3/5/2018 3 Comments RAB III chose to analyze the Wikipedia page for the National Parks Service.
Wikipedia can be edited by virtually anyone and is often regarded as an unreliable and inferior source of information. This, often times, is not the case. Wikipedia does not claim to be the one and only source of information for all topics throughout the history of the world; it’s main purpose is to be a starting point – a springboard into further research. Every aspect of a Wikipedia page is designed to connect a reader to a certain subject and then engage them with graphics, lists, and images. I will explore some of the conventions by the example of the National Park Service Wikipedia page. I chose this page because I’ve visited the it prior to this analysis and it helped me go further in my quest for knowledge about the National Parks. The first piece of information you see when searching with Wikipedia is the concise introduction of the topic. This short summary is usually a paragraph (maybe even just a sentence) and is a quick way to find a general concept of the subject. This paragraph usually answers the following questions (if applicable): what, who, when, where, and how. It answers those questions typically in that order for the sake of moving from general to specific. People who have very general questions about the NPS shouldn’t have to look very far to find their answer. For example, in the first paragraph of the NPS page you can find the answers to all the questions mentioned, line by line. What is the NPS? When was it created? Who works for the NPS? How do they function? While answering these questions, Wikipedia authors link to other Wikipedia sites for more information on those related topics. This allows readers to explore the other sides of a topic freely without having to sit down and think of all the different ways they can approach it. This exploration helps build the credibility of a page because readers can cross-check information from related topics and mistakes become apparent when everything is well-connected. Wikipedia, as a host, also does a lot of work to ensure the credibility of its pages. Under the National Park System sub-topic, there are two warnings: the section is missing information about governance and policy decisions and the section does not cite any sources. These warnings allow readers (and potential authors) to have a broader perspective of the page’s credibility before they take in the information. Overall, this article is credible because it is about a United States government agency so the information is accessible and easy to check. There are many format conventions of this text. One is the outline of the page under the Contents heading which gives a reader a chance to jump to a certain part of the article that they find interesting or could potentially answer their questions. Another is the sources and references sections at the bottom. This page uses 109 references which is an indication that it was researched thoroughly – and further enhances the credibility of the text. The writer appeals to logos in a few different ways: broad content, organized sub-topics, and well-designed graphics. Just from looking at the Contents box, a reader can see that this page is going to cover a lot of information about the NPS. Not only is there plentiful information, but it is also very logically organized. It starts with basic operations like management and budgets and goes down in importance/relevance to bookstores and special divisions. Basically, the more prevalent information is at the top and only seriously invested readers would make it to some of the lower sub-topics. There are many graphics in the form of lists, tables, bar graphs, and images. This adds to the page’s logos because I know that I tend to gravitate towards visually-displayed information. This information gives me a better handle on all the different things I’m trying to process. One table that was especially helpful was under the heading Nomenclature. Since there are a lot of numbers included, it makes sense that the author wanted to display this in a table. The appeal that is the most implicit is pathos. I believe that anyone who would take the time to author this page is passionate about the national parks. I inferred this from the breadth of the article and the use of many pictures. The pictures used are very inviting – especially the first one of the Grand Canyon, one of America’s most recognizable parks. The pictures appeal to a reader’s adventurous side and pull on those emotions. This page was well-written and it follows the Wikipedia standard of a neutral point-of-view, but it does subtly nudge at the importance of maintaining and supporting our national parks. Overall, this page is very well-rounded and encompasses many different iconic features of a typical Wikipedia page.
3 Comments
|
Clare McGradyI'm a sophomore at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. Archives
April 2018
Categories |