Talk:Digital citizen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

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

Don't merge[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested modifications for clarity and accuracy[edit]

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)