Welcome.
Please post your definitions exercises to this page. For the sake of convenience and readability, please put your name with your revision and format the page in such a way as to leave space between exercises. If you wish, you may separate the exercises with a horizontal line (2nd row, first button on the left). Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
James Mangrum
I chose to read an article on aqueducts on Wikipedia, and it gives a clear definition of an aqueduct. In the article, there were examples of places that used aqueducts and their purpose in those places. The article seemed weak in its description of ancient aqueducts that were built in some areas of the world. This is probably due to lack of information, or the article is still being edited. It also gives you a modern definition and uses of aqueducts in today’s world. In response to the proposition, I do believe that pulling information together to explain a term is important. Wikipedia seems to be a giant web base for users to put their perspective on the definition of a given term. Which can be a great idea, but you also can get bad information that takes away from the meaning. Also with the world collaborating on one particular object, a common ground can be obtained to achieve a definition that everyone can precisely understand. Technicality of terms for communication is key in today’s world. Through understanding what is trying to be conveyed to one another, we can accomplish many goals together. This further brings the importance of achieving the right definition, using information about a term through collaboration from the community.
Greg Kubacki
I looked up the definition of Fluid Catalytic Cracking on Wikipedia. This is the process in which large chain hydrocarbons are broken down into more useful carbon materials like gasoline. Although the information found on the Wikipedia page was very technical and in-depth; the initial summary was easy to understand while still communicating the necessary facts. I do appreciate that the page does stress the importance of fluid catalytic cracking. This page was clearly written by experts on the subject and meant for the average person to learn more about the process. For example, in the Chemistry section of the page the complex mechanism is simply summarized to allow comprehension. This is an example of how the community system works to allow understandable definitions of terms in the professions. With a term like this the information can get fairly complex. The community helps to adjust the page to make it clearer, while the experts make sure the information stays accurate. It is in this way the entire community compromises to make for the best delivery of accurate material. Without this ability to cooperate a definition like Fluid Catalytic Cracking could leave a reader bewildered due to its technical nature. The open-source process helps to make understandable knowledge readily available to the public.
Sam Castonguay
I found a page for roadway construction rollers on Wikipedia. A road roller, or a steam roller, is a construction machine featuring heavy smooth cylindrical roller drums used to compact asphalts and pavements. The Wikipedia page had extensive information and went into different types of the machine and its uses. I did not find any information on the site that I considered to be incorrect but I was curious of the validity of information I found. But that, I feel, is just natural skepticism that comes with the use of a seemingly factual site maintained and updated by anyone who would like to. The definition and different varieties of rollers mentioned seemed to be very accurate and qualified answers but also more objective pieces. The history and prices of the machines brought me more uncertainty. That doubt is the disadvantage of Wikipedia. The advantage however, is the perspective. Given that you or I have the ability to contribute to Wikipedia means that if the website is taken seriously it ought to be the most up to date and refined database on the web. And it provides information from a very understandable and non-technical perspective. Finding the middle ground between skepticism and certainty can be tough when using Wikipedia but when used as a realistic and casual source it proves to be one of the most convenient out there.
Anna Crews
I looked up “Animal Shelter” on Wikipedia and it says that “Dog Pound” redirects here. For the rap group, see “Tha Dogg Pound”. For the Cleveland Browns cheering section, see “Dawg Pound”. The redirecting feature is beneficial for research practices in finding relevant information. Wikipedia defines an animal shelter to be a facility that houses homeless, lost or abandoned animals; primarily a large variety of dogs, cat, and other exotic animals. They describe the goal of today’s shelter as a need to provide a safe and caring environment until the animal is either reclaimed by its owner, placed in a new home, or placed with another organization. My main concern was in the fourth paragraph, when they stated that a shelter was more commonly referred to as a “dog pound”, a term which had its origins in the impoundments of agricultural communities, where stray cattle would be penned up or impounded until claimed by their owners. This kind of information should be cited, else how else would I know if someone had just made it up? I feel that Wikipedia is a good place to research information, but backup resources should be used to verify facts.
