User:Infochick1/sandbox

The article that I chose to edit is about memes , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme . I plan to contribute an example of an online meme on to the article page. I think my contribution is beneficial because the author didn't provide examples of any online memes and adding an example can help readers better understand the concept.

The article that I have selected is "Social Networking Service" under the category Technology in Society ]

The article I chose to critique is, ‘Social Networking Service” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_service. The article is pretty long and contains detailed information that encompasses different aspects of the topic such as its history, definition, features, impact, trends, and etc. The content in the article is relevant to the topic, but I got information overload because the article covers so many different elements. However, I think this a good thing because people who read the article can become well informed. The article was neutral, the author presented information without any bias towards a particular position. The facts presented in the article are referenced by a footnote that takes you to the sources used. There are hundred of references used, most come from reliable sources such as academic journals and studies, while others come from news articles. I noticed that the author used close paraphrasing in the beginning of his article. When I clicked on the source, the content in the original source was really similar to what the author wrote. Like previously stated, some of the information comes from academic journal articles and studies, which seem to be neutral and provide facts and studies for readers. However, some references are news websites that seem to have a particular stance on the topic of social networks. These sites are somewhat biased as they present only the information that they want viewers to read, which can influence readers’ opinions. Some of the news outlets used include Daily Mail and CBS. Furthermore, when I clicked on some of the citations, some of the links did not work or the source no longer exists. In terms of the importance of the content in the article, I think that the section about patents is overrepresented as many people might not find that of importance when talking about social networks. Additionally, I don’t think that the information in the article is outdated. The sources used range from early 2000s to 2016, which is a pretty good range. However, as we all know, technology is always evolving and with this comes new innovations such as new social network platforms. Therefore, it would be nice if the article included a section about the future of social networks. Overall, I liked reading the article and would recommend it to those who want to know a little bit more about social networks. The article covers aspects of social networks that is quite interesting to read, such as how companies use social networks to target customers.