User:Rls13/sandbox

Week 5: Editing the Wikipedia Page about Geoffrey Keynes

The biggest changes I made to the article were adding content, and changes in structure, which are easily observable by comparing my version with the original, linked here (Geoffrey Keynes). Finally, I added a lot of hyperlinks to important names, places and concepts and added a number of citations. ALL CITED SOURCES ARE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF MY SANDBOX.

I asked Ian to evaluate the article a while ago and he said it "looks good."

Sir Geoffrey Langdon Keynes (/ˈkeɪnz/ KAYNZ; 25 March 1887, Cambridge – 5 July 1982, Cambridge) was an English surgeon and author. He began his career as a medic in World War I, before becoming a doctor at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London, where he made notable innovations in the fields of blood transfusion and breast cancer surgery. Keynes was also a publishing scholar and bibliographer of English literature and English medical history, focussing primarily on William Blake and William Harvey.

Early life and education

Geoffrey Keynes was born on the 25th of March, 1887 in Cambridge, England. His father was John Neville Keynes, an economics lecturer at the University of Cambridge and his mother was Florence Ada Brown, a successful author and a social reformer. Geoffrey Keynes was the third child, after his older brother, the prominent economist John Maynard Keynes, and his sister Margaret, who married the Nobel Prize–winning physiologist Archibald Hill.

He was educated at Rugby School, where he became friends with British Poet Rupert Brooke. He was appointed literary executor for the estate of Brooke's death in 1915.

He graduated from Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he earned a first-class degree in the Natural Sciences Tripos. He was later made an honorary fellow of Pembroke College. Keynes then qualified for a scholarship to become a surgeon with the Royal College of Surgeons in London.

Career

First and Second World Wars

Geoffrey Keynes delayed his medical education in order to serve in World War I, where he served as a Lieutenant in the Royal Army Medical Corps and then worked as a consultant surgeon, becoming an expert in blood transfusion. His experience in the First World War led him to publish Blood Transfusion, the first book on the subject written by a British author. Keynes also founded the London Blood Transfusion Service with P. L. Oliver. Keynes was deeply affected by the brutality and gore that he witnessed in the field, which may have influenced his dislike for radical surgery later in his career.

Keynes enlisted to be a consulting surgeon to the Royal Air Force at the outbreak of World War II. In 1944 he was promoted to the rank of acting air vice-marshal.

Medical Career

Keynes began working full-time at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London, where he worked under George Gask and Sir Thomas Dunhill, after returning from World War I. Keynes used his influence as an assistant surgeon to advocate for or limited surgery instead of the invasive radical mastectomy. Frustrated with the mortality rate and gruesomeness of the radical mastectomy, Keynes experimented by inserting fifty milligrams of radium in a patient's tumor. He later observed that, "The ulcer rapidly healed ... and the whole mass became smaller, softer and less fixed."

Keynes pursued his new idea through a number of trials, observing the the effectiveness of injecting radium chloride into breast cancer tumors compared with the effectiveness of the radical mastectomy. The promising results of these trials led Keynes to be cautiously optimistic, writing in 1927 that the "extension of [an] operation beyond a local removal might sometimes be unnecessary." Keynes' outlook was considered a radical break from the medical consensus at the time. Keynes wrote in his autobiography that his work with radium "was regarded with some interest by American surgeons," but that the concept of a limited mastectomy failed to gain significant traction in the medical community at the time. His doubts regarding the radical mastectomy were vindicated some fifty years later, when innovators like Bernard Fisher and others revisited his data and pursued what became known as a lumpectomy. Limited surgeries, like the lumpectomy, accompanied by radiation are now the status quo in breast cancer treatment.

Keynes also a pioneer in the treatment of myastenia gravis. Much like with breast cancer, the medical community knew very little about how to treat the disease at the time. Keynes pioneered the removal of the Thymus Gland, which is now the norm in treatment of myasthenia gravis.

Keynes was knighted for his work in the field of medicine in 1955.

Literary Work

Keynes maintained a passionate interest in English literature all his life and devoted a large amount of his time to literary scholarship and the science of bibliography. He was a leading authority on the literary and artistic work of William Blake. He also produced biographies and bibliographies of English writers such as Sir Thomas Browne, John Evelyn, Siegfried Sassoon, John Donne and Jane Austen. He was also a pioneer in the history of science, with studies of John Ray, William Harvey and Robert Hooke. His biography The Life of William Harvey was awarded the 1966 James Tait Black Memorial Prize. Keynes also collected books, with a personal library with around four thousand works.

