User:Rachelkramer/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yik Yak Wikipedia Article Critiques
 | This is a user sandbox of Rachelkramer. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
1. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 2. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The Yik Yak wikipedia article attempts to inform the reader of the history and controversies surrounding Yik Yak. While it is an informative article, it reads as highly biased against Yik Yak. Often times throughout the article the author writes with biased language to express the reader's dislike for the social media application. Within the "Controvery" section of the article, the writer states, "This highlights the ethical controversy of cyberbullying and racism within the social media app." This sentence is clearly written with biased language aiming to convince the reader that the application is a proponent of cyberbullying and racism. While the writer does address both sides, Yik Yak is mainly presented in a negative light in the "Controversy" section. There are at least six paragraphs in the article that reference the negative impacts of Yik Yak, while there are only two paragraphs that mention its positives. The author adamantly presents the viewpoint that Yik Yak is a negative social media outlet instead of presenting the two widely accepted opinions evenly.
3. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Everything in the article appeared to be on topic. The author did an adequate job of shying away from tangents and keeping the information clear and focused.
4. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
Most of the citation links are still active and working and are from reputable sources. The fourth link however, is from a cite called "thetowerlight.com" and responds as a server error.
5. Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate?
I think this article should be rated a B. It is informative and does not leave the reader "wanting", however it does not seem like a source that would sufficiently satisfy the criteria for research on a paper or project. The actual writing style is rudimentary and the article lacks clear descriptions on what the application actually is. Most of the article seems to be devoted to the controversies surrounding the application instead of the what the actual purpose of the application is. It is an informative article but could definitely use some work balancing public opinion on the application.
Nextdoor Wikipedia Article Critiques
1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The article is extremely unfocused and unclear. The writer goes off on several tangents that distract from the articles main point. The author of this article barely succeeds in describing what the purpose of the application "Nextdoor" actually is. Rather, the reader takes up an unnecessary yet significant amount of space describing what Nirav Tolia, the co-founder of the application, legal history is. The biggest flaw of this article however, is that it does not clearly state what the purpose of the application truly is.
2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 3.Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The point of a Wikipedia article is to be informative while not expressing any opinion on the subject. In this article, the author fails to do this. In the second paragraph of the article the author writes, "It claims to be better than Facebook as membership is by invitation only, so 'you don’t have to deal with strangers trying to add you as a friend.'" This sentence is clearly indicative of how the writer feels towards the social media application. The informal tone expressed throughout the article also speaks to the author's opinion on the application and the level of sophistication this Wikipedia page has to offer. Additionally, the author includes a quotation that reads, "It's ironic that the CEO of a company that is holding itself out as trying to promote neighborliness, crime watch and things like that flees the scene of an accident that he caused and doesn't bother to call 911 or stay around to exchange information or see if he caused any injuries." The inclusion of this quotation alludes to the author's viewpoint of the CEO, making the information read as biased and one-sided.
4. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
The information, for the most part, seems to come from reputable sources including foxnews and CBS. There are a couple citations that do not seem as trustworthy, especially for researchers looking for indisputable information. Overall, these sources do not seem bias.
5. Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate?
This article is rated "S" for start. This means that the article is developing but is not nearly complete. I think this is a very accurate rating of this article. It is a start but it definitely needs a lot of work in order to be a sufficient source of accurate information. Rachelkramer (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would contribute a more formal tone to the article as well as more informative and concise information that would contribute to the reader's understanding of Nextdoor. I would also like to delete and revise some of the existing content on the page that may read as biased or superfluous.
bibliography: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/nextdoor-social-network-police-seattle/481164/ http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/18/6030393/nextdoor-private-social-network-40000-neighborhoods http://fusion.net/story/340171/how-nextdoor-reduced-racial-profiling/ https://nextdoor.com http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/01/nextdoor-when-a-neighborhood-website-turns-unneighborly/