User:Justmatko/sandbox

Mutual Shaping (Draft)

The following are edits I plan on making to the article Mutual Shaping. Here is my new sandbox with my draft of the changes: User:Justmatko/New sandbox

1) Change the beginning section, to clearly define mutual shaping from the start. The new rewrites will look like the following:

Mutual shaping suggests that society and technology are not mutually exclusive to one another and, instead, influence and shape each other. This process is a combination of social determinism and technological determinism. The term mutual shaping was developed through Science and Technology Studies (STS) in an attempt to explain the detailed process of technological design.

2) Add a section before "In Social Networks" titled "Early Examples"

Technology innovations have long been tied to social changes. The move to an industrial society from an agricultural society meant that people had to adjust their social interactions. Agricultural societies have a few, distant and long term relationships with people, while industrial societies have more casual, short term relationships.

Technological innovations also don't work in isolation from social change and vice versa. For example, while the telephone was initially invented as an extension of the telegraph, with a focus on business, the telephone quickly became a popular way for people to chat socially. Telephone companies then began to make innovations to enhance social interactions.

3) Capitalize the section titled "In social networks" to make it more formal, and match the other sections.

4) Add a section called "The Negative Impact" including the following information.

Smartphones were created in order to make the user's life easier and more convenient. However, the social stigma around smartphone use has centered around how technology addiction can lead to increased stress and anxiety for the users.

Feedback

I would love some feedback specifically on if I should include the idea of sociotechnical systems into the page...and if it even fits. Also anything else I should add or change.

Wikipedia Exercise 4/14 (Adding Sources)

One example of technology and social change working together would be with the telephone. While the telephone initially invented as an extension of the telegraph, with a focus on business, the telephone quickly became a popular way for people to chat socially. Telephone companies then began to make innovations to enhance social interactions.

Wikipedia Edit 4/7 (The Sources)

The article I'm working on editing is Mutual Shaping

My immediate reactions to this article is that it is not really helpful in explaining what Mutual Shaping is, and does not do a good job of telling me what Mutual Shaping looks like, or providing me any evidence that Mutual Shaping is actually a thing.

I want to give more practical examples using information about how technology and social media "bots" help to move social thought. I also want to bring up the idea of sociotechnical systems, because this is a similar idea to what mutual shaping is, and the wikipedia article for it is much more comprehensive.

Sources I will be using:

"Men Are Like Bluetooth, Women Are Like Wi-Fi": What Feminist Technology Studies Can Add to the Study of Information and Communication Technologies. (This should look pretty familiar to Dr. Cunningham :) )

"Bots and Political Influence: A Sociotechnical Investigation of Social Network Capital."

"Technological Change in a Multicultural Context, Applied Psychology of" (this source seems shaky to me...I like the idea and the general outline...but I can't find it in it's entirety. Do we have access to science direct at Gonzaga?

"Technology and Social Change" Could be a good article to use if the science direct article doesn't pan out. (Upon further review...this website might not be the most helpful.

Article Evaluation 3/31

The Article I'm evaluating is Audience

Content

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • There were a few things about this article that seemed out of place for me. In the opening section they talk about citizen's journalism and have quote from Jeff Jarvis and Tom Curley. Neither seemed relevant.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • They use a lot of examples in the examples section. but they are old or not specific. A unique mention would be the HQ trivia game that has audiences compete with each other for money.
• What else could be improved?
  • No mention of persuasive appeals. It's hard for me to think of audience without Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Even a link to them would be nice.

Tone

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Seems neutral and unbiased. They do talk about the shift of the internet and it's role in the audience, and say the quote "Internet creates a chance of being part of an audience and a creator at the same time." but there is not explanation to why this is.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • I don't believe so.

Sources

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The links all work. One of the articles was from the way back machine...but it was posted on a website called "pressthink" I'm not sure how credible this source actually is.
  • There is also a post to a JSTOR article, but it is not accessible without a subscription to JSTOR. I could buy the article for $47 dollars. I'm not really sure how Wikipedia accepts sources from books and from journals like JSTOR because they are hard to double check and make sure the information being used is relevant and credible.
• 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?
  • A lot of the sources referenced in the article are only done so superficially. There is not a lot of data or facts shared with the reader. The first reference is a link to a Think Press article, but the item used from that website is only a quote from a media executive. It's problematic that the author didn't find the primary source and cite that...because the website that was listed actually had a hyperlink to the primary source, and article written by Jeff Jarvis himself. [1]
  • Overall the article is pretty general.

Checking the talk page

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Not much. There was someone who commented on how they changed a source so it could be accessed instead of a dead link. Then there was another comment by someone who was confused how players could be part of an audience in regards to video games.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This is an article that is rated "Start-Class". Apparently, Wikipedia selects daily articles for improvement, and this one was selected as one in 2013. The changes that were made during this were minor...and focused on adding some more words, rather than an overhaul of content and sources.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • We haven't really talked much about audience specifically, but I like how this article brings up the internet and how it changes audience. Leaving comments on videos that people can see makes a viewer an important part of the content that they are watching. It gets even more connected when the content creator responds to the audiences comments. The line between audience and speaker is getting ever thinner.

Practice 3/31

Justin Matkovich

Bold