His autobiography The Gates of Memory was published in 1981, and he died the following year, aged 95. The Gates of Memory includes anecdotes of Keynes' numerous run-ins and friendships with other famous public figures. For example, Keynes often went climbing with George Mallory, the renowned British mountaineer; he also once performed life-saving treatment on Virginia Woolf after the budding author overdosed on pills.

Personal Life

On 12 May 1917 Keynes married Margaret Elizabeth Darwin, the daughter of Sir George Howard Darwin and granddaughter of Charles Darwin. They had one daughter and four sons:

• Harriet Frances Keynes (1918–1918)
• Richard Darwin Keynes (1919–2010)
• Quentin George Keynes (1921–2003)
• William Milo Keynes (1924–2009)
• Stephen John Keynes (1927–2017)

Keynes dedicated his life to his work, but was also very sociable and had no problem making friends. He took pride in never having been drunk, and was known by most as an affable, well-mannered man.

Legacy

Geoffrey Keynes' contributions profoundly influenced the fields of surgery and English literature. He pioneered limited breast cancer surgery accompanied by radiation, a strategy that has endured the test of time. His work on William Blake had an even larger impact, as Keynes "was instrumental in establishing Blake as a central figure in the history of English art and literature."

A library of his scholarly works, notes, and correspondences is now located at the University of Cambridge.

Works

• A Bibliography of Dr. John Donne (1914, 1932, 1958, 1973)
• A Bibliography of William Blake (The Grolier Club, New York, 1921)
• Blood Transfusion (H. Frowde, London, 1922)
• William Pickering, Publisher: A Memoir and a Hand-List of his Editions (The Fleuron, 1924)
• Jane Austen: a Bibliography (Nonesuch Press, 1929)
• Selected Essays of William Hazlitt 1778 : 1830 (Nonesuch Press, 1930)
• The Works of Sir Thomas Browne: Miscellany Tracts, Repertorium, Miscellaneous Writings (Faber & Gwyer 1931)
• The Works of Thomas Browne: Letters (Faber & Faber, 1931)
• The Faber Gallery Series: Blake (Faber and Faber, 1945)
• The Poetical Works of Rupert Brooke (Faber & Faber, 1946)
• Poetry and Prose of William Blake (Nonesuch Press, 1948)
• Portraiture of William Harvey, London 1949. With a Catalogue and Reproductions of the Pictures. The Thomas Vicary Lecture 1948.
• The Personality of William Harvey, Cambridge University Press: 1949
• William Blake's Engravings, edited with an introduction (Faber and Faber, (1950)
• William Blake, 1757–1827 (1949) 1946 ? Blake (1953)
• The Tempera Paintings of William Blake (1951)
• The Apologie and Treatise of Ambroise Containing the Voyages Made Into Divers Places with Many of His Writings Upon Surgery (1951)
• Samuel Butler's Note-Books, selections (1951) with Brian Hill
• Poems of Rupert Brooke (1954)
• A Bibliography of Rupert Brooke (1954) Hart-Davis, The Soho Bibliographies, No.4)
• Harvey Though John Aubrey's Eyes (1958)
• A Bibliography of Dr. Robert Hooke (1960)
• Essays in Biography 1961 by J. M. Keynes, editor
• Dr. Timothie Bright 1550—1615. A Survey of his Life with a Bibliography of his Writings (1962)
• A Study of the Illuminated Books of William Blake: Poet, Printer, Prophet (1964)
• An Exhibition of the Illuminated Books of William Blake: Poet — Printer — Prophet (1964) with Lessing J. Rosenwald
• On Editing Blake (1964)
• Blake. The Masters 6 (1965)
• Blake: Complete Writings with Variant Readings, editor, Oxford University Press, 1966 (UK-Paperback, Revised). ISBN 0192810502
• William Blake. Songs of Innocence and of Experience, editor, with Introduction and Commentary. London: Oxford University Press (1967)
• Henry James in Cambridge (1967)
• Sir Thomas Browne, Selected Writings (1968)
• The Letters of Rupert Brooke (1968)
• William Blake Engraver (1969)
• William Pickering, Publisher: A Memoir and a Check-List of his Publications (London, Galahad Press, 1969; New York, Burt Franklin, 1969)
• Drawings of William Blake: 92 Pencil Studies. Selection, Introduction and Commentary, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1970 ISBN 0-486-22303-5
• A Bibliography of Sir William Petty F.R.S. and of 'Observations on the Bills of Mortality' by John Graunt F.R.S. Oxford : Clarendon Press (1971)
• William Blake's Water-Colours Illustrating the Poems of Thomas Gray (1972)
• Deaths Duell by John Donne (1973)
• The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1975)
• The Gates of Memory (1981) Keynes, Geoffrey and Davidson, Peter (Eds.)
• A Watch of Nightingales (Stourton Press, 1981)

