User:Ishangill10/sandbox

Article Evaluation

My evaluation is on the article of digital media on Wikipedia. After reading the article and trying to get a better idea of what digital media is, and how it relates to civic technology and the class, I learned a great deal. Something that distracted me was that there was quite a bit of talk about coding and the article briefly dove into the specifics of it, and how it related to digital media. This may have been giving more background, but in reality it is not the information I am seeking to absorb from reading this article. I found this article to be quite neutral, since the topic is quite broad and general. I assume there have been many people who have worked on this article over time, and it is relevant to a great deal of topics. There are no aspects of the article that are heavily biased, and the topic itself is not controversial. I would not say there are viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented, but there are certain topics consistently brought up, especially regarding the history of digital media that do not illuminate new information. The information does not seem out of date, and since a topic such as digital media is relevant, I assume it is being updated relatively consistently. Including this, the links on the citations work, and the source does indeed support the claims made in the article, especially regarding the history of digital media and the coding aspects of the article. The talk page of the article seems to be simply reviewing sources and offering new information that could help support the purpose of the article. This article is rated as C-class. The WikiProjects it is of interest to are WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Electronics, WikiProject Media, and WikiProject Libraries. The Wikipedia article itself discussed digital media much more extensively than we do in class. In our class, it is more relevant to look at it from the perspective of how it related to civic engagement and civic technology.

Talk:Digital media

Possible Articles to Work On

Potential Topics:

1. Voter Turnout
2. Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area
3. General Data Protection Regulation

Actual Improvements:

General Data Protection Regulation - My initial impression is that the sources for this article could be a bit more comprehensive. The right to our own personal data is a topic coming up more and more often in today's day and age. To what extent is our data from our online footprint actually ours, and is it ethical for corporations to mine this data and use it to influence our decisions. The main reason this comes into play is because data was used to manipulate hundreds of thousands if not millions in the past election, and this led people to question the validity of our democracy. Large, billion dollar corporations have, in recent years, had the power to buyout people's vote through profiling their preferences, hence the scandal with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. This raises the question of whether it is intrinsically a human right to own our own data. This article speaks more to the historical background of GDPR, but should discuss the civic implications of data and how it plays a role in our elections. These topics are slowly becoming more relevant, and questioning how much anti-trust investigation is actually occurring amongst larger organizations and the government is also important. When it comes to data, and how much big data can be used to manipulate people's decisions, we must keep in mind current regulations and legislations about this topic, and address the faults within them as well. Documents regarding these issues should be dynamic, being that we live in an ever-changing world, and being able to address the flaws in current regulation is an essential step in enacting new, more effective legislation. I find this article lacks the depth to be able to do this and remain unbiased.

Homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area - Personally, I feel as though homelessness is a widespread issue in the San Francisco Bay Area, and plays a large role in the perspective and experiences of Bay Area residents. I think the homelessness epidemic affects how people vote as well, and therefore relates to civic engagement and civic technology, though the article does not cover this much. The cultural effect of widespread homelessness and how it influences other people's thoughts and perspectives was not highlighted in this article. For example, I think it is important to note that the amount of homeless people in Berkeley is very high, and Berkeley students are constantly interacting with or observing homeless people on a daily basis. For students to go through their formative years of college witnessing the unfortunate lives of so many other people around them surely plays a role in how they vote, and their stance on the policies/issues of homelessness. Voter turnout is also affected by the large homeless population in the San Francisco Bay Area, an area which has historically been a more liberal and Democratic-leaning part of California. Including this, one thing to be brought into the conversation is giving homeless people the outlet and resources to vote, and how this may factor into the determining of certain elections or policies. Enacting laws that argue in favor of this, or introducing some sort of civic technology that grants broader voting access to the homeless could be a chance for them to have their voice heard. The dehumanizing experiences that the homeless so often go through may be counteracted with potential voting privileges or resources. All the above were not described well in depth by the article, and many of these considerations should be made when addressing the issue of homelessness in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Improvements to Civic journalism Article (Contributions):

