User:Its Gabe/sandbox: Difference between revisions
This is a response to the article elvaution we were assigned for week 3 |
m I removed the middle dividers. |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
For the most part, the sources look reliable. There were a few that I wasn’t too sure about. Some links did not work like that of the Advocates for international development. Upon clicking the link the words “page not found” appeared. Some of the sources looked old and with a topic as progressive as Privacy, it is important that most of the sources cited are this article are not those of which about fifteen years old. With that said in regards to the prevalence of the article for this most part that article was that, but I did wish more was spoken about in the political section other than just the voting process. The topics were treated like separate entities. The legality section was short and prompt. Sources look neutral. Additionally, I didn’t observe any close paraphrasing. |
For the most part, the sources look reliable. There were a few that I wasn’t too sure about. Some links did not work like that of the Advocates for international development. Upon clicking the link the words “page not found” appeared. Some of the sources looked old and with a topic as progressive as Privacy, it is important that most of the sources cited are this article are not those of which about fifteen years old. With that said in regards to the prevalence of the article for this most part that article was that, but I did wish more was spoken about in the political section other than just the voting process. The topics were treated like separate entities. The legality section was short and prompt. Sources look neutral. Additionally, I didn’t observe any close paraphrasing. |
||
------------ |
|||
This Wikipedia article is extensive in terms of information but unfortunately, lack structural organizations and was written like a manual. This is evident in subheadings addressing how one could protect their social networking privacy and what to be on the lookout for when dealing with privacy policies/agreements as well as the use of sources like the Facebook help center. There were a couple of invalid dates in the bibliography section as well. For an article written with a purpose of guiding the everyday Sally and Joe through social media, I thought it was contradictory that it was not written in less sophisticated, difficult language but instead with an advanced set of vocabularies. The History section of the article was very weak. The section there about a lawsuit that should be removed. It was not necessary. I wished it talked more about the history of the rise of modern social networking the shift from Myspace, Instant messaging/AOL/Yahoo to what we see now today and what historical events contributed to this. As earlier stated the content was very comprehensive and difficult to read. With that said, the article did a phenomenal job in being up to date by including relatively new apps likes SnapChat and spoke about the continual fight with school and privacy. It would have been nice to see one that spoke about this topic in relation to the state government. Though biased and contained some close paraphrasing, this article did a good job in speaking about this medium and its impact on the lives of many. |
This Wikipedia article is extensive in terms of information but unfortunately, lack structural organizations and was written like a manual. This is evident in subheadings addressing how one could protect their social networking privacy and what to be on the lookout for when dealing with privacy policies/agreements as well as the use of sources like the Facebook help center. There were a couple of invalid dates in the bibliography section as well. For an article written with a purpose of guiding the everyday Sally and Joe through social media, I thought it was contradictory that it was not written in less sophisticated, difficult language but instead with an advanced set of vocabularies. The History section of the article was very weak. The section there about a lawsuit that should be removed. It was not necessary. I wished it talked more about the history of the rise of modern social networking the shift from Myspace, Instant messaging/AOL/Yahoo to what we see now today and what historical events contributed to this. As earlier stated the content was very comprehensive and difficult to read. With that said, the article did a phenomenal job in being up to date by including relatively new apps likes SnapChat and spoke about the continual fight with school and privacy. It would have been nice to see one that spoke about this topic in relation to the state government. Though biased and contained some close paraphrasing, this article did a good job in speaking about this medium and its impact on the lives of many. |
||
[[User:Its Gabe|Its Gabe]] ([[User talk:Its Gabe|talk]]) 20:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Its Gabe|Its Gabe]] ([[User talk:Its Gabe|talk]]) 20:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 20:11, 10 March 2017
 | This is a user sandbox of Its Gabe. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
WEEK 3: Assignment
For the most part, the sources look reliable. There were a few that I wasn’t too sure about. Some links did not work like that of the Advocates for international development. Upon clicking the link the words “page not found” appeared. Some of the sources looked old and with a topic as progressive as Privacy, it is important that most of the sources cited are this article are not those of which about fifteen years old. With that said in regards to the prevalence of the article for this most part that article was that, but I did wish more was spoken about in the political section other than just the voting process. The topics were treated like separate entities. The legality section was short and prompt. Sources look neutral. Additionally, I didn’t observe any close paraphrasing.
This Wikipedia article is extensive in terms of information but unfortunately, lack structural organizations and was written like a manual. This is evident in subheadings addressing how one could protect their social networking privacy and what to be on the lookout for when dealing with privacy policies/agreements as well as the use of sources like the Facebook help center. There were a couple of invalid dates in the bibliography section as well. For an article written with a purpose of guiding the everyday Sally and Joe through social media, I thought it was contradictory that it was not written in less sophisticated, difficult language but instead with an advanced set of vocabularies. The History section of the article was very weak. The section there about a lawsuit that should be removed. It was not necessary. I wished it talked more about the history of the rise of modern social networking the shift from Myspace, Instant messaging/AOL/Yahoo to what we see now today and what historical events contributed to this. As earlier stated the content was very comprehensive and difficult to read. With that said, the article did a phenomenal job in being up to date by including relatively new apps likes SnapChat and spoke about the continual fight with school and privacy. It would have been nice to see one that spoke about this topic in relation to the state government. Though biased and contained some close paraphrasing, this article did a good job in speaking about this medium and its impact on the lives of many. Its Gabe (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)