E- Wikiality Evaluation
Evaluate your finished wikiality against your own design specification
For the first part of the design specification, the guiding questions that I wrote were:
-did we include a correct format of MLA bibliography?
-did we follow what criterion B asks for?
-did we use our time during class effectively?
-did we get our assignments done on time?
-did we do a thorough, wide range of research (meaning that we used more than one site on the Internet?)
-did all of the members in our group do our work together?
These were the design specification/ questions that I tried to answer after editing the Wikipedia. Yes, now that I’ve finished the project, I think that I followed everything. Although it was more like an individual project, I did include a correct format of MLA bibliography, everything that criterion B asks for. Moreover, me and my group members used our time effectively by using the class time to complete our tasks. Lastly, we double checked whether or not the sources we used were appropriate and reliable.
Evaluate your finished Wikiality against my design specifications (edited and published in Wikipedia)
After our group finished writing the sources and making a few adjustments about Tsagaan Sar on Wikipedia; our group logged into the Wikipedia site (just as how Ms. Wilson told us to). From here, we edited what we had to and included the citations as well. All in all, I think our group did a good job in editing and adding new information. When we checked later on, our group’s work wasn’t deleted or even changed. This clearly indicates that our alteration was good enough that no one actually DIDN’T do anything to it~
Evaluate your work at each stage of the project (A,B, and D)
For the first criterion A; our class started off with answering a couple of questions related to Wikipedia. I was in the same group with Jonathan and Jun Pyo. If looking back in the earlier entries, it can be seen that all of our group members were diligent and hard working. Through the questions that we were supposed to answer, I learned how Wikipedia cannot be a good source of information. Before learning this project, I didn’t realize how Wikipedia cannot be as accurate as any other sites. Although many teachers did inform us about this issue; it seemed to me that everything on Wikipedia were true. However, for the 100th time, I came to an understanding that Wikipedia CANNOT always be accurate or reliable. This was the first part of investigation. The second part of the investigation was to choose a certain topic in Wikipedia and find any errors and then edit it. We chose ‘Tsagaan Sar’, and we found at least two or three mistakes. This task finishes by researching some information.
Moving on to the next criterion, B, I actually had to do a thorough research, and strike out the information that we changed. We were told to use reliable source of information- more like a government based site. I believe we visited three sites. We cited all the three sites in MLA bibliography format. The next thing I did was to write design specifications. I had to think a little bit when writing it- since it concerned all of our group members.
Coming to the last section of the criterion D, we were supposed to log into Wikipedia page, and edit it. We did so, just as how the instruction paper told us to. We had to first figure out these codes for writing “in text citation” and other things. We first entered a different category site. Once we got it, we changed it, edited what we had to say, and SAVED it! 
But before movign on, let me talk more about the editing process. In the beginning of the project, we sort of had a trouble choosing a topic. We tried various topics such as: transformer, clover field, mongolia, etc. We suddenly thought about Tsagaan Sar, since it was our first week after we came back from the Tsagaan Sar holiday. We printed out what it was written on Wikipedia. As a group, we went over through each information and made notes if they were true or not. I believe we found about three errors! So in order to make sure that it was actually WRONG; we asked several Mongolian students. The next step was to research on the Internet for a correct answer. Now, this point was important since you needed to use a reliable source. Reliable source, as in probably government based sources is what I am talking about. We split the work by making one person take charge of each mistaken information. Next, we were to strike out the incorrect information and write down how we were going to change it. This was mainly what we did for criterion D. Then, we went back to the sites and put them in a correct MLA bibliography format. Finally, just as I’ve mentioned above, we logged into Wikipedia and changed what we had to- and lastly saved the work. All in all, I can’t reallly say we faced any difficulties along the way. This is because we used our time wisely during class the whole time. All of us worked well together- and we were all good supporters for one another. I remember one time when the Internet wouldn’t work fast enough during class, and we had to wait for long time to open up a new site. Other than that, I really enjoyed this project~!
Test the wikiality according to your plans under investigation
There isn’t anything specific that I can write about this work. For the investigation of our project, we first worked as a group and then worked individually. Overall, I think our group has accomplished our goal. I mean, the main goal for this project was to find a mistake in Wikipedia and correct it, by using a reliable source of information. Our group did so; and therefore I believe that we DID accomplish it successfully. Oh! One reason why our project was successful was because so far, I don’t think anybody has changed our work. This means that the readers do agree with what we have added- and therefore they did not bother changing it again! 