My final article selection is Civic journalism. A few improvements I hope to make are to include more information to describe this philosophy itself. Including this, I plan on improving this article by adding relevant key information to it that enables individuals to incorporate the process into their daily lives as voters. I believe that civic journalism is a great idea, and integrating journalism into the democratic process would help inform voters and make them more aware of what is occurring in the political sphere. Including this, it could make a difference in the democratic process if all voters were equally informed. However, I believe an important aspect is ensuring that the information received by the public is all accurate and fact-checked. This is an important aspect that sometimes gives journalism, and certain news sources, a bad reputation. I hope to increase awareness on how accuracy in political news and journalism can enable voters to be more involved in the democratic process. Civic journalism itself is the process of integrating journalism into the democratic process and allowing voters and the media to play a more active role rather than being witnesses and bystanders in what happens in the political sphere. I think technology also plays a substantial role in educating voters and determining viewpoints. I hope to discuss more of how technology can be involved in civic journalism and how it affects democracy on a larger scale as well. I have cited my intentions on the article's talk page and also included potential research links as a bibliography.

Drafting My Contributions:

Overview

Civic journalism has began to develop a strong following again after first emerging as a philosophy in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Those who find civic journalism to be a new, progressive, and profound method for the media to engage with the public see it as an opportunity to revitalize democracy as we know it. As technological advances overtake the modern world, it is becoming less common for the general public to buy newspapers or watch TV news to inform themselves on the events in the political sphere. Including this, younger generations, such as Generation X, Generation Y, and even Millennials, are not coming out to the polls due to a variety of reasons. Overall, democracy is beginning to fail as there is a lack of civic engagement and even interference with democratic processes, such as Russia's involvement with the 2016 United States election, and even electronic voting (e-voting) machines that are being hacked and altering results. All in all, proponents of civic journalism believe that for democracy to regain its traction and glory in the modern world, the media must be more receptive to feedback from the public and take initiative to engage the public as well.

According to Oxford Research Encyclopedias, the popularity of political journalism is rising, and the area is becoming one of the more dominant domains of journalism. Political journalism is meant to be more of an overseer of democratic process as they relate to civic engagement rather than a scapegoat for the issues with democracy. Including this, there are four key concepts that political journalism can be boiled down to. These concepts are the framing of politics as a strategic game, interpretive versus straight news, conflict framing and media negativity, and finally, political or partisan bias. In essence, these can be viewed as the four quintessential pillars of civic journalism.

Goals

The goal of civic journalism, or public journalism, is to allow the community to remain engaged with journalists and news outlets, restore democratic values, and rebuild the public's trust in journalists. The concept of fake news arose due to the fact that it is so easy to manipulate or twist information these days and create a certain narrative that might be entirely incorrect. This has led to an overall decrease in the credibility that people have for journalists and media sources. Certain media sources or news outlets often come under a lot of heat for certain stories or narrative they push which are built upon fallacies. People argue for participatory democracy, but politics now is largely considered a popularity contest, and consists of politicians making decisions to ensure their reelection. Proponents of civic journalism believe that this philosophy will allow individuals to have a greater say in decision-making and in the broader political sphere.

Given the rise in yellow journalism and search optimization algorithms that create an echo-chamber among mass-media, civic journalism is entering a niche role where it can shift the position of news within public reception. As of recent, most news publishers undergo more and more observation as their ethics and content come under extensive scrutiny for political biases. In a time where traditional news outlets concern themselves with how to effectively monetize and are not the main distributors of information, civic journalism pivots the role of publishers from distributing information to curating information. Given one of civic journalism's central tenets - making the press a forum for discussion of community issues - a publisher is able to seek out a niche in bolstering local engagement over spreading knowledge of worldly issues readily available via a web search.

Proponents and Opponents

According to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications, civic journalism is a polarizing philosophy and has a collection of opponents as well. These opponents of civic journalism find it to be risky and ineffective. Including this, they find the practice to bring about conflicts of interest, and believe it necessitates involvement into public affairs that is deemed unethical. John Bender, assistant professor of new editorial at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, claimed that journalists who are the most esteemed and high regarded play active roles in helping their community thrive. This practice would be an example of how civic journalism is indeed beneficial for the future of democracy as proponents believe.

Proponents of civic journalism are steadfast on certain issues. They believe integrating journalism into the democratic process would help inform voters and make them more aware of what is occurring in the political sphere. Including this, it could make a difference in the democratic process if all voters were equally informed. An important aspect is ensuring that the information received by the public is all accurate and fact-checked. This is an important aspect that sometimes gives journalism, and certain news sources, a bad reputation, as previously mentioned. Accuracy in political news and journalism can enable voters to be more involved in the democratic process. Civic journalism itself is the process of integrating journalism into the democratic process and allowing voters and the media to play a more active role rather than being witnesses and bystanders in what happens in the political sphere. Moreover, technology also plays an active role in educating voters and determining viewpoints.

