User:Fabdoull/sandbox
,"Article Evaluation"
Evaluating the article about American Literature.
- yes everything in the article is relevant to the article's topic
-nothing distracted me
-no there isn't
-can add a picture of a population work in American literature and more information about the course.(for example, there is more information on britannica about american literature's history.
-yes it is neutral. No claims biased toward a particular position.
-no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoint
-The links work and support the claims
-Most of them have reliable references (books) but the fourth one comes from Dartmouth's website and the claim is giving credit Dartmouth.(biased source)
-it is a Wikiproject education article and has been rated mid-importance
Copyedits
[edit]Next One
[edit]Second One
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garoua&diff=858277607&oldid=847160410
Extra One
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douala&diff=858279686&oldid=858279639
Add to an Article
[edit]Wouri river
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wouri_River&diff=860063258&oldid=717374902
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wouri_River&diff=860063495&oldid=860063258
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wouri_River&diff=860064274&oldid=860063495
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wouri_River&diff=860392303&oldid=860064274
Douala International Airport
[edit]https://phsonline.org/learning/grow-magazine/archive/summer-2017/feature-seeds-of-revolution
Did You Know Template
[edit]*Template:Did you know nominations/Lee Brian Schrager
Evaluation and Quality Control
[edit]*List of Azerbaijan international footballers
The reviews mostly discuss minor editing issues like punctuation, missing characters and word choice. The fourth highlighted a confusion because of an unclear information in the article but mentioned that the source explains it well. There are no reviews about reliability of sources.
There are 4 reviewers on the talk page of the article. The second and the third reviews are deep and thorough, pointing possible changes that could be done and asking questions to know if the article matches the norms of similar articles. The first and last reviewers suggested minor editing changes like putting an hyphen in the middle of two words. The last review was very light because the second and third reviewers did a great job pointing out all the imperfections of the article to help the article writer improve his work.
- Hmm so this wasn't a very exciting FA review--I can tell because this review isn't very exciting either. If you had picked a different one, you would have allowed for a discussion of sourcing etc. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Women on the Internet
[edit]The article entitled “Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet" written by Amanda Hess lays her personal experience as a woman on the internet. In the article, she explains how difficult it is for women experiencing online abuse to talk out because most people, including authorities trivialize or ignore those types of complaints. Amanda Hess also underlines that another thing making online female victims feel helpless is the lack of resources in the local police where most police officers know little if nothing about this virtual world called the Internet. Beside this and more frustrating, the legal authorities provide no clear procedure for appealing to justice in these cases of verbal and psychological attacks which goes sometimes as far as dead threats. To illustrate her point, she tells stories of female victims of online abuse. Some stories are from her friends and some are famous issues related to online abuse that happened these past years.
Among all her examples of online threats cases, the most famous one is probably Caroline Criado-Perez’s who suggested the Bank of England should consider having more female figures on their currency notes. This innocent suggestion and rather of good faith caused a big wave of threats against her. There are other stories showing how difficult it is to be a woman on the internet like her story with the stalker who did not stop haunting her online even though she took him in front of a court or the story of Jessica Valenti, a feminist writer who received many rape and death threats. She included interesting numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics saying “women made up just 22.5 percent of American computer programmers and 19.7 percent of software developers”. This may be a consequent of the treatment they get online.
The internet overflows with psychopaths who target women in particular but also internet users in general. Those cyberbullies use anonymity on certain social medias and blogs to verbally attack other users. On those platforms which held debates on different topics, and let users comment anonymously. When stuck in a debate that requires grounded arguments, these people choose insults and threats to hide their ignorance. Authorities should takes measures that will help facilitate the denunciation and conviction of this kind of behavior. But again, the problem resides in this interrogation. How can we haunt real criminals in this virtual world called the Internet?
Vandalism
[edit]*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Log_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=866065204
Removed picture of map of country and replaced by the image of the front of an album (Black Veil Brides album) and use of inappropriate language in caption
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=next&oldid=866067078
Changed caption, replaced "Teaser poster" by "Grinch Sucks". Inappropriate language.
Deleted 3/4 of the article without giving any explanation and added some information which he linked to a website advertising a business.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flags_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=866071358
He is messing with the page "Flags of Africa" by changing either the names of the countries and replacing them with false names or images of some flags and replacing them with other flags of different country.
Reliability
[edit]Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology
[edit]The journal entitled "Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology" written by Jona Kräenbring and Co. presents the results of a study which had the goal to compare accuracy and completeness of drug information on the German and the English Wikipedia with the content in standard textbooks of Pharmacology. The study evaluated references, revision history and readability of Wikipedia articles on 100 drugs randomly chosen from a list of 300 curricular drugs. Those articles were compared to data on indication, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and contraindications extracted from German and English textbooks of Pharmacology. The result of this study showed that with an average of 99.7%±0.2% of accuracy when compared to data from standard textbooks, Wikipedia articles have a high level of accuracy. Completeness changes in-between categories when when contrasted with overlapping data from the textbooks but keeps an overall average of 83.8±1.5%. While poor readability has resulted from the study for both Wikipedia and textbook articles, the free online encyclopedia averages 14.6±1.6 references and a high number of edits (262.8±37.4) executed by 142.7±17.6 editors. The result of the study shows that Wikipedia articles on drugs are good sources of information for students in medical education.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106930
Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia
[edit]This article from the website Salon written by Andrew Leonard discusses the reliability of Wikipedia by telling the story of user:Qworty on the online platform who created an account to add information to articles related to a specific writer and added erroneous edits in articles of some writers. After investigating, the Wikipediocracy which is the Wikipedia criticism site found that the user Qworty is a writer named Robert Clark Young. He created an account to make "revenge edits" in articles of members of the Sewanee Writers' Conference. when confronted with this accusation, Young first denied any implication with Qworty before finally writing a statement on Wikipedia revealing his real identity and claiming his edits do not violate Wikipedia policies. What the article tries to highlight is the fact that a user with more than 13,000 edits, using Wikipedia to retaliate by making "revenge edits" on writers articles still has the right to stay on the platform even after he revealed his identity should worry million of people using Wikipedia as an informative source. For the Andrew Leonard, this particular case puts into doubt the reliability on the free online encyclopedia.
https://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia