User talk:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday11-12/Evidence

Whatsapp Group Chat
This group has been coordinating work on sandbox assignment in a Whatsapp group chat. The main points were duplicated on the discussion pages, but the majority of communication behind this research was happening in the chat.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Things to be sorted out (follow up from meeting on MS Teams (3rd Nov)
Hi guys, this is a summary of things we need to deal with the Truth page after our discussion on MS Teams.


 * 1. Completion of forensic science
 * 2. Subheadings for marketing and advertisement
 * 3. Completion of research methods under psychology
 * 4. Referencing - make sure they are in proper Vancouver format instead of links, proper format for repeated references
 * 5. Change the overall sequence of the content in the page to make more related topics follow from each other, the suggested outline will be as follow:
 * Marketing
 * Sustainability
 * Advertising
 * Translation
 * Psychology
 * Forensic Science
 * Interdisciplinary Examination
 * Strengths and Weaknesses

Let me know if I have missed out anything and hope this helps! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I changed my repeated referencing and also changed the overall sequence of the content in the page! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Here are some of the situations we thought we can look at for this assignment A case where: Feel free to add to these! --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A change in approach to evidence modified the discipline. ( For example a shift from solely quantitative evidence to recognition of importance of qualitative evidence)
 * Different approaches to collection and assessment of evidence led to a conflict between disciplines
 * The ways in which disciplines applied and understood the same evidence ( a document/ historic fact, etc.) were different

Hello! In my opinion, and this is just a suggestion so feel free to say no, we just put a section in the beginning of the page detailing the different approaches/perspectives we are going to use while examining the issue of Evidence. I feel it would clarify our direction to the markers! Something like this was not necessary in History as all of us decided on a basic structure of research and presentation. But the issue of Evidence is multifaceted and can be looked at from multiple perspectives in the same discipline, so it would be better to clarify which perspectives specifically we will be using and why. Tell me what you all think about this. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! That's a great idea! I think that can be done once all the major sections have been added so that all the perspectives can be mentioned. --Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added a short introduction with a definition and a few general points about evidence. I've read the other contributions on the page and I think it connects to them, but if anyone thinks that it misses out on a certain aspect of evidence you wrote about, please feel free to edit it! I've also moved the section about Strengths and Limitations of Evidence to the top of the page, as it looks like a broad overview of the evidence in different subjects.--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I read the introduction and I think it nicely summaries the key aspects we will be covering in the page - thank you for that! I added a hyperlink to the word 'evidence' and also tweaked a sentence or two, just to give it a more 'wrapped up' and balanced feeling. Hope that's okay with you, if not you can delete it. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That looks good--Usernamee anonymous (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