Related Concepts

Citizen journalism is variety of journalism that is conducted by people who are not simply professional journalists, but who convey information by using social media and various blog posts. Recently, citizen journalism has expanded its worldwide influence despite continuing concerns over whether citizen journalists are as reliable as true, well-practiced journalists. The goal of citizen journalists is to increase civic engagement, similar to how the goal civic journalism is to increases civic engagement.

Political Journalism

As previously mentioned, a similar concept to civic journalism is political journalism. Political journalism has four key pillars, which are the framing of politics as a strategic game, conflict framing and media negativity, interpretive versus straight news, and political or partisan bias. These four pillars are integral to the ideology as a whole. Political journalism relates to civic journalism in that it is a movement towards democratizing the media to partake in the voting process.

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Alex K. Tran
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Delegative democracy

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Alex.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does indeed include a brief overall description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead does include information that is not present in the article, and the additions are detailed in nature.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is quite detailed in their additions to the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content Alex has added is exhaustive and relevant to the topics as well.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content added is indeed up to date and does not include outdated sources or information.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is not necessarily content that does not belong, but there is most likely some content missing from this article since overall there was not much to begin with. The article needed quite a bit of improvement and Alex has done a good job of making additions.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added maintains a neutral point of view.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no biased claims that were involved.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All viewpoints are evenly spread in terms of representation. Since there was not much in the article to begin with, Alex did an excellent job of adding information from both positive and negative viewpoints.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All sources are reliable and the content is extracted skillfully from the sources with no signs of plagiarism.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are indeed thorough.
• Are the sources current?
  • All sources used are current and provide relevant information to the topic at hand.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links that I checked do work and redirected me to an external source.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The content added is well-written, and quite exhaustive as well. Overall, it maintains a neutral point of view and is relatively easy to read for any reader.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • All added content is relatively well organized, but could be broken down into greater detail with more sections or headers to symbolize a divide when bringing up new topics or viewpoints related to delegative democracy.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The article does seem more complete after Alex added his information to the article. The quality of the article was very subpar beforehand and Alex has included relevant information. Any improvements or additions to this article with relevant information on the topic of delegative democracy, such as the information that Alex added, is undoubtedly useful.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content added is all relevant and brings up information on what delegative democracy is in greater detail. It also does a good job of portraying how proponents feel about this topic, but conveying certain negatives as well. Overall, more background context and detail is brought into the article which was not present before.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Previously in the article, too much emphasis was being put on different countries that implemented this philosophy, and the article sub-headers were based upon this. Alex did a good job of providing more specific detail on what a delegative democracy entails for the people and for the government rather than simply describing use-cases.

---

---

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Mervitan
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Politics and technology

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Mervi.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does indeed include a brief overall description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead does include information that is not present in the article, and the additions are detailed in nature.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is quite detailed in terms of additions to the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content Mervi has added is exhaustive and relevant to the topics as well. Politics and technology is a seemingly broad topic but Mervi did an excellent job of boiling it down to what was most important.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content added is indeed up to date and does not include outdated sources or information.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is not necessarily content that does not belong, but there is most likely some content missing from this article since overall there was not much to begin with. The article needed quite a bit of improvement and Mervi has done a good job of making additions which included how people felt about the use of technology in politics, as well as how technology is currently being implemented in politics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added maintains a neutral point of view.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no biased claims that were involved.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All viewpoints are evenly spread in terms of representation. Mervi did an excellent job of adding information from both positive and negative viewpoints, and was overall detailed with her additions in adding sections specific to the points she brought up and had information on that were not included before.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All sources are reliable and the content is extracted skillfully from the sources with no signs of plagiarism.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are indeed thorough, and reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • All sources used are current and provide relevant information to the topic at hand.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links that I checked do work and redirected me to an external source.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content Mervi added is well-written and concise. Overall, it maintains a neutral point of view and is relatively easy to read for any reader on Wikipedia.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • All added content is relatively well organized, but could be broken down into greater detail with more sections or headers to symbolize a divide when bringing up new topics or viewpoints related to politics and technology. This article had a decent amount of information to begin with but was still relatively incomplete and dull. Mervi's additions were all useful.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The article does seem more complete after Mervi added his information to the article. The quality of the article was very subpar beforehand and Mervi has included relevant information. Any improvements or additions to this article with relevant information on the topic of politics and technology, such as the information that Mervi added, is undoubtedly useful. This is because she brought in more information about how technology is actually used in politics, and how proponents believe its utilization is beneficial.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content added is all relevant and brings up information on what politics and technology is in greater detail. It also does a good job of portraying how proponents feel about this topic, but conveying certain negatives as well. Overall, more background context and detail is brought into the article which was not present before, as the article previously just had information about the criticisms and dedicated a whole section to that.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Previously in the article, too much emphasis was being put on the criticisms of politics and technology, and the article sub-headers were based upon this. Mervi did a good job of providing more specific detail on what politics and technology entail for the people and for the government, as well as what proponents believe about the intersection of these two disciplines.

