title: "Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia"
id: 4401
content: |+
  * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
  * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
  * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
  * If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?

title: "Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia"
id: 4401
content: |+
  * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
  * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
  * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.
  What kinds of sources does this exclude and how might these policies affect coverage
  of historically underrepresented populations? How might Wikipedia change if it allowed
  the use of non-published sources, such as oral traditions and histories?
  * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia? If so, why?
  * How does Wikipedia define expertise and what it means to be an expert?
  How does this compare to more traditional definitions of expertise?

Update 'Thinking about Wikipedia' discussion questions
Update 'Thinking about Wikipedia' discussion questions
