Talk:Civic technology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tkc21, Katlynshull, Charlesvonrosenberg5, KCGrimes, Emmmayork. Peer reviewers: Gandrus100, Bobcatdodger25, Lindsey1024988, HunterRoe, Sidsmall22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jross35, Jinnayang, Cheng960816. Peer reviewers: Jinnayang, Ishapunja, Kojinglick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnsutherland. Peer reviewers: Kwkenney97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Classikhgirl. Peer reviewers: Alyssaamoreno.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikekelson12345.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachpiroh23. Peer reviewers: Botchedway.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ayobahmed, Cadencehsu, Miawach. Peer reviewers: Matinhomafar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tag for primary sources
You added the primary sources tag to this article a while back. Can you identify which sources are problematic? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of them are problematic; the section about Code for America is sourced to Code for America. The section about Kenya is sourced mostly to MajiVoice and the World Bank, the two organizations the text discusses. The section about Italy is entirely sourced to the entities therein being discussed. The same is true about the France section. The section on Estonia has only two sources, only one of which is independent of the subject. The section about Spain has three sources, only one of which is reasonable while another is Reddit (which fails SPS). Fewer than half the sources in the UK section are independent of the subject. Further, even the independent journalistic sources are primary sources because they were written contemporaneous to the subject. The good academic sources which provide secondary analysis are used in the top part of this article which addresses civic technology as a subject, rather than the bottom section of projects claiming this moniker. Fully half of this article should be deleted, in my opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Civic Technology Article Evaluation
Zach PirohZachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Evaluation This article on Civic Technology looks like many others on Wikipedia. It seems to follow the proper rules and regulations for posting on Wikipedia and there are many citations throughout the article. The citations, however, are a bit dated and the article could be difficult to understand depending upon your prior knowledge of Civic Technology.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Citations -Citation ONE is a video that is no longer available for viewing. It was a panel of 4 CEO’s-a director of media ventures from New York City and a Google partner. This citation was irrelevant because it couldn’t even be viewed. This was also true of citation #7 in which the site is no longer available.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

-Citations 3,6,10,12, &13 had a good amount of information and were complementary to the article/definition and the information within it. Two were blogs within a credible edu site or journal. There were discussion points posted and the Knight Foundation, citation #6 posted a Civic Technology Data Report mapping the trends in Civic Tech. Citation 13, was broken down into sections and examples of what it is, common facts, and how Civic Tech is used. I would also give credit to 'https://www.govtech.com/civic/What-is-Civic-Tech.html.'  This site gives a condensed, fluid version of what Civic Technology is and how it is being implemented around the globe. Citation 17 was its own article within a reference the cite https://opengovdata.io/2014/civic-hacking explains what “hack” really means when used in this context. It explains where the word hack came from and how civic hacking is actually a positive thing. Lastly, I did not find any plagiarism within the article.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevance -Everything in the article is relative to the topic, however it may not be presented in the best way. The only thing I find distracting in the article is all the highlighted blue words. They draw my eye to them and then my thoughts become unorganized. I felt there was a lack of structure to the material presented. The article begins with a vast definition, which has several references included, and states that there are four different kinds of Civic Tech. It also and to a few different foundations that provide Civic Tech data. It is good information, it just takes a lot of time to review in order to grasp how Civic Technology is being implemented around the nation. It sort of leaves me wondering if these things are changing right now as I am reading them. They probably are.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

-As I already said, the first section of the article is the Definition, however, it leads to many other topics within that section. The Definition should be short and then there should be subtopics underneath to address how we use Civic Technology, who it helps, and how we can enhance it going forward. I liked the cites with graphs like https://www.govtech.com/Microsoft-Civic-Graph-Charts-the-New-World-of-Civic-Tech.html. However I feel that Wikipedia put too much information into one section in this article. While reading each reference it is understandable that one can get confused or overwhelmed. Additionally, some of the informational resources are from the New York Times or other news outlets that aren’t exactly unbiased or neutral when presenting information to the public, however, in this instance the resource was factual, not opinion.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

