User:Gdeluca33/sandbox

April 8th, 2019: Add to an article

For the Add to an Article Wikipedia exercise, I chose to add to the Wikipedia page for Shakespeare: The Animated Tales. In the introduction of this article, I added the sentence "However, the series has been critiqued for the large number of scenes cut to make the episodes shorter in length." There are no critiques of the series included in the article, and this one sentence could likely be expanded into an entire section on its own. After the sentence, I added a citation from the source I used called "Teens, Shakespeare, and the Dumbing Down Cliché: The Case of The Animated Tales" by Gregory M. Colón Semenza. To do this, I used the steps I learned in the citation training module. I completed this assignment early as it is due on April 14th.

Article Evaluation for ENGL304: Kairos

• Evaluating content:
  • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
    • For the article I chose to evaluate, I was assigned to edit the page in ENGL489J: Digital Rhetorics last spring. Although my peers and I made some improvements to the page on Kairos, there is a lot more work that needs to be done for it to be deemed a useful Wikipedia page. Everything that is already on the page is relevant to Kairos, and the different sections include: a general definition, origins, context in classical rhetoric, modern rhetorical definition, context in Christian theology, context in science, context in digital media, along with "see also," "notes," and "further reading." Initially, I was distracted by the two images on the right side of the page as they lack clear captions to help determine what they are.
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
    • In the citations, the sources range from 1968-2012. Given that the 1968 citation is work by Lloyd Bitzer, that source is still relevant although it was published relatively long ago. However, the sources in the 2000s should be revisited to ensure that they are still relevant. It would be helpful to put the older sources in conversation with newer resources pertaining to Kairos and how its use has changed over time. The portion of Kairos in digital media is what I added along with my peers this past spring, and I believe it needs more credible source citations to support what was added. However, I do not believe new sections are necessary to add to this article.
  • What else could be improved?
    • The format of the page would benefit from choosing a single picture instead of two pictures placed on the right side of the page. It is distracting to have two pictures in line with each other, especially with weak captions. Also, the headings should all match in format, which means the "Modern rhetorical definition" title should be changed to "In modern rhetoric." In sum, there is no "wow" factor to this page, which should be added through a specific example of howKairos is used for the audience to remain interested.
• Evaluating tone:
  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • The article has a neutral tone, however it appeals only to the Christian religion. This may seem like those contributing to the page only see the importance of Kairos from a narrow point of view. This can be fixed by adding sections that pertain to other religions or a statement saying it is not relevant or used in other religions. This is the only indication of bias in the article, as the rest of the work is written in a more technical way.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • This aligns with my response to the question above, as the viewpoint that pertains to Christian theology can be considered overrepresented in the article. This is due to the fact that there is an entire section dedicated to the Christian religion, which no mention of other religions. Because this is the case, other religions are underrepresented in the article. A solution to this would be to add more information about why it is used in Christian theology and not in other theologies. Or, if Kairos is used in other theologies, expanding on this would help the article.
• Evaluating sources:
  • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
    • All of the links provided in the citations work and open a page with the source provided. However, sources 3, 11, 12, and 13 do not have links included in the citations. Links to these resources should be added in order for the page to be deemed reliable. Ultimately, all of the citations contribute valuable, credible information that is relevant to the term Kairos. However, it established more exigence to add in links to the sources that are missing links in their 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?
    • Most of the facts on the page reference an appropriate, reliable reference. This is indicated by proper citations that were added during the editing process. The main issue in the citations portion of the Kairos page are the citations that do not have links attached to them. These sources are mainly peer reviewed journals which helps the credibility of the page greatly, and they are talked about in a neutral way. The portion of the page that I worked on in ENGL489J is the digital media section of this page, which could be considered biased in some ways. The bias is not noted, however, there is a lot of paraphrasing that lacks citation. More citations in the digital media portion would lessen the bias in the article.
• Checking the Talk Page:
  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • The Talk Page is underdeveloped on the Kairos article. There are only 6 conversations started about this article that propose minor changes such as a dispute about the Chinese word for "crisis" in 2006. However, one person talked about a questionable source which is helpful (2012) and another person recommended that the page be restructured (2008). Overall, the conversations on the Talk Page are mostly about revitalizing the article and making it reliable for people to reference.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • This article is rated as a "C" on the quality scale and does not yet have a rating on the importance scale. This means that it is a developed article but may be missing significant information, have unnecessary information, include a few reliable sources, but overall can still be improved greatly. Kairos on Wikipedia is part of the WikiProject Time, which has the goal of strengthening how time is covered on Wikipedia (because Kairos is a term about timing). Also, the Kairos page was already part of the Wiki Education Foundation for students to revise, which I participated in last spring. Still, the article would benefit from a lot more work!
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • In class, we have not talked about the term Kairos as we are permitted to choose articles for this evaluation that do not relate to our class. However, evaluating this article made it clear to me that examples of great Wikipedia pages such as Romeo and Juliet take a large amount of time and effort to complete. But, this time and effort is necessary in order to make the information helpful to those using Wikipedia. It is important that our class is participating in the Wiki Education Foundation because the Cymbeline page needs to reach a point where it is productive, which means it is useful and necessary for us to spend time revising the article.

