Talk:Digital citizen

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HALLÉCiON, Mnola19, Kstrin8 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamng926 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Berkeleynicholas, Alex K. Tran. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matthewvan1 (article contribs).

Potential Bibliography

I would like to get to know your thoughts and opinions on this bibliography. I am looking to cite more statistics and factual information to back up many of the assumptions that are written and expand on cyberbullying and the effect of digital technology.

1. Ribble, Mike. Digital Citizenship in Schools: Nine Elements All Students Should Know. International Society for Technology in Education, 2015.

2. Mattson, Kristen. Digital Citizenship in Action Empowering Students to Engage in Online Communities. International Society for Technology in Education, 2017.

3. Ribble, Mike, and Marty Park. The Digital Citizenship Handbook for School Leaders: Fostering Positive Interactions Online. International Society for Technology in Education, 2019.

4. Wallace, K. (2015, November 03). Teens spend 9 hours a day using media, report says. Retrieved October 03, 2017[1]

5. Anderson, M. & Jiang, J. (2018, May 31). Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Retrieved June 23, 2018[2]

6. Patchin, J. (2017, August 08). Summary of Our Cyberbullying Research (2004-2016). Retrieved October 05, 2017[3]

7. Ramasubbu, S. (2015, May 6). Influence of Social Media on Teenagers. Retrieved October 4, 2016. (Common Sense Media Study)[4]

8. Lenhart, A. (2015, April 08). Mobile Access Shifts Social Media Use and Other Online Activities. Retrieved October 05, 2017[5]

9. Common Sense Media (2015). The Common Sense Census. Retrieved July 23, 2018[6]

Comment

Would like to know the ORIGIN of this Digital Citizenship term.

Don't merge

It's beyond stupid - it's simply a suggestion from someone who hates the term for some reason. Typically a hacker would dislike digital citizens because if there are legal such it means hackers are criminals devaluing those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.147.122 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digital citizen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150606083157/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Internet+pushing+governments+more+open+digital+expert+says/5736026/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Internet+pushing+governments+more+open+digital+expert+says/5736026/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested modifications for clarity and accuracy

In reading the Digital Citizen article I found a few areas that may benefit from revision, error correction, or inclusion of attribution. These modifications would help the article to more fully reach Wikipedia’s Five Pillars standards. Encyclopedic Content: I would encourage removing acronyms that do not also include the actual words, i.e. under the main section, “Digital Citizen,” second paragraph, third line the article contains B2C and B2B. While links are included the concept could be clarified if the words were spelled out followed by the acronyms in parentheses as recommend in most style manuals. Neutral Point, Attribution, and Encyclopedic Content: There appears to be a few areas where appropriate attribution is lacking: Under the “Digital Citizen” section, third paragraph last sentence (Shelley, et al.) should also include a link to a footnote and should be corrected to (Shelley et al., date) remove comma after Shelley and add date. Under the section “Engagement of Youth” second paragraph, last sentence, there is no attribution, thus the information could be considered opinion. I also suggest changing the word “class” to “socio-economic status,” this, of course, following the documentation of a citation.Beaucoup Simp (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reconsider this page appearing on Wikipedia until it can be vastly improved. Currently,it does not seem to adhere to Wikipedia's Five Pillars Standards. This article seems to lack encyclopedia characteristics in that it is poorly written and lacks professionalism. Regarding a neutral point of view, it is an important topic but the contributions sometimes lack attribution. Even where attribution exists is not always of academic caliber and sometimes the citations do not follow style manual recommendations. Perhaps an editor would like to work on improving this page so that its content is more beneficial to the people accessing the page. Beaucoup Simp (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beaucoup Simp: Why don't you go ahead and make these changes? I don't agree that it's so bad that it shouldn't appear on Wikipedia. --Fixuture (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

-“ Digital technology can lower the barriers to entry for participation as a citizen within society.” Not sure what this means completely. Since your audience is so vast, make sure that a person who may have no knowledge on this topic could easily read this and interpret it correctly.

-“Lack of access toward becoming a digital citizen can be a serious drawback, since many elementary procedures such as tax report filing, birth registration, and use of Web sites to support candidates in political campaigns (E-democracy) etc. have been transferred to only be available via the Internet.” This sentence could also be formatted to be more clear- what exactly are you trying to say? How does lack of access to becoming a digital citizen connect with elementary procedures? After ‘etc.’ there needs to be a comma.

-“In developing countries digital citizens are more sparse. They consist of the people in such countries who utilize technology to overcome their localized obstacles including development issues, corruption, and even military conflict” this is also a little confusing to me, make sure to keep your audience in mind!

Lead- The lead of the article looks great! It opens with defining the topic you will talk about to give a general sense of what will come next. Clear structure- The third paragraph is the only thing that confused me a little, all the other ones looked great! Balanced coverage- It is pretty well balanced, the only thing you could do is maybe add a little more about developing countries Neutral content- the content is neutral and shows no bias Reliable sources- The sources #5 and #6 are from news sites, check to make sure they are reliable! Tone- It sounds more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Words like ‘likewise’ and ‘furthermore’ give it an essay tone. Like instead of “Furthermore, many cultural and commercial entities” If it were just “Many cultural and commercial…” it would sound more like an encyclopedia work Overall: I think the article is good and includes the necessary aspects! Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blantz71 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)