User:Username25954/reflection
Wikipedia Project: Reflection
[edit]| Articles | Content
Assessment |
Importance | Completeness
score |
Daily
views |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act | C-class |
|
52 | 1201 |
| Line of duty death | Start class |
|
53 | 14 |
Introduction
[edit]https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Username25954
For my first article and Wikipedia page presentation, I chose the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Topics relating to law have always interested me, especially as I prepare for my first official day in the Cape May County Police Academy after completing orientation and agency training. While I did not know much about RICO, I found its intricacies and application fascinating, which is why I decided to continue to research the topic while simultaneously contributing to the page.
The next Wikipedia page that I contributed to, Line of Duty Death, was one that hit home for me, and a topic that I wish I had started with. As an interior-firefighter with Glassboro and Rockaway Township, as well as a part-time paid wildland firefighter with the NJ Forestry Fire Service and EMS Driver, line-of-duty deaths are always a concern when operating in dangerous environments. In 2024, I had the privilege of attending the funeral of a New Jersey firefighter killed in the line of duty, an event which I will never forget. Due to my involvement in the "Line of Duty," I felt obligated to research and contribute to this page.
In all honesty, I believe that I deserve a 90% for my Wikipedia contributions. For this assignment/project, I worked hard to ensure my work did not add fluff and instead contributed towards the overall quality of these two articles, specifically the RICO article. While I did work hard, I feel as though leaving the semester early had limited my work output, and leaves more to be done within these two articles.
Contributions
[edit]Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
[edit]I added missing citations, as noted by "missing citation" on the Wikipedia page. By adding citations to parts of the article that were missing citations, I improved the overall reliability of statements being made on the page. For each missing citation, I searched the web using the same terms as those on the Wikipedia page. If I could not find a citation through this method, I searched for related terms to pinpoint an article that backed up the claim. There were some citations I could not find information on; however, I did not have the time to remove work or dive deeper into the unsupported information. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Reworded sentence text to enhance the statement's accuracy. I identified a piece of text without a citation and found a citation that supported the statement. However, the statement was slightly misleading, so I reworded the sentence to better reflect the citation. This work improved the clarity of the statement to avoid misleading information and allowed for the source to be verified and evaluated by other users. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Added a couple of sentences regarding RICO Civil Liberty concerns. Although I wanted to do more with this section, the few sentences that I added on the topic of Civil Liberty concerns allowed for a more well-rounded view of RICO. The sentences before my contribution discussed how RICO was never intended for traditional organized crime. My contribution elaborated on the concerns that a source had made in relation to RICO's application. I provided a citation at the end of the two sentences. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Slightly restructured the article to consolidate Civil Provisions and Suits sections. Originally, the information regarding Civil Provisions and Civil Suits in RICO had been significantly separated. By moving these two sub-sections together, I could ensure the information regarding Civil RICO was not scattered. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Added information to Civil Provisions and Civil Suits sub-sections. Originally, the information in both of these sections was lackluster. In Civil Provisions, there was one sentence and no information on section 1964, which gave the basis for RICO-related civil proceedings. By essentially building this sub-section from the ground up, I could ensure that the basics of Civil Provisions were covered, which should improve the completion of this article. I added a citation at the end, which provided the basis for my edit. In the Civil Suits sub-section, I added a citation and more information regarding treble damages and the replacement for treble damages when the government is the plaintiff in Civil litigation. This addition allowed for a more in-depth understanding of what happens in civil suits. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Line of Duty Death
[edit]Added information on more recent LODD statistics. Most of the information pertaining to police officers killed in the line of duty was from 2018 and 2019. Since 2020, these numbers have drastically increased. By adding this newer information, a bigger and more accurate picture can be drawn to compare the number of deaths post-2020 to pre-2020. Two citations were added when I created these sentences, both pertaining to the year 2021. More work can be done to improve this section, with more statistics available from 2022 to 2024. This addition was small, but added information that reflects the modern policing environment. I received no feedback, and other users removed none of my work regarding this edit.
Wikipedia, generally
[edit]Comment on the sources you found from Parts II, III, and IV of the annotated bibliography. How did you contribute to articles as a result of your AB? Which sources were the most valuable and why? If you declined to use some of your annotated sources, why?
- I believe that AB II and III helped tremendously in finding sources that related to the topic at hand. By having these sources well-organized and already knowing their content, I felt prepared to contribute to these Wikipedia pages when the time came. For me, the drawback to having these sources planned out was the style of my writing. Typically, when I write, I tend to constantly revise and cut things out if they do not go with the flow of what I am writing. These constant revisions made it challenging for me to incorporate all of my original sources, since I would draft them and subsequently cut them out to improve the overall clarity of what I was writing. While I used many of the sources I had found through the AB assignment, I discovered that I would also identify content gaps as I was writing. With this, I ended up using other sources to supplement information that I had otherwise not found previously. So, while the already identified sources helped shape what I wanted to write, I do believe that the ability to supplement with different sources allowed me to contribute better to my style of writing. Using my AB sources in shaping my writing made them the most valuable, while the extra sources I added were used to back up other knowledge gaps.
What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? What aspects made it meaningful?
- For me, I learned a lot about the topic at hand through contributing to it via. Wikipedia. Going into editing the RICO page, I knew of its existence; however, I did not know nearly enough information to contribute. Previously, I would have thought that because I do not know enough about RICO, I should not be editing it. Even though I did not know about the topic, I found it easy to identify knowledge gaps. From those identified knowledge gaps, I was able to teach myself about specific issues relating to RICO, and therefore, prepared myself to edit the page.
Did editing Wikipedia satisfy the course goals of CCII? Explain.
- Editing Wikipedia most definitely satisfied the course goals of CCII. In editing Wikipedia, I experienced a multi-stage process where I found information, learned about it, and simplified it to make contributions. While not all of my designated sources were used, it was through this writing process that I could determine what would be a good fit and what wouldn't. Understanding that I was not writing to please an audience and that I needed to be literate in what I was editing allowed me to write in a neutral and educated manner. In addition, the public nature of Wikipedia made my edits visible for millions to see, which burdened me with the last core value that highlights the ethical responsibilities and impact of writing. With all of these core values used, some more than others, I can undoubtedly say that Wikipedia editing satisfied the core values and course goals of CCII.
If you could do it over again, would you approach this project differently?
- Honestly, I am glad the project went this way and would not approach it differently. As previously mentioned, I was a little timid when it came to editing a topic that I was interested in, yet I did not possess much knowledge of it. However, after our assignments, I was able to almost fully grasp the subject and was confident in making essential edits.