General Updates
Hey! I just added the heading 'strengths and weaknesses of evidence' on the page, I'm planning to evaluate the role of evidence in gaining knowledge, will let you guys know when I completed it! -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to suggest an edit to the vocabulary in the section of 'strengths and weaknesses'. I recommend that we discuss evidence in terms of 'strengths and limitations' instead as we could also further include certain improvements which may be possible, perhaps through an interdisciplinary approach towards gaining and analyzing evidence. What are your thoughts? - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with what you say and changing it would be better, the word 'weaknesses' seems a bit too harsh as well. Thank you for suggesting this!-Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an update that i have now completed this so feel free to give it a read and let me know if you want to add anything! -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just noticed that information about the Cotton case was put under the title "An interdisciplinary examination into evidence" while the heading "Evidence in Forensic Science" was left empty. I just wanted to confirm whether this was an honest mistake or intentional? Because the case described would fit much better under the forensic science heading rather than the present one. Let me know what you guys think! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey there! I am doing the forensic science section while the Cotton case is Citrus48's section! We actually discussed whether it should be a collaboration but after reading up on the case and reading Citrus48's section on the case it seems like the evaluation of evidence is more psychology or law centered. As of now I don't feel it really should be in the forensic science section as it branches into too many areas, however we are in close contact and discussing collaboration! Thank you and we will keep this in mind! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! I propose that once we have uploaded the major part of the content into each section, we could further look into whether we should integrate the two under one heading, and we could discuss which way helps the page become the most comprehensive for a reader as well. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 01:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I am very blind! The way you introduced the evidence in forensic science was very well put, the content flowed while reading. I was quite interested in the reliability of the evidence and preventive measures to ensure reliability. I have added information to the evidence in forensic science with a the section for preventive measures and a section for reliability of the people that handle the evidence. Please do read through it and edit or morph it that best helps with the flow of the section! Thank you. -Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I've added a heading and sub-headings about translated documents because I'd love to talk about how they are used in different disciplines as evidence, and how it has affected the discipline in the transferring of knowledge and such (will touch on both its ups and downs). Having read some of the content already on here, I'm inspired to add some case studies to further accentuate my points. Anyways, I will make sure to update you guys once I've added some bits to the section! Also do let me know if you want to collaborate with me on it at any point because there are some other disciplines that I think would be pretty interesting to delve into with regards to its use of translated documents. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am quite interested in this and would be happy to do some collaborative work on this! What disciplines are you thinking specifically? -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply! Replying to your comment must have slipped my mind. Since my original post, I've since changed the structure of the section: instead of focusing on disciplines, I've rather focused on the use of translation in evidence in general, bringing up some examples (or case studies) within disciplines in which its limitations and strengths as evidence are highlighted. While researching into it, I was afraid of talking too much about how (mis)translation has led to dramatic events and turmoil; I just wanted to avoid describing those events rather than evaluating how translation is used in evidence (particularly under the old 'Effects on History" subsection). But thanks to the verbal discussion I had with you and Feminist06 recently, I've gained more confidence in my research and decided to be a bit more general in my writing, so thanks for that!


 * I still have yet to add some bits about religious studies and law into the 'limitations' subsection, but I'm still thinking about it. Initially, I wanted to focus on the effect of using translation in evidence on religious studies, history and law and their practices. I came across machine translations which combined translation and technology which I thought I might be quite interesting to dabble into, perhaps. Though following the change in the structure of the section, it may not be suitable to add subsection on a specific discipline but I definitely do not mind it if you think it would be! Anything you're quite interested in writing about regarding translation in evidence yourself? (P.S. Do feel free to add onto what I've already written on the section!) -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your update and sorry that it took me a while to get back to you! I might do a bit of research and see if I find anything interesting to add with regards to translation. (I'll let you know as soon as possible!) - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I read through the limitations section in the translation of evidence section and felt like the section could also include the limitation of the translation of idioms. I have added it to the page, please do read through it and share your thoughts. Thank you. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I just read your section about the limitations of translation in idioms and I think it is really interesting! Especially talking about unconscious bias reminds me of the research I looked into about confirmation bias. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shaunice34! I was reading your bit on strengths and limitations of evidence, which I found quite fascinating. I think another concept that you can explore, and one that we have discussed verbally in depth, is cognitive dissonance. I found literature for you to review and see if its worth adding. 1. https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ztSKhudXJCYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=cognitive+dissonance&ots=EHRQyQkeBQ&sig=1fd7ksbXkSMlcRoYnrtSMap5Exo#v=onepage&q=cognitive%20dissonance&f=false - a book that will explain the theory of cognitive dissonance 2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24936719 - about cognitive dissonance, as a theory and series of experiments 3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1831534 - a real life example of how the theory of cognitive dissonance can be applied to economic models when modelling or predicting consumer behaviour 4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00049536208255449 - a study on cigarette smokers and their cognitive dissonance regarding lung cancer (and vice versa) I found these really insightful, and hope you do too. Good luck! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for these recommendations! I had a read and they are indeed interesting concepts I will probably be adding some of this into my section later on today! Thank you for these!! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I just added the part on cognitive dissonance, maybe you could have a read and let me know if it makes sense. If you have time maybe you could add the part on economics as I don't really have any economic modelling background and didn't want to misinterpret the source... Let me know what you think! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, just sectioned off your paragraphs for better readability. Glad my resources help. I don't have background in economics modelling either - but, in my opinion, what you have written so far is great and sufficient to explain cognitive bias. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Feminist06, I read through the evidence in psychology section and have added another component to it to enhance understanding of the ethical framework behind the evidence collected and reported in psychological research. Please do check it out and feel free to edit or morph it accordingly to help a reader best understand the information. Thank you! - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Citrus48! Thank you so much for your contribution. It was exactly what I was looking for. I did make some edits today, but they were mostly grammatical. Some were regarding the conciseness of information - but nothing major. Thanks again!


