Wikipedia- The Chicago Cubs Wikipedia is an online source on which information for almost any topic can be found. Not only does it serve as an online encyclopedia, but it allows for connections to be made via hyper-links and multiple collaborators to contribute to one entry. A Wikipedia page that I found interesting to analyze was that of the Chicago Cubs. Being a Cubs fan my whole life, I had a previous knowledge of the franchise and team before reading the page. However, after reading the page in detail, I have learned many new facts and expanded my knowledge on the topic.
The page is broken into many sections that allow for a reader to quickly jump to a piece of information that they are looking for. At the top, a brief description is provided. In the first sentence of the page, it states “The Chicago Cubs are an American professional baseball team based in Chicago, Illinois”. Within this sentence alone, we have already gathered what type of team they are and where they are located. In addition, the description mentions: divisions play in, rivalries, highlighted achievements, and any nicknames that the Cubs may go by. Later in the page, greater detail is provided on the “eras” of team history, Wrigley Field, the culture associated with the team, playoff results, the value of the team, the team roster and hall of famers, and lastly their presence in the media. This page provides over 100 sources to confirm if the information provided on the page is reliable and allows the reader to dig deeper into certain information if they wish. Ethos is established by referencing all facts mentioned in the provided sources. Many of the referenced material are articles written in newspapers or sections of books. The audience of this page is anyone who is trying to discover information about the Chicago Cubs. All language used throughout the page is able to be comprehended by a majority of the audience. So even if one is not a Cubs fan, or even a baseball fan for that matter, one would still be able to understand the content. If a reader is interested in learning more about a particular element, many of the main points of the page are hyper-linked, which also aids in creating credibility. The more connections that are made to valid and reliable sources, the more that the page itself is valid and reliable. Pathos is not seen clearly in this article- and it should not be. Wikipedia pages are meant to provide facts, not biased opinions that elicit emotional responses. The page mentions “the Cubs won the 2016 National League Championship Series and 2016 World Series, which ended a 71-year National League pennant drought and a 108-year World Series championship drought”. This is a fact that, whether a fan of the team or not, occurred. For me, it is something that brings happiness. However, the happiness stems from my personal experiences, not the content of this page. The tone of the page is informational and does not provide any opinion, therefore lacking a strong presence of pathos. Logos is used in the set-up of the page. The order in which the content is formatted is logical. It is necessary to first know the history of a team (a 108-year drought) before understanding the impact of any accomplishments (a World Series win). The content of the page does not drift to other topics and provides just the right amount of information to gain basic knowledge. Although Wikipedia is known as being an unreliable source to cite because of its format that lets anyone edit a page, many pages are in fact credible. Stable pages written such as that of the Cubs provides a good start on information to look for in others sources, many of which can be found at the bottom of the article.
2 Comments
Caroline Runge
3/7/2018 01:48:17 pm
Margaret, I really enjoyed reading your blog. You really have a nice formal structure and you include all of your elements that are within the blog. You talk about credibility, ethos, pathos, and logos. Credibility is such a large part of wikipedia pages and you recognize that and address it and clearly state that you think this is a credible source. Overall, your analysis is clear, consistent and organized.
Reply
Amanda Norman
3/7/2018 10:15:53 pm
Super easy read and interesting! I personally love baseball so it was cool getting to learn about a different team besides the Texas Rangers. I like how you address the credibility of the page by stating how it has over 100 sources to back it up. Also pathos is definitely hard to determine in a Wikipedia page, provided Wikipedia pages are used mainly for facts, but i like how you got smart and creative and figured out a pathos to use. Overall very easy to read and you addressed everything!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |