Rachel+McAdams+Discussion+Section

1. Account for the postings (number of revisions, time range from first to last, notation of periods of activity) The earliest revision of the Rachel McAdams Discussion page was on July 15, 2005. The latest revision was on June 12, 2010. There have been about 110 revisions since the page began. The first post on July 15, 2005 commented on one claim made about Rachel McAdam’s success at the MTV Music Videos Award. The next few posts offer their opinion on this topic and begin discussing the largest controversy on the information from Rachel McAdams, her date of birth. This debate continues throughout the posts from 2005 all the way through 2010. It simmers down around 2008, but in 2009 it becomes a hot topic again. There are seven new posts on her birthday during 2009. After two people claim to “know people” who know Rachel, and therefore also know her birthday, debate increases. The main concern is that knowing a friend of a friend is not a reliable source to post of wikipedia. With that said, many people ask for reliable sources, and finially they seem to strike some argreement with the source “The Assosciated Press.”

2. Describe progress or development in the article from the original post to the most recent update The progress from the original post to the end was very intreging to observe. It seemed that at first most of the posts were opinion based, because the remark made was an opinion based critique of a statement made about Rachel McAdams. From this point on, the next few posts were comments based on this opinion. Then there was a debate about Rachels actual birthdate that was miswritten in the article. Three seperate discussion sections emerged in light of this topic alone. The debate was furthered by the fact that many people were listing sources that weren't legitamate in their defense. This debate continued for the majority of the discussions. Somewhere in between this debate a smaller question of whether pictures should be removed surfaced, and a few members of the discussion questioned using certain pictures that might be copyrighted. The most recent post was a response to a question about whether Rachel McAdams has an official page.

3. Critique the quality of the article in its current state (writing quality and factual information) The writing quality on Rachel McAdam's wikipedia page is fairly good. There are no major grammatical errors, and their is no evident false information presnted for humors sake. Her biography is fairly weak; however, based on the discussion, it seems as if there is not much biographical information out there about McAdams. The authors do provide a detailed outline of the movies she has been a part of, as well as the awards she has recieved. I am glad that editors decided to remove the rivia section that was in question. I don't think it should be part of what is supposed to be a factual based article. The most lacking area, as far as I can see, is her personal life. There are about three sentences, and I am positive there is more information than this.

4. Describe the discussion around the article The discussion of the article was very interesting to look at. At first people were almost hateful in their comments. This was mostly due to the fact that they were making opinion based comments; therefore, they could not defend themselves with factual informaton. The contributors cooled down and debated smaller topics, like what pictures should be present and which are allowed with copyright laws. The next emotionally charged and rather offensive comments were seen in the conversation about her birthday. This inspired three different sections, and it is evident that no one was really sure as to what her birthday was. There was also a debate as to McAdams nationality. The steam behind comments was enhanced after people made comments about the legitamacy of other people's sources. In the end, a few people cited reliable sources and the tension seemed to mellow. The discussion has dwindled down with slight edits here and there most recently.

5. Provide background information on the most active contributors. There was not a single most involved contributor to the conversation, and all of the active participants that I tried to find details on, didn't have any information.