Roger Cassi Response 2

Roger Cassi

September 24, 2008

Persuasive Writing

Second Reaction Paper

If you type your name into Wikipedia and nothing is found, does that mean you do not exist. Or even worse, there is a Wiki site devoted to slandering your name. Who concludes if this information is credible or not? How do we find credible information to argue against it or create our own argument? And how do we determine this information is credible. All of these questions were recently answered in an enlightening experience involving Wikipedia and Temple University supplied databases. I set out to answer three key questions established about my topic, which is legalization of marijuana. These three questions were, why do people smoke marijuana, what do marijuana users substitute the use of marijuana with, and who uses marijuana more in regards to sex.
I began by searching the databases I had just been taught to use for newspaper articles, professional journals, and scholarly journals. I was surprised with the ease of finding these categories of credible material, and the sheer amount of credible information that was presented. I used a professional journal entry to answer my question regarding why people use marijuana. The journal informed me on many interesting facts on marijuana use. The main point it revolved around was pleasure. People use marijuana because it is pleasurable. It relieves stress, depression, and helps coupe with everyday life. It also revealed a study whose test subjects smoked for social reasons. These subjects chose to smoke marijuana so they could enter a social environment free of insecurities. This would aid the process of making lifelong. This information was supported by quotes from accepted authority figures on this subject, which brought a true sense of credibility. Not only was I on databases established as credible by my university, but the article itself used methods to prove why Temple University had determined their credibility in the first place.
Also supporting the information with accepted authority figures was the newspaper article used to answer the question about a substitute to marijuana. Not only did they utilize these two methods of credibility, but they also used a great number of statistics from official studies. From his studies, the author concluded that the main substitute for marijuana was prescription drugs such as painkillers, tranquilizers, and psychotherapeutic drugs. He then backs his deductions with stats. For example, "males ranging in ages from 12 to 25, one third abuse prescription drugs". Statistics taken directly from government approved studies helps a great deal with the credibility of your argument. The scholarly journal used to answer, who uses marijuana more in regards to sex, also used these two methods to make their work credible. The author focused on a study that showed that girls have caught up with boys in illicit drug use. The study also illustrated that girls were more vulnerable to the negative physical and psychological effects of marijuana. The author than used statistics and quotes from an authority figure to show that in the year 2003-2004, more females started using marijuana as opposed to males. The methods the author chooses to instill credibility into his article reinforced what I had seen in the first two articles.
Taking what I had just learned from my research experience, I entered information into an existing Wiki called Legality of Cannabis. This Wiki is devoted to the history of illegalization of marijuana, and the existing laws concerning marijuana in different countries. I originally entered erroneous information stating, "In the United States, every four out of five people you see each day will be reprimanded for a marijuana related drug charge in their lifetime." I was neither excited nor guilty about making up information and posting it on Wiki. I felt that if anything, I was making the topic more interesting by making a fact that readers could relate to, and possibly think about as they walk among the public. Before I could even get a screen shot, it was deleted from the site. This dumbfounded me. I am unsure on how Wiki supervising works, but I am assuming that someone was checking the exact moment I posted my information. Frustrated with the lack of screenshot, and disproval of my erroneous entry, I decided to enter credible information I had found earlier from the NORML website. My new entry stated, "Marijuana arrests for the year 2007 was recorded at 872,721. This tops the 2006’s record high by five percent." I took my screenshot and waited. I refreshed the page and the information was still there. The next day I checked again and it was still there, which started to educe feelings of excitement. I found entering credible information that will be on the Wiki site for a long period of time, much more exciting then entering erroneous information. My experience made me respect the credibility of Wiki a great deal more. My past thoughts of Wiki were negative. I was always told by high school teachers to never use that site no matter what. Now that I have seen the extensive supervision of the site, and all-embracing use of sources, I feel credible using the information and knowledge I gain from a Wiki.
Overall, my research experience was effective in determining some key points of defining what is credible and how it is credible. Before this experience, credibility was something I assumed to be present. I had a great deal of trust in the author, and always accepted them as an authority figure. Now I can clearly see that use of quotes from authority figures on the issue, and statistics and findings from official studies, really enhances an article or arguments credibility. Not only did my experience with the databases help realize this, but also seeing that even a Wiki can instill credibly through similar methods helped. I also appreciated the intense use of supervision Wikipedia illustrated that many credible sources take pride in. Credibility is not something to be taken lightly. It will make or break your argument.