-At the end of the first section there is a short write up on the Worldwide use of Civic Technology. The article then breaks down how Civic Technology is used in various regions and several countries around the globe. Each country shows government-led initiatives and citizen-led ones. Obviously not all countries are equal in how much they use Civic Technology depending upon the region and the access to tablets, computers, smartphones, WiFi etc. by its citizens. Overall the article is in favor of Civic Technology use and how it is ultimately supposed to better the relationship between the government and its people.Zachpiroh23 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliable References and Sources
Everything in the article is relevant to the article's topic. There is nothing that distracted me. Each fact is referenced with appropriate, reliable references. The article is neutral (it discusses many regions, thus it provides a global perspective). There were no claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The citation links work, and the sources support the claims in the article. The information comes from reputable websites such as the country's official Government website, public & official company statements, and reputable global non-profit organizations. These are neutral sources and are not biased.Rachelkmoy (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * are you specifically referring to someone or something? This article has a history of issues with primary sourcing, and if you are using the government website to talk about the government product/tool - that is an example of a primary source. We don't encourage primary sources on Wikipedia due to bias. Jooojay (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

When I checked the citation of the sources, it includes two sources from Reddit and Github, which are not reliable sources. Reddit is a platform where anyone are able to share their opinions on a certain topic without any prior evidence. Therefore, it is a way to share an opinion without any factual sources to explain their reasonings. This emphasizes how citation 68 from Reddit and citation 79 from Github are not credible sources. To translate, readers must be aware of the citation from the article because not all are considered nobility. Yenxle (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

General Article Evaluation
Organization: Generally, throughout the article your structure was consistent and organized. For example, each continent was separated into its countries and its specific government-lead or citizen-lead initiatives. This consistency made it easy to follow along and reference. However, I felt the definition portion of at the top could've been structured differently. You mentioned a lot of different information that drifted from the actual definition of civic technology. As a result, a suggestion for a possible breakdown would be: Background, Controversies of the Definition, and Future of Civic Technology.Other than that, the last section on the effects of civic technology was also well-presented as well.

Underrepresented details: Although most of this information is up-to-date and recent, I think you could include some more recent examples of civic technology. For example, topics like voter suppression, Blockchain, or civic tech startups like Popvox that are involved with this industry.

Citations: Some citation links are broken. Within the first 10, links 1 and 7 seem to result in a server error. Lots of you references about the initiatives in different countries also tend to be from primary sources but I realize it might be harder to find sources on those specific topics. Ryanliou (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:LINKROT, for how to handle dead links. Jooojay (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Civic Technology Article Evaluation
Overall, the article was a solid introduction to the topic of civic technology, but I felt like it was too brief and focused primarily on information that was not incredibly useful or relevant. For instance, in the beginning of the article, the information provided about both the Knight Foundation and Microsoft was distracting, especially considering that it was listed under the "definition" header. Additionally, while most links were seemingly up to date, more could be added on to the "Taiwan" subsection. Simply stating that "Taiwan has the most vibrant civic technology sector" is a little brief. Further explaining why this is true and how their civic technology sector came to be would be more useful and convincing. Ethanpak (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced
This article has a few sections that are unbalanced, leaning more towards the United States than international information - specifically the sections "Definition" and "Effects of civic technology". Please try to clean these up. Jooojay (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Note: A similar statement could apply for today's version. The § Effects on social behavior and civic engagement is redundant with most info introduced in the first sections. Various repetitions may still clutter the reading flow.
 * Script.meta (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Evalution
I believe everything in the article was relevant to the article topic because it consisted of its definitions, world-wide effects, and what it was like in other countries all around the world, which all felt relevant. The article is neutral. There were no bias statements like "in my opinion" and all the claims were backed up by outside sources. It wasn't heavily focused on one group either. There were instances where "citizen-lead initiatives" felt overrepresented over "Government-led initiatives." Some of the sources did not have actual links to the sources, but rather links to purchase eBooks which does not allow you to verify the source. The links did always redirect me to some sort of other site Not all sources were referenced with an appropriate, reliable source. One of the links directed me to airBnB's homepage which was useless as it contained no information. From the other sources I looked at, it typically does not look like the sources are biased. Some sources dated back from 2010 which was a completely different era from today. These sources should be updated. Most of the conversations were critiquing the article so they mentioned things like bias, sources, and the information that was included It is rated "start-class, low-importance". It is part of the technology, politics, sociology, freedom of speech, and globalization projects. Wikipedia discusses civic technology really similarly to the way we've talked about it in class, however, I noticed that we focused more on how it effects our lives directly in the United States while the article had a huge focus on what civic technology meant globally. Question: What do you think the future of civic technology looks like globally and what needs to be done in order to reach that level of advancement? Ayobahmed (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Ayobahmed