Article Evaluation: "List of most popular websites"

• • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
    • Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. There is a brief introduction to what the article is listing, the most influential websites, and how they are ranked. Nothing distracted me on this page.
  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • This article is neutral and uses only hard facts to support it's claims. There is no bias because the information is based on data with quality sources.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • There are no viewpoints represented because the article is only using data to prove its claims.
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
    • There is a warning at the top of the page that says this information is outdated and needs to be updated. This list is from 2017, so it needs to be reworked for 2018.
  • 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?
    • Each source as a reference but the data on this page is unreliable because it is outdated. The information comes from a variety of sources that include peer-reviewed information about how the list was made and how the order was determined. These are neutral, unbiased sources because it is factual data.
  • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
    • All of the citations lead to the page they are directed to. They support the claims in the article, however the claims in the article are outdated.
  • 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 has a discussion dating back to 2013 about the data being wrong and needing to be reordered. Users say that this page is pointless because the information given is incorrect.
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • The article is not rated well because of its mistakes and is not part of any WikiProjects.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way it's been discussed in class?
    • The way this Wikipedia page discusses this topic differs from the way it's been discussed in class because we did not use any sources to back up what we each considered the most influential website in our lives. Although the data is outdated, there are citations for websites that were used to support the claims made in this article.
    • ~~~~

Added the sentence for the "Add to an article" assignment (List of most popular websites):

This is an updated list of the most popular websites on the Internet. These websites are proven to be the most influential websites of all time according to Time Magazine.(http://time.com/4960202/most-influential-websites/) to the "List of most popular websites" Wikipedia page.

Made the following changes for the "Copyediting an article" assignment: Gilster described digital literacy as the usage and comprehension of information in the digital age, and also emphasized the importance of digital technologies as an "essential life skill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_literacy).

Computer literacy refers to knowledge and skills in using traditional computers, such as desktop PCs and laptops, and previously proceeded digital literacy.

However, there is a large significance as a result of the combination of these two terms.

Week Three: Choose Possible Topics Assignment: Choose 3-5 articles and talk about improvements, then choose 2-3 articles to provide sources for and what can be improved.

Topic: Internet Culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website_spoofing The talk section indicates that this page is poorly written. It had unnecessary content that has already been removed by previous users and lacks sufficient resources. Sources: https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/definition/website-spoofing http://sip.cs.princeton.edu/pub/spoofing.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3355193/Top-ten-spoof-websites.html

Topic: Virtual Reality Worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkinz This article stood out to me because the first notification of the page says that it needs to be updated and needs additional citations for verification. It is about the online child's world of Webkinz. Sources: http://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cyberbullying-prevention_Wright_p169-177-Final.pdf http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00220411211225566?mbSc=1&fullSc=1&journalCode=jd https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1912955531/developing-the-gamer-disposition-the-key-to-training

Topic: Online dating applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_dating_applications This page gives brief information about online dating. However, the information seems too general. This article seems to have been made my a student and has peer reviews in the talk section, indicating that the organization needs to be changed and more sources are needed. Sources: https://www3.nd.edu/~ghaeffel/OnineDating_Aron.pdf http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165394 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783316662718

Topic: Social Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yik_Yak The talk page of this article indicates that the information should be updated as a result of most of the information on the page being provided by a deactivated, single-use account. Sources with information about the more advanced features of the application would improve this article. Because this assignment only requires sources to be found for 2-3 of the 3-5 articles we needed to find, I will not be providing sources for this article.

Response to Peer Reviews

The feedback my group received on our changes to the "Kairos" article were extremely helpful and constructive. Alisa talked about how she believed we had begun our edits in a sufficient manner, and should focus on placing a section between the "origins" and "classical" definitions of kairos. Additionally, she recommended we expand the application of kairos to the modern world. We took Alisa's advice during our final drafting of the project, as we added a section about kairos in science, kairos in digital media, and the problem of context in the digital world.

The next review was written by Vanna, in which she recommended we focus on the sophist application of the term, in which research has been generated by sophists that someone's own truth can be constructed , make people believe it, and using timing to make sure they do in fact believe it. This was an extremely interesting point for Vanna to make, however because I focused on the modern applications of kairos, I did not focus on this area of the term.

The last peer review we received came form Nate, who recommended that we expand on the two sides of the debate surrounding kairos. The way Nate recommended we achieve this is by finding scholarship that will be useful in making both sides of the argument. Although I understand what Nate was saying, we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a neutral online encyclopedia. Because of this, we took our sources and rephrased the information in an unbiased manner. We appreciate that Nate commented on how our article was developing nicely, however the unbiased nature of Wikipedia prohibited us from taking this advice. Overall, receiving feedback from our peers was helpful in guiding the final edits of our article and making sure we covered the topic effectively.

All sources found (3 used in actual article) for Wikipedia page titled "Kairos:"

Kairos and New Media: Enculturation. enculturaltion.net. Retrieved 2018-02-22.

Lockridge, Timothy1, timlockridge@miamioh.edu, et al. "The Kairos Preservation Project." Computers & Composition, vol. 46, Dec. 2017, pp. 72-86. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.002.

Peary, Alexandria. "The Role of Mindfulness inKairos". Rhetoric Review. 35 (1): 22–34. doi:10.1080/07350198.2016.1107825.

Porter, James E. (2009). "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric." PDF. Computers and Composition: 207-224.

Sills, Ellery. "Emerging Genres, Dangerous Classifications: The Kairos of Digital Composing Policy." Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 78, no. 5, Nov. 2017.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2017873944&site=ehost-live.