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
Lindsay Dunn
3/7/2018 04:36:48 pm
Hey Clare! I really enjoyed reading you analysis of the Wikipedia page for National Parks Service. I have a great admiration for that natural beauty that is found in all of America’s national parks, so I found your analysis very interesting to read! You do a really good job of pointing out the ethos, pathos, and logos in the article. I like how you pointed out that there are over a hundred references that the article cites to prove that it was researched thoroughly, which really adds to the ethos. I also like how you pointed out the many forms of logos that are in the article - I personally had a hard time identifying multiple appeals to logos in my article, and you did a really good job of it! Overall great analysis.
Reply
Molly Morey
3/7/2018 09:31:19 pm
I really enjoyed your analysis on the National Parks Service wikipedia page. You open with a strong introduction about the overall credibility of wikipedia and how it is commonly deemed inaccurate, even when that is not the case. I really like how you used the structure, the introduction of the webpage to strengthen your analysis, for example how it describes all "the w's". However, you mention that it is credible because the government webpages contain accurate information. Although this may be true, I don't think it's a strong reason to trust the information on the wikipedia page. Maybe if you connect that sentence to the discussion about the large number of references in the next paragraph it could contribute to that aspect of your analysis. I really enjoyed your analysis of both pathos and logos. The reference to the pictures was a very strong part of the analysis, but maybe talk about if those appeals appear in the language or words within the wikipedia page to support your analysis. I also like how you discuss all the conventions that are within a wikipedia page. Overall, I really enjoyed this analysis and especially the references the pictures because it was something that was not relevant within my analysis about a different topic.
Reply
Amanda Norman
3/7/2018 10:30:50 pm
I really enjoy the voice you have in your writing. I love how you begin you analysis with an overview of what Wikipedia is and how it is actually a credible source. I use Wikipedia for many quick searches so your proof with how you can cross-check everything that is posted is reassuring. I like how you used the concept of pictures for pathos. Pathos is very hard to uncover in a fact-driven site, but you made finding an example so easy. I found it interesting how you said the information is "logically organized" and how what people are mainly looking for is at the beginning of the page and only true die hard readers will read the less important information. Overall, loved your analysis!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Clare McGradyI'm a sophomore at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. Archives
April 2018
Categories |