Justin Emery
When looking at the article concerning Bernoulli’s Equation there is little difference from what is presented in the article and what was learned in class. Does this mean that a community (assuming the majority of the community is uneducated), where anyone can edit a page, came to the same conclusion that professionals that published books on the theory? I think this is a false assumption and that a few educated people originally created the page. Then over the years other similar educated people have kept the site up to date and added things that were learned during their education.
The article even references the original source of the Bernoulli’s equation, “Hydrodynamica in 1738”, and then talks about the person who discovered the concept. This website, while it made be originally created by people of a community, has very little if any community input left in it. It has been updated and reviewed enough by educated people that the conclusion of the community appears to be that same as the conclusion of professionals.
If for some reason an uneducated member of the community was to attempt an edit at this page, their edit would be noticed by the educated members and corrected. This process gives the community as a whole the appearance of being educated, but does not help with the definition of any theory. So the proposition that key words and terms are defined by both professionals and the community, in this case, I would deem invalid.
Ethan Hill
Words and their definitions have the power to open worlds of understanding and enlightenment as well shape trains of thought and provoke actions that can direct entire communities. When in the right atmosphere words are completely free from the bonds of any one person. They are a community’s ability to share its individual and collective understanding with anyone willing to listen. At times a word transcends a single definition. They can be used in other technical frameworks or as metaphors that liken it to something different aiding understanding.
For instance the word fatigue to a civil engineer means, strictly, the progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic loading. However, to a medical technician it is usually associated with physical and/or mental weakness. In each community the word is used with a sense of weakness. It transcends the bound of one and is used in likeness of each frame.
It is a good thing to keep a word free of simply one framework. That is why I believe the communal milieu of Wikipedia is stellar. It creates an easy access to all worlds of a person, place, thing or idea to a large community and allows the gift of quick understanding of each. It is also important to keep the ability of any and all contributors to change, refine, and create definitions.
Dan Goff
Meteorology is a science of classification. There are all sorts of atmospheric events, and there has been a need to classify these phenomena in a manner as granular as possible. The difference between these a tornado and a waterspout is small; the former develops over land, while the latter forms over water. However, this difference is crucial when describing what one has witnessed at a later time. The Wikipedia article on tornadoes is quite long, and very descriptive about the different types of tornadoes, their characteristics, and even methods for detection. The article quickly transitions from "definition" to "description," taking only about two sentences to define the phenomenon.
Can and should non-experts contribute to the definition of a topic? Absolutely. The world of science is often jargon-filled and not always in touch with the rest of the world, linguistically-speaking. Our tornado article falls victim to this in some places, relying the reader to click through to other pages to learn about topics like "Bernoulli's Principle" and "cyclstrophic balance." Including other community members and participants helps ensure definitions are neither jargon-filled nor burdened and unuseful. However, the goal should be for brevity when writing a definition. Without careful controls on length and clarity, what starts out as a definition may be modified by the group into a description. In the case of the tornado article, it includes a definition: "A tornado is a violent, dangerous, rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the earth and a cumulonimbus cloud or, in rare cases, the base of a cumulus cloud." This definition, taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is mostly clear, concise, and accurate. Attempts to go beyond this - to talk more about specific portions of the class rather than what makes the one member of the class unique can derail an effective definition.
Kevin Pfab
I chose to read a Wikipedia page on Object Oriented Programming. In Computer Science, Object Oriented Programming is defined as “a programming paradigm using ‘objects’ - data structures consisting of data fields and methods together with their interactions - to design applications and computer programs.” This single definition / summary placed as the first sentence in the article felt somewhat weak to me, because it includes a lot of field-related jargon. The article does, however, have a lot more information to offer if you keep reading, with many of the foreign concepts presented in that first sentence explained.
