Searching through articles to find, I had found my interest in the contamination of food. I had been interested in the idea of the health benefits from food, and what could be unbeneficial from such a diet. Many vegans, vegetarians, and religious people abstain from meat for various reasons of course, this is where I had stumbled across Sarcocystis. Interestingly enough, while the article definitely needed work, such as the lack of citations, outdated references, and unneeded bulky/wordy sections across the Wikipedia page itself, the talk page for the subject encouraged my ideas of food contamination and safety reasons from meat consumption, such as the comment made about the parasitic lifeform(Sarcocystis) found in hamburgers. Given the fact that the Sarcocystis offered good reason for me to expand upon it, it gave me great interest to see if I could enhance the subject even more from the hints I could already pick up from the Wikipedia article.

Sarcocystis

Article: Sarcocystis

Added/Adjusted the first source for the origin of the subject. Observing the article's citations for Sarcocystis, I noticed an abundance of missing/outdated citations, focusing on the first citation led to me to my first edit/reference. In the history section, I had replaced an old outdated article that was well older than 30 years at least and it seemed very confusing to basic readers, even to myself. I provided an article that came from a website titled CDC(U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and was published in 2013, and gives a good paraphrased summary on the origin and naming of the subject itself. I should note that many other articles had reported the same findings but I found that this article used sources, well typed-paraphrased summary, and a simplified cohesive understanding of the foundation of this topic, so I was weighing the scale basically on what article best suited the nature of Sarcocystis.

Added a new section for prevalence in animals and trial methods. I decided to make use of the many articles that I had discovered and researched about my subject. Of course, many of the articles I did use, but that had only been for citation additions, meaning I only added them to back up claims that had been made on the Wikipedia page already. I figured I should add an important part to the subject as well. I felt that the article needed an in-depth look at animals(Specifically cattle) when it came to Sarcocystis. Using the article “Prevalence of Sarcocystis spp. in meat-producing animals in Iraq” allowed me to explore this topic much further than I had hoped for. I just wanted to make sure I could paraphrase this information up into two sections, that were short and to the point, all while touching each point being made. I was even glad that the article, and mentioned dogs, because even our pets could get infected too. Overall, the article touched upon cleanliness, trials, and dogs, all areas that I wanted to expand upon short and quickly, in the end it allowed me to sum it all up in a new section created by me, "Events occurring within animals."

Restructured the treatment section within the article of Sarcocystis. Looking through the article, I had discovered a consistency issue with the article. After I had adjusted the treatment section for the article, I had found that there was another treatment area higher above the article. I tried to see the difference but couldn't distinguish the points being made. I found that it would be much easier to understand if I had just moved the information into the treatment section farther below, especially since this section had more information. More antibiotic information was prevalent, so I linked them to their respected Wikipedia pages, cleaning up the information and combining sentences together helped mingle everything together, becoming more cohesive in the end.

Added treatment options for Sarcocystis. This edit felt like it was my biggest contribution to the Sarcocystis Wikipedia page. I wanted to focus on something important within the article, I found it was easiest if I narrowed down the information and focused on a topic that was specifically important and beneficial to the subject itself. Looking through the treatment section, I had added Albendazole. I couldn't find any such cure because such things like human trials are rare, something already mentioned in Sarcocystis article itself. The source had come from CDC, which again paraphrases the necessary information clearly, and talks about how clinical cases are far and few, something else found in the Sarcocystis article treatment section. So, I was able to find connections when linking the sources together. This part of the editing process, I was really able to get hands on with the article. Especially with something with great importance which could personally help someone find valuable information when dealing with Sarcocystis.

Concluding this section, I found my contributions to be worthwhile. I think a lot more could be fixed and I'm still trying to figure out how I could fix the species listing page, considering there are so many, and about 95% of these I just don't recognize. Although, the Wikipedia article says these species listings are related to the animal the parasite(Sarcocystis) affects. I also struggled when it came to any outside foreign help, I was mostly alone on this topic, considering the last was done a couple years ago, and the latest comment that had been made was in the late 2000's, around 2007 or 2009. Though, I must say that the talk page helped me get some more information on the topic itself from the individuals there, some of the users pointed out the flaws in the species, or added more information that could be added to the article, especially the hamburger post. But considering how inactive the article was, I received no feedback from any adjustments I had personally made. This can be seen by the daily view count for the article itself, but most of that may just be me from my constant visiting of the page when I check to see the article. So because of the lack of interaction from other people, most of my edits were left as is and received no feedback, since this was the case, I had decided to be careful of the edits I did make and chose the most important elements to adjust. Overall, the experience of editing this article was a very solo experience, as I was tasked with editing mistakes that had plagued the article, and additions that would grant the article more emphasis on the information it provided.