Plans for editing Geoffrey Keynes' Wikipedia Page:

• The first thing I plan to add to the page is more structure: I've found—both as a consumer of Wikipedia and as an editor—that articles with thoughtfully divided sections are much easier to read for content and evaluate for accuracy.
  • Maybe divide Keynes up by the different fields he contributed to?
  • Add an early life/family background section (which most Wikipedia pages about prominent people have)?
  • Add a legacy section?
• Potential Sources (will post to talk section when fully filled out):
  • Sir Geoffrey Keynes, The gates of memory (Oxford, 1981)
  • David McKitterick, ‘Keynes, Sir Geoffrey Langdon (1887–1982)’, rev. Stephen Lock, ODNB (Oxford, 2004)
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17153181

Article Evaluation:

I decided to evaluate the Wikipedia entry about Sir Geoffrey Keynes.

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • While everything in the article was definitely relevant, the article dedicated disproportionate attention to the fact that Geoffrey Keynes was John Maynard's brother. While that piece of information is relevant and ought to be included, it should not be alluded to as consistently as it is and should not be in the lede section of the article. Geoffrey Keynes is notable and interesting because he was a distinguished and influential scholar of English and historian of science, not for being JMK's brother.
• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article is very neutral. The only claim that I found that seemed unsupported and particularly objective was that Geoffrey Keynes "was a leading authority on the literary and artistic work of William Blake." The term "leading" in this instance caused me concern because it seems like a value judgement rather than a fact-based one. Ultimately, however, this is a very minor infraction (if an infraction at all) because there is no doubt Geoffrey was a scholar of Blake, even if not to the extent the article claims. EDIT: I found a number of reputable sources (cited in the article) that back up this claim.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Like I mentioned in my first response, the fact that Geoffrey was JMK's brother is very overrepresented. Aside from that, I found a good balance and found that nothing was overrepresented or underrepresented
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Almost of the links that I checked worked. Those that worked supported the claims well. However, a few links returned error notices and as a result are obviously inadequate citations.
• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Not every fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. In fact, most are not referenced at all. Those that are referenced all come from neutral and reputable sources. It is worth noting that it's possible that all the information in the article came from the few sources that are cited, and that the author did not bother citing each time. This would be better but still problematic for two reasons. The first that it is essential to cite and information that is not original, in order to avoid plagiarizing and to give credence to your article. The second is that if the whole article were derived from the same potentially biased or incorrect source, all of the information in the article would be rendered useless.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • None of the information is out of date and I don't think that many—if any—links could be added.
• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • The talk page of the article is extremely sparse, consisting of just two edits and no disagreements between editors. The edits consist of adding links and sources, and both seemed very appropriate.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is rated start-class and of low-importance to a number of Wikipedia Projects. This makes sense to me. While Geoffrey Keynes was undoubtably influential in a number of fields, he did not have exorbitantly large impacts on any of these niche fields and also did not have any significant contributions to society as a whole outside of his fields of interest.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • The Wikipedia article discusses his literary and scholarly work a lot more than his scientific work, which is mentioned after, and with less detail, than his literary work.

Discussion: Content Gaps

• Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
  • "Content gaps" are significant portions of missing and relevant information on Wikipedia Pages. It is important to note that a content gap generally refers to more than a missing sentence or two, rather a missing section or missing key idea. A good way to spot a potential content gap is to read over the article and check if the article moves from section to section in a coherent and chronological matter. Another good strategy is to cross reference the wikipedia page with some other page on the internet that provides an overview of the topic at hand.
• What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
  • Content gaps might arise when a Wikipedia page is only written and edited by one Wikipedia author, who may have an incomplete or heavily biased understanding of the subject matter. Content gaps could, in rarer cases, be the result of over-editing, where too many Wikipedia authors mess with a Wikipedia page and in the process lose an important part of it. The best way to prevent and remedy content gaps is to increase the number of eyes and editors that see a Wikipedia page, thereby adding a more diverse set of knowledge. It is also important that these editors make good use of the talk page, in order to make sure they are contributing to a comprehensive, but also cogent description.
• Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
  • Absolutely. The Wikipedia system ensures that any inaccuracies will eventually be weeded out, but it would be better to avoid this inaccuracies in the first place. The ideal Wikipedia author is not necessarily, and often isn't, the most knowledgable person about any particular subject; instead, the ideal Wikipedia author is one who really understands Wikipedia's guidelines, processes and values. This kind of ideal writer would make sure to do adequate research, cite that research correctly, and interact with other authors even if they had no prior knowledge of the subject. As a result, they contribute to Wikipedia in the most meaningful way.
• What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
  • Being unbiased on Wikipedia means presenting information in a straightforward, non-opinionated way. Being unbiased is often only possible if an author understands the wide array of viewpoints that exist surrounding a certain subject, and is not affected by them to a significant extent. Wikipedia's definition of bias is different from mine because it has much broader implications. In my daily life, bias generally just refers to an opinion or a preference about a certain subject. On Wikipedia, bias can be displayed through omission/inclusion of certain information, or through the emphasis of some information and not of others.