As my response to the proposition, I believe a collaborative information source such as Wikipedia is exactly the right tool to align the extremely disjoint vision of experts and regular people. Concepts that are difficult to understand can be watered down as an introduction to them, as long as falsified content isn’t introduced. Working off of anecdotal evidence, experts generally like to be very specific defining things in their fields in an attempt to reduce complexity when conversing with other experts. I believe, however, that this creates a barrier of entry that acts as a wall between regular people trying to consume information and those experts that already possess some. Wikipedia and other collaborative efforts break down this wall, because it allows content to be screened by the masses, and edited down to a version containing nothing but truth but as understandable as possible. This then becomes what I believe to be the ‘proper’ definition, because knowledge is worthless without the ability to pass it on. Obfuscating that information, through definitions only understood by experts, defeats the general purpose of information itself. As long as proper moderation takes place to contain falsified information, sources such as Wikipedia can be incredible pools of knowledge for the general public.
Alexis Carambot
I read about Structural Loads on Wikipedia, also known as actions, which is an outside force of some sort applied to any component of the structure. The initial definition is very clear and expresses the technical terms in a well manner. The page then continues to talk about the different types of loads that are considered to be stressful on the structure, which ever it would be a civil engineering and architectural structure or an aircraft structure. The Wikipedia page is a very useful source to look up a definition that is easily understood by both engineers and non-engineers. In response to the proposition the definitions in the professions should be determined by both experts and through an open-source like Wikipedia. By doing this you are able to get information form wide range of people and experiences. You are able to get a basic understanding of what can be at times complex definitions. Sharing media is a great way of getting the most important on a topic. Which information you trust would be up to your research. Wikipedia is a great place to start when looking up information on a topic of interest.
Edwin Torres
After reading the definition of “Chemical Reactions” in Wikipedia, I realized that it presented me with far more information than needed. The beginning paragraphs covered the basics of chemical reactions in great simplicity and accuracy. However, it is when I began reading through the article that I found many technical terms in subjects of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Although not all of these may be understood, I was just a click away from a simple definition that would point me in the right direction.
Wikipedia effectively uses structure to quickly define a term and then delve further into the layers of contextual meanings and technical uses. Using this structure it becomes easy to quickly find specific information. Although, both technical and non-technical readers both access Wikipedia I believe it is alright for articles to contain technical terms. Not every subject matter can be expressed in everyday words, but since you can easily explore unknown terminology, it becomes a valuable tool. Wikipedia makes it easy to quickly understand new aspects of almost any material through its structure. This accomplishment becomes possible through the editing of both experts and non-experts. It is important that these individuals work together to define both expertly and simplistically within the necessary constraints of authorship and truth. If this was not the case then definitions may convey ambiguities or false information. As long as Wikipedia uses both experts and non-experts to simplify and provide true information, it acts as a facilitator for learning and reference.
Shan Rammah
On Wikipedia I looked up the definition for “Geographic Information System”. Also known as “GIS” it is a computer based modeling tool used to create dynamic information to solve problems. At the start of the article, it gives a very simple and sufficient definition of what GIS is and its applications. It even describes the flaws and uncertainties that arise when using GIS. Unfortunately the article did not go into much detail of the progression and history of GIS. It explains some of the pioneers, but does not go into any depth of some of the important figures who helped create this tool between its birth and today. Throughout the rest of the article is very detailed and technical information that would be hard for someone to understand without some experience. But for a GIS modeler like me, it’s very useful for expanding my knowledge on some advanced topics.
Wikipedia offers away for anyone around the world to access, edit, and create information based upon facts. Despite Wikipedia’s vulnerability of false information, it actively searches its content to improve it. One example is that Wikipedia takes away information that suggests bias. The website allows anyone to share information via a free and public service. As a growing society, is important that we share information and continue to educate ourselves to progress. Wikipedia offers a service that allows this.
Howard Taing
I chose to read the wiki page for the term “balance sheet”. I feel that key words and terms in a profession should be determined by not only experts but a community as a whole. After reading over this article I feel it was written by professionals that kept using more accounting terms to explain an accounting term. The advantage of having the article written by a professional allows the page to have a lot of relevant and useful information even to a person that is already familiar with the profession. This will be fine for someone who is already familiar with the terms, but a person who wants to find more information will end up having to click through many extra links and have a harder time understanding everything that was written. If a member of the community edited this page the terms would not be as technical. Although this could allow the entry to be clear it would also be prone to error, which is where a professional can come in and make sure the information is accurate. So all in all it is to the benefit of everybody, that the community is allowed to work together as a whole to define terms and definitions.
Patrick Black
Global warming is a huge issue in today’s society and most of the world seems to be split on the decision whether it is real or not. Whatever your conclusion is, there is some data that cannot be ignored.
As I read through the Wikipedia article on global warming, I notice that there are many projections for future problems associated with global warming. These projections have been applied to time periods far greater in length than the data collection periods. Most of the emphasis is put on rates as well. By presenting rates as data in the studies, future projections will be effected more greatly. An increase in the rate of greenhouse gas emissions over the last century has certainly occurred, but that rate could plateau over the next few years, which would greatly affect future projections. I cannot say that this information is not useful, but I feel like most people draw quick conclusions whenever facts are proven true.
In order to make informed definitions and conclusions, all the facts must be considered, not just selected information that is true. A community of experts knows more facts on their proper subject than the general public, so the definitions and explanations should be left to them. On topics as controversial and complicated as global warming, only qualified experts will be able to draw valuable conclusions.
Alex Zammit
I decided to do my Wikipedia search on random-access memory. I thought the article did a good job defining and should be easily read by anyone that is familiar with computers. The article seems it was written by professionals; however, it was likely revised into an easy to interpret form that should be easily readable by the average viewer. Lots of various related terms and definitions were provided in links and while I didn’t look at each of those, I would assume it would be easy enough to quickly understand a foreign term. The article covered types and usage very well and had a brief history section. I found more information than I was expecting and think this is a strong entry.
In general, I really like Wikipedia’s terms for writing and revising articles. I think this is the main reason that there are so many entries with a wealth of information. I realize the disadvantages it has as well, and know for that reason it can’t be used for a source for a technical report, however if I find myself unsure on a topic, my first read will generally be the Wikipedia article.
Danny Duangphachanh
I decided to look up Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) on Wikipedia and it seems the entire article has an abundance of information from both experts and the open-source community of participants. The introduction is simple enough for someone to jump right into learning what RAID is about without feeling too overwhelmed and confused. Further along the page, the information does become rather technical, a sign that this was edited by those who have experience with RAID. Although the function of combining multiple disk drives into one logical unit is explained well enough through clear definitions and terms, there are graphics to help illustrate how and why RAID is used in a computer or server. I believe this is an example of how the work of experts and the open community of Wikipedia have come together nicely. From the expert’s perspective, the practical aspects of RAID are described rather well to give a general understanding of its uses and how it’s built. I feel that the approachability of the entire page is due to the Wikipedia community’s contribution. There are pictures and diagrams to help display the differences between RAID types and how each drive is connected to each other. After looking at this article, it seems that Wikipedia is a good place to start research since it does give an easy-to-understand overview, but the use of other sources should also be pursued, which is even included at the bottom of the page.
Anna Dellapenta
I researched the Wikipedia article on Natural Selection because it is an extensive and relatively controversial topic. The article begins with a lengthy general definition and then progresses in to associated principles. The impact of the theory on different areas of study as well as its importance to evolution is dutifully detailed. This phrase touches on topics from numerous different academic backgrounds such as genetics, history, and ecology. The collaborative effort of Wikipedia allows for knowledgeable people from diverse credentials to contribute their comprehension of the topic as it relates to their field. This type of varied input is completely necessary for a broad yet intricate subject such as Natural Selection. Wikipedia contributors to this page have illustrated that open-source information can be valid and well written. While all of the information in the article appears correct, I believe it is important to investigate references when utilizing it for academic or otherwise official applications. The citations on Wikipedia also provide an excellent resource for further reading that otherwise may have gone undiscovered by an interested audience. Open-source projects that encourage the pooling of data from people all over the world are crucial to our progress of knowledge acquisition in this time of convenient and rapid communication.