Note: There were many other edits but these were small grammatical errors, or citation fixes/additions. I focused on the parts that really made an impact.

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 came across some obstacles when researching for articles, the topic I focused on has not been expanded upon through many others. This may be due to the simplicity and broadness of the nature of the subject itself(Parasitic lifeform). Furthermore, observing one of my chosen articles such as "Prevalence of Sarcocystis spp..." focused on the topic of animals and their reactions/symptoms to Sarcocystis when testing out diagnosis methods. Ethical concerns could play a part within this diagnosis program but the animals came out well, and seemed to mostly benefit from the sampling that was performed on them. I found an article like this to add lots of contributions to treatment options for the subject I had been researching. I can also compare this to another article that was in my bibliography such as "Parasitic Protozoa of Farm Animals and Pets." Again this article focuses on the safety and health concerns that meat can produce from animals, specifically cattle, where lot's of meat stored products originate from. These articles helped to coincide my point about the safety concerns of meat consumption, and the dangers it could bring. In this case, I wanted to focus on something specific that could relate to all groups of people who are against the topic of meat, these groups include religious, vegan, and vegetarian. Sources I declined to use were articles such as "Sarcocystis." An issue with an article like this was that the issue addressed was very simple and broad, and only seemed to affect the area of Pennsylvania. While I am not against the broadness of the subject, it needs to cover all aspects for it to be effective in the grand scheme of things. I want to make sure all the articles I use are specific for important reason when I focus on my article. As I had mentioned, I was very alone in this article when it came from foreign interaction due to the inactivity of the subject. Taking this into account I wanted to make sure the edits I made achieved the right citation needed for proof.

What did you learn from contributing to Wikipedia? What aspects made it meaningful?

I was never interested in the idea of using Wikipedia as a source, let alone editing an article on the site itself. I was able to learn a lot though from this experience, the major first thing I grasped was that many of these articles are flawed, which is why I see now that my high school teachers disliked the site, but with that comes articles that have a lot of craft to them. The more popular articles are given more care and time when it comes to specific topics, but topics like mine which are one in a dozen, that share many similarities fall flat to achieving special care. But taking that information into mind shows me that these lesser known articles are available for people like me to learn and edit Wikipedia with. These are the aspects that make it meaningful, choosing a topic that you are specifically interested in, or maybe you had some thoughts about a certain subject. Either way, I feel really getting to edit an article and add your contribution is what makes the aspects of Wikipedia valuable, your information is a knowledgeable aspect that someone will take into mind.

Did editing Wikipedia satisfy the course goals of CCII? Explain.

When going into CCII, I wasn’t expecting Wikipedia at all. I was more along the lines expecting essays, and thought provoking topics that would get me writing something, which CCII did perfectly, just in a different fashion than I’d expected. I was able to come up with thought provoking ideas when it came to choosing my topic on Wikipedia, what article would I use that would satisfy the requirements of the assignment and my own interest? I was also able to get a lot of writing in through my evaluation of Wikipedia and the bibliography as well. At first, it doesn’t sound as if there’d be much writing and essay focused experience, but it was the same for the most part. Although, I would say it was much easier learning as time went on, and I was able to go at a steady pace when choosing my articles and evaluating them, this allowed me to make meaningful contributions to the Wikipedia article I chose. Overall, the class allowed me to expect Wikipedia more openly and become more open minded about the site in general than I had ever been before.

If you could do it over again, would you approach this project differently?

Interesting question, although maybe I would choose some different topics most likely. When starting this project I had gone in kind of blindly, considering the nature of Wikipedia and my experience with it. I had struggled a bit thinking of a topic I’d be interested in, and of course the one I picked(Sarcocystis) was not my first pick. But I had taken into account the requirements of an article and maybe if the topic I chose would actually garnish importance to society, asking myself questions if the topic I chose affects other people in the current day. The article I chose was sort of boring, to any common reader, they get lost a bit in the scientific nature of it, but it had an educational side that reflected common ideas that are shared today about the safety concerns of meat. Overall, I'd most likely choose an article that wasn’t as broad and similar to other subjects like the one I had, something more specific would be easier to research and focus on.