Wikipedia vs Textbooks

Three important ideas/things from the video today are: Because the world moves to fast, it is impossible for books that were written years or even months ago to stay relevant. That is why the internet is so helpful, Wikipedia was build by thousands of people and changes everyday, and Wikipedia's goal is to provide information to everybody in the world. However, the most important thing I learned today is that Wikipedia is run on two rules... the first is Verifiability, and the second is that all information must be presented fairly and without bias.   

Textbook of the Wounded Knee Massacre

Wikipedia article on the Wounded Knee Massacre

In the textbook version, the piece of history was told like a story. It highlighted the most important points of what happened and why, while the Wikipedia version was full of different facts of the history listed in before, during, and after information. It also had an introductory paragraph that was mostly highlighted in blue that served as links to support what had been written. I could also tell that the Wiki article was created by many different authors because every sentence or paragraph had a source that went with it.


Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America
 Scope
 - The 'Scope' section of the Wiki article is basically laying out what is going to be discussed on the page, or the main point.

"This project aims to encompass all historic, ethnic, and cultural aspects of the many groups collectively described as Indigenous peoples of North America, including Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Kalaallit of Greenland, Native Americans in the United States, and indigenous peoples of Mexico (parts of Mexico within the Mesoamerican culture areas are often excluded from North America)."

About our article
- This gives percentages and facts about who is working on the article and what they are doing. This also gives the reader access to the articles that haven't been assessed yet.

Metals of Honor
The people who are contributing to the article are talking about an issue with the opening sentence and what one source added on to it. Another source stated that the first source was right, however, the source that the source put into the article was wrong. Until it was fixed the second source took the sentence out of the article.
Step 5 - User:Sdgjake  "I attended college at SDSU in Brookings. While there, I majored in computer science, eventually getting my B.S.. During my summers I try to spend as much time as possible in the Black Hills.I spend most of my time editing South Dakota related articles." The author seem likes he or she knows a lot about writing articles and Indians. I would trust the author, especially when the author is being edited by other authors on the cite.
User:Piratedan "Bachelor of arts, 1991, Missouri Southern State University. Summa cum laude. Major: History.
Master of arts, 1997, George Mason University. Summa cum laude. Major: European history.
I can speak nonsense in both English and Spanish.
Encyclopedic knowledge of bad horror films." This guy doesn't give very much information about himself, other than he's married and likes writing short stories about pirates. I don't know if I would trust EVERYTHING written.
User:V8m8i - Military Historian, Colonel, US Army. There really isn't very mush personal information on this user... However, he is a Military Historian... So I guess that counts for something.