Discussion: Thinking about sources and plagiarism

• Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
  • Blog posts are considered poor sources of reliable information for fairly obvious reasons: namely, blogs are often opinion-oriented and are written with the goal of entertaining readers rather than presenting the truth. Additionally, almost all blogs do not source their writing, and many do not even follow basic plagiarism guidelines. Most of all, blogs are completely unregulated and are not circumscribed by specific guidelines/standards. Press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information because almost all press releases present inaccurate, or heavily distorted, information that is supposed to make whoever made the press release look good. Press releases are almost always biased, and as a result, should not be cited on Wikipedia.
• What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
  • You would not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company because company's are motivated to present themselves in the best light possible on their websites. As a result, most company websites do not tell the full story about a company, and most websites omit any information that could potentially hurt the company's public image. To conclude, company's have a strong incentive to distort the truth/omit information on their websites.
• What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
  • The easiest way to see the differences between the two is to imagine situations that are copyright violations, but not not plagiarism and vice versa. An author could potentially take some copyrighted information without permission from the source (which would constitute a copyright violation) but cite it. Because the hypothetical author cited a source, this would not be an example of plagiarism, but would still be a copyright violation. Conversely, an author could directly copy some information from a completely open source that does not require permission, but then not cite it. This would constitute plagiarism without a copyright violation.
• What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
  • The best technique to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism is to read through an entire source and understand that entire source before writing about the topic. Close paraphrasing and plagiarism occur most often when an author reads line by line and then tries to reproduce the information in each line. A much better way to go about research is to make sure you completely understand a topic, and then present that topic in entirely new words and in a different format/structure.

Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia

• What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
  • I really like Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality." It's a concept I've always sort've taken for granted on Wikipedia without ever really learning what it means precisely. Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality" does a number of things that I think are very valuable. It explicitly forbids authors from including any personal opinions or judgements, and—importantly—it asks authors to avoid presented contested assertions as facts. When Wikipedia's guidelines are followed, articles include "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and that's exactly how they ought to be.
• What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
  • The most significant impact of Wikipedia as a source of information is that anyone with an internet connection can access accurate and concise information on pretty much any topic in the world. Wikipedia effectively distills the overwhelming abundance of information that exists on the internet and puts it all in one place. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a limited source because it does not always include all of the details/nuance that a more specific source of information might include. Wikipedia is also limited because anyone can edit anything. Although it is uncommon, this means that there can (and, in some places, is) be inaccurate or deeply biased information on some niche topics.
• 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?
  • This standard of sourcing excludes things like blogs, unpublished scholarly works, and certain internet sources whose reliability is ambiguous. The biggest problem that this creates is that such a high standard can create a dearth of information on niche topics. For certain very specific topics, the only easily accessible information may be on unpublished internet pages or in other similar sources. In these instances, Wikipedia's standards would stipulate that these sources could not be used, and as a result certain Wikipedia pages could wind up missing important, relevant information.
• If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
  • If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, the breadth of subjects on the website (or, I guess, in print) would be much narrower, the information would be more biased, and there would be far fewer contributors. There would be fewer subjects covered simply because it would be much harder to compile information on very obscure subjects, unlike today where the internet makes it easier to find information about obscure subjects. The information would be more biased because there would be fewer contributors keeping each other in line and making sure articles were sufficiently neutral. Finally, there would be fewer contributors because fewer people were adequately educated in 1918 to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. Additionally, and more importantly, only experts would be able to contribute to Wikipedia. The beauty of the site today is that anyone can accurately write about almost any topic as long as they have a good understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and how to do research. This would be much harder—and borderline undoable—100 years ago because potential contributors would not have the vast expanse of information that is on the internet at their fingertips.