did not receive a lot of feedback form Wikipedia editors. Although I did receive a message from a bot, about a picture I had posted. I mentioned this in a previous journal entry. In general, I learned that Wikipedia is a close-knit community. I saw several familiar usernames throughout this semester, and not necessarily my classmates’. I have never completed an assignment/course like this before. This is one of a kind. Wikipedia is a great way to improve public understanding of a field/topic for the simple fact that this information can be easily edited. This is important because, if one has the correct and accurate information then one can quickly add it. This is vital if one wants the world to have updated information. If I didn’t learn anything else, I learned that Wikipedia is a great starting place for information. My teachers always told me this information and I took their word for it. I was able to verify this information via one of my journals post which I was challenged to. I accepted the challenge. I saw firsthand that even Wikipedia states this information.--AmaniSensei (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)