User:Justmatko/sandbox
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.[1] (This should look pretty familiar to Dr. Cunningham :) )
"Bots and Political Influence: A Sociotechnical Investigation of Social Network Capital." [2]
"Technological Change in a Multicultural Context, Applied Psychology of"[3] (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?
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.
- 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- Is any information out of date?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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
 | This is a user sandbox of Justmatko. 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. |
- ^ Cunningham, Carolyn (Spring 2015). ""Men Are Like Bluetooth, Women Are Like Wi-Fi": What Feminist Technology Studies Can Add to the Study of Information and Communication Technologies". Northwest Journal of Communication. Volume 43. Issue 1: p. 7-21 – via EBSCO.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help);|volume=has extra text (help) - ^ "Bots and Political Influence: A Sociotechnical Investigation of Social Network Capital". International Journal of Communication. 10: 4952–4971. 2016 – via EBSCO.
- ^ Hesketh, B (2001). "Technological Change in a Multicultural Context, Applied Psychology of". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: 15492–15495 – via Science Direct.