 * Hi Feminist06, I'm glad the content aligned accordingly. Thank you for the grammatical corrections, it helps the flow of the text become more easy to read. Thank you. I'd like to recommend reincluding the content, perhaps paraphrased if it is too much content, about the verifiability and reliability of evidence, because while it is not explicitly talking about psychology, it talks about the evidence in psychology as it is an explicit analysis of the ethics and focuses on the main topic of the page: evidence. It would help a reader understand the reliability of evidence in an experimental psychological context and how it is based on an ethical framework that aims to be as objective as possible, even though objectivity itself is a social construction. Please do let me know your thoughts on this inclusion. Thank you. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Great point! Must have removed it by mistake. I'll add it back now :) --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about Formatting, Structure and Referencing
Also, I loved the structure of the market research section - would love to replicate it for my section on psychology! good job guys! --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about Credibility of Source
Hello! So I've added my introduction to the translated documents section. In that section, you can see that I've highlighted that I need to input a reference for the latin word translatio. I've actually gotten this information from [https://www.kwintessential.co.uk/blog/general-interesttranslation/the-history-of-translation#:~:text=It%20is%20known%20that%20translation,was%20translated%20into%20Asian%20languages.&text=In%20later%20periods%2C%20Ancient%20Greek,developed%20literary%20works%20for%20entertainment. this website], but I'm quite skeptical about how credible of a source it is and whether I should use it or try to look for an alternative source that includes that same information. From my brief search of the source website, it seems to be a translation service agency called 'Kwintessential'. According to the information on their website, they are a 15-year old company with some accreditations that work with leading brands, offering professional services in translation and interpretation. Do you guys think this source is credible enough to be used as a reference? Personally, I am on the fence about it. Let me know what you guys think! -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was on the fence originally but seeing that they are a company that has been offering professional translation service for over a decade and in collaboration with large brands, I believe that that makes their claims on translations pretty credible. However, if you believe it is not enough, I am sure you can find an academic source on it, though I personally am unsure what the best type of source would be for translations. Hope it works out! -- I am very blind (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with what is being said above and i had a look at different articles and books on this topic. I happen to come across this chapter on jstor and thought it might be useful for you to have a read to see if it is helpful in any way (this is the link) Hope it helps! --Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply — but thank you! I'll definitely give that a read. Also thank you guys for your input, I've added the reference now as it seems that we all seem to agree that it is a credible source. -- Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions and Comments
I had a read on everyone's contribution so far and they all look really good! One suggestion I have for the 'An Interdisciplinary Examination into Evidence' session: maybe you could try to add subheadings for it? That will help the reader with following your case study! -- Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for the suggestion! I will definitely add subheadings as I agree that it will help with the structure and make the text more readable. Thank you. - Citrus48 (discuss • contribs) 00:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! For whoever is doing Evidence in Advertising and Evidence in Sustainability, I just want to suggest the use of sub-headings. They help break up long pieces of text, improve user navigation and look more organised! The content is amazing, but if some relevant sub-headings could be added, it would elevate your presentation. --Feminist06 (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)