Overall evaluation 8/10

---

---

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Maschristi
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Agatha Bacelar

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Maschristi.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead does indeed include a brief overall description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The lead does include information that is not present in the article, and the additions are detailed in nature.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is quite detailed in terms of additions to the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content Maschristi has added is exhaustive and relevant to the topics as well. Agatha did not previously have a page, but Maschristi did an excellent job of boiling it down to what was most important.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content added is indeed up to date and does not include outdated sources or information.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is not necessarily content that does not belong, but there is most likely some content missing from this article since overall there was not much to begin with. The article needed quite a bit of improvement and Maschristi has done a good job of making additions which included Agatha's background and current experience.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added maintains a neutral point of view.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no biased claims that were involved.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • All viewpoints are evenly spread in terms of representation. Maschristi did an excellent job of adding information about Agatha's background and current life, and was overall detailed with her additions in adding sections specific to the points she brought up and had information on that were not included before.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All sources are reliable and the content is extracted skillfully from the sources with no signs of plagiarism.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are indeed thorough, and reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • All sources used are current and provide relevant information to the topic at hand.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links that I checked do work and redirected me to an external source.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content Maschristi added is well-written and concise. Overall, it maintains a neutral point of view and is relatively easy to read for any reader on Wikipedia.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The added content is relatively well organized, but could be more exhaustive since there was no previous article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
  • It does meet Notability requirements.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • The list of sources is relatively exhaustive but could improve before the final submission or creation of the article.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
  • The article does follow the patterns of other similar articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • The article does not link to other so that it is more discoverable from what I saw, but should.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The article does seem more complete after Maschristi added his information to the article, since there was no previous article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content added is all relevant and brings up information on what Agatha currently believes in and fights for, as well as her background experiences that make her qualified.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content could be more exhaustive with more information about her background or upbringing, as well as more of her current beliefs and future plans.

Response to peer reviews

I appreciate all the feedback from my peers. They were all helpful in terms of allowing me to determine what I should improve in the article, how I should structure my additions, and what I should take out which I am currently adding. I learned to keep my information concise and to the point in order to allow the reader to synthesize all the information. My biggest takeaway from Alex Tran's feedback is that my organizational structure is flawed. I need to work on organizing my points in a more concise and clear format. When I was originally writing out my additions, I was more focused on content and including certain points rather than the structure, which is why Alex informed me that I must improve the structure for when I include my final additions and publish them in the Wikipedia article. From Brooke.baker873's and Maxack37's peer reviews, I learned to maintain a more neutral tone and point of view to ensure the information and content is suitable for Wikipedia. I will be sure to properly cite links for my final draft and also utilize more sources in my writing. I am glad that my peer reviewers took notice of the overall balance throughout my article in mentioning both proponents and opponents of civic journalism. All in all, I appreciated the kind words from all people who peer reviewed my articles! I hope to continue to improve my writing skills and develop the skillset to write a Wikipedia grade article.

Lead - Thank you for the kind words and recognition!

Content - I agreed with the points all three of my peer reviewers made in this section. I will try to incorporate more evidence that can tie back in to politics or civic engagement, and appreciated the kind remarks about my current content.

Tone and Balance - I tried my best to remain neutral throughout my writing so I am glad it came across this way for the most part.

Sources and References - I will make be sure that more sources are linked throughout the article so that there is an abundant amount of evidence.

Organization - I will work on improving organizational structure in my final draft, rather than purely focusing on content.

Overall impressions - Thank you for the good feedback and praise of my overall writing balance and vocabulary!