Civic Technology Article Evalutation
There is nothing irrelevant or distracting in this article. Most citation links have been updated including citation one except for citation seven which is an unavailable webpage. The article is neutral, unbiased, and organized. The continents are separated consistently making it easy to reference and sort through information. The sources referenced in the article are unbiased and reputable as most of them appear to be government and organization websites. The introductory definition could be more specific and expanded. The definition could include more relevant information including the brief past, relevancy, and future of civic technology rather than a textbook definition. Real-life examples (like how Snapchat and Facebook were briefly mentioned) would also help in this case to help further understand and connect the concept of technology for the reader. I like how the article first focuses on civic technology on a global and worldwide level before diving into certain continents. I feel all viewpoints in this article are represented especially between government-led and citizen-led initiatives. The information in this article is up to date. The article is well-written. but could be more concise in the very first definition section following the brief introduction. Overall status: The article is up-to date and organized. The articles' strengths include structure and maintained and unbiased source of information. It also covers all viewpoints. The article is well-developed. -- Shreyaapatel (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation on Civic Technology
The article discusses and explains what Civic Technology is and how different countries integrate it in their government systems. The article is well focused and stays on topic throughout it. The article is neutral and doesn't have any bias as it is all facts based. I believe the viewpoints stated throughout the article are consistent, and there are reputable viewpoints of different sides. The citations are thorough and the links for the sources work. The sources further support the claims made through the article such as the definitions. I believe that the definitions given in the article lack examples as they are only textbook definitions. While there is some relevancy in the article, during this modern time of technology, I believe there could be more examples that adapt these forms of modernization to help better connect the reader with civic technology and exactly how much is used to this day. The structure of the article is its strongest point. It first gives a definition of Civic Technology and then moves on to explain how different countries in the world use it, and then explaining how it all effects socioeconomics. The article differs from what we talked in class because it further explains how different counties use civic technology in their systems. Overall, the article provides informative points about civic technologies and the effects it has throughout the world.

Smayan14 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article is very neutral and lacks bias from all viewpoints. The Civic Technology in Asia and Civic Technology in South America section of the page is very lackluster which might be due to the lack of sources pertaining to Civic Technology in Asia and South America. The "Taiwan" section in the Civic Technology in Asia area of the page seems to either be pointless or not expanded enough on. "Taiwan has the world's most vibrant civic technology sector," may need to be expanded on or removed entirely. If more is added to this area of the article then more may need to be added to the other countries mentioned on this page that give a general overview of their Civic Technology sector. Some parts of the page also require links to different pages ("Airbnb" for example). There also seems to be no missing citations or plagiarism on this page. I also feel like there should be another section of this page containing information on social media's effect on political campaigns and so forth. Nevertheless, the article seems to have some solid info on Civic Technology, but much more can be added to it. - Zakifiruz (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Civic Technology Article Evaluation
Comparatively thorough sections: The article is neutral in tone, and the lead section is straightforward to follow. The sections on worldwide civic technologies are well-organized and quick to access.

Sections that require additions or modifications: For content, although the definition of civic technology is straightforward, there are not many commonly-used examples that are easily recognizable. Sections such as "Civic technology in Asia" and "Civic technology in South America" require more detailed and representative examples. For citation, reference #37 is not a good and substantial resource. On the Talk page, there are substantial yet intermittent discussions on the article's use of primary sources. As of August 30, 2021, the tag for "primary sources" stays labeled on top of the page, which should be fixed or updated. For balance, the article should list the potential risks that civic technology may pose to society or damage the relationship between people and government. The article should also include the interplay between civic technology, government, the people, and how they may reflect one another. Yzhang7 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The article begins with a general introduction on civic technology, which is of great use. However, it quickly jumps into defining the presence of civic technology internationally in other individual countries. The immediate transition between a short introduction to its international presence distracts me from learning the actual ins and outs of civic technology. The article remains fairly neutral throughout, without any claims that appear to be made from a biased perspective. The article relays facts, not opinions, which remains useful to gather unbiased information on civic technology and its applications. The international viewpoints in which the article discusses civic technology remains overused and it would remain more beneficial to focus on its applications in a more relatable setting. The links are both functional and relevant to the topic that is being discussed in each section, as well as the main point being made. Each statistic and fact present in the article is cited to a reliable source, one that remains unbiased and credible. For example, data regarding the government-led initiatives in Ukraine is from the official data by Ukraine. The information and cited sources also remain, at least for the most part, quite recent, most of them being in the past five years. One main point being made in the article's Talk page is discussing the need for more recent and applicable examples of civic technology. The article was rated start-class, low importance, and is part of WikiProject Technology. Wikipedia discusses this topic mainly from an international lens which provides useful details but could rather benefit from going into more depth regarding civic technology itself. Question: Do for-profit organizations constitute civic technology? Samuelw28 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Sources: Nearly all the sources referenced in the article are from a neutral point of view and are up-to-date. They are cited correctly throughout the article and are linked to the right website. General feedback: Most of the article is informative and very detailed, but there are sections where more information could be added. The "Taiwan" section, for example, is a bit sparse and could use more details. The claim of having the "world's most vibrant civic technology sector" is vague and doesn't seem to add anything to the article. Moreover, the section towards the beginning of the article where the Knight Foundation is mentioned that distracted me. The reference to the Knight Foundation doesn't entirely relevant to the article and the section "Within the Knight Foundation..." almost sounds like an advertisement. Cadencehsu (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)cadencehsu '''

Article Evaluation, QuestionJustin.tsubasa (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Justin Crouch
The Article is well done as it remains unbiased throughout and distributes information well throughout the countries listed, with an exception to a few. A question that arouse as I went through the article is whether or not social media should be represented in this article. In the modern world, it has taken a big role across all parts of society including government. Thus a mention to social media would be beneficial to the article.

Article Evaluation
I believe that the information in the article is very much relevant to the article title as it begins by defining civic technology and proceeds to give concrete examples of how civic technology is used in various countries. No information distracted me because the article is concise and provides relevant examples and factual data. As a whole, the article cites every claim and does not use opinionated phrases, therefore I concluded that the article is neutral. However, throughout the article, the examples for the government-led initiatives were underrepresented when compared to the citizen-led initiatives. I checked the links throughout the article and they all provided relevant support to the specific claim and are all working effectively. The citations are composed of different peer-reviewed research papers, governmental databases and books that all supported the article's claims. Most of the sources that I looked at were created in the past five years, thus the article was up-to-date. Some areas of this article need more information especially in the citizen-led initiative sections. Further, the section on South American civic technology has very little information and lacks detail on both citizen-led initiatives and government-led initiatives. The talk page of this article discusses the need for more up-to-date, concrete examples of civic technologies and how they apply to government and citizen relations. The article is rated start-class and low importance and is part of various WikiProjects including WikiProject Technology and WikiProject Politics. Question: What impact does social media have on civic technology around the globe? Roy Numa (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Generalization of continental relations to civic technology
I noticed that under sections like "South America" and "Asia," only one or two (in the case of South America, only "Argentina" is listed) nations are used to generalize an entire continent's relationship with civic technology. I think that more information should be available about, for example, civic technology in Brazil, Paraguay, Peru and Chile. In the case of Asia, information should be available about civic tech in Indonesia, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations. Even if there is no civic technology in that country, listing that information is also important. By including a wide range of civic technology in these nations, the subtitles of "Civic tech in Asia" or in other continents would be a much more neutral, and more helpful to readers.

Miawach (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Everything I read in the Wikipedia article on Civic Technology felt unbiased and was filled with several statistics. However, I am not sure if the sentence "As the field of civic technology advances further through the coming years it seems as though apps and handheld devices will become a key focus for development as more companies and municipalities reach out to developers to help with specific issues" from the article has any bias or opinion to it. One one side, it is essentially well-known that technology is advancing and is becoming the focus of development for several companies. On the other, however, I am not sure if a Wikipedia article should make that judgement for the reader. I would say that would be the only part that distracted me. Jared Puerta (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible ideas to add
More contributions could be made to section 3 of the article--Civic Technology in Asia--specifically, the portion on Taiwan. I plan add information in that section regarding the development of Taiwan's digital democracy and include modern examples like their COVID-19 response using civic technology. Please feel free to leave me any feedback on my sources listed below. Bibliography:

INSISA, Aurelio, The strategic communications of techno-democratic statecraft : the case of Taiwan, Policy Briefs, RSCAS, Global Governance Programme, EU-Asia Project, 2021/25 Retrieved from Cadmus, European University Institute Research Repository, at: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/71756

Lee, Shin Haeng. "Digital democracy in Asia: The impact of the Asian internet on political participation." Journal of Information Technology & Politics 14.1 (2017): 62-82.

Lee, Tsung-Ling. "Legal preparedness as part of COVID-19 response: the first 100 days in Taiwan." BMJ Global Health 5.5 (2020): e002608.

Tang, Audrey. May 12, 2019, "Inside Taiwan’s new digital democracy," Economist, https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/03/12/inside-taiwans-new-digital-democracy

Wang, C. Jason, Chun Y. Ng, and Robert H. Brook. "Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. at: https://hdl.handle.net/1814/71756 Cadencehsu (talk)Cadencehsu

Potential bibliography for Civic tech in Asia subsection -- please let me know if these work! Thank you! https://asiafoundation.org/2016/05/25/new-app-provides-nepali-migrant-workers-safe-migration-information/

https://civictech.guide/thailand/

https://asiafoundation.org/2016/04/06/tech-good-civic-tech-indonesian-development/

https://asiafoundation.org/2017/07/12/code-indonesias-competition-civic-tech-apps/ Miawach (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article is very clear, stays relevant to the topic of civic technology, and was not distracting in any way. The lead section gets straight to the point and the rest of the article contains several headings and subheadings that give the article clear structure. The article also contains many relevant examples to the topic of civic technology, especially examples about civic technology's presence in different parts of the world. The article simply present facts without including opinions, leading me to believe it is neutral and unbiased. Furthermore, the article contains several citations with links that work. The reference section is well-developed and includes reliable sources like peer-reviewed journals. Most sources are up to date as well. For the most part, the sections of the article are balanced well. However, there is less information in the section titled "Civic Technology in South America" compared to other sections. The only country listed in this section is Argentina. --Matthew.t.nguyen (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Civic Technology Article Evaluation August 2022
The article starts by discussing what civic tech is and describing it in a concise way: the structural and informative composition of the article is very helpful to the reader (amateur or expert). The information perfectly corresponds with the article’s main aim/topic. The article also further elaborates on how the civic technology is utilised across the globe. The information, for the most part, was neither distracting nor irrelevant. Though, I would like to add that the article does go on little tangents throughout: for instance, the section on Knight Foundation felt a little stretched out when I was reading it for the first time. Overall, the article was well-supported by documented evidence and factual statistics. The article is very thorough in terms of citations and providing sources for all possible quotes and data. The article does not come across as biased, however, ,I felt that some parts of the data (like- Kathmandu Living Labs (KLL)) were not explained in detail. The links were working and they all facilitated the proper citation method. Another observation is that the links were a very balanced mix of academic papers, books, journals- I found that all the sources were credible and reliable. The content seems up to date as well, the links are recent and there is a lively discussion in the ‘Talk’ page of the article which is very informed and knowledgeable.

Even though I felt that most of the article presented a neutral point of view, I did notice that there was a difference between how vastly the western countries were described versus the eastern ones. Moreover, the article had very little insights into the citizen-led initiatives compared to the government initiatives.

~ Civictech (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Civic Technology
— Assignment last updated by DrPronoun (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, my name is Edgar and I'm going to be working on this article. I hope to improve it.  Here is a list of sources I plan to use for various countries in South America. Argentina: https://caminosdelavilla.org/.  Brazil: https://www.nossas.org/en, https://medium.com/omidyar-network/how-can-civic-technology-transform-brazil-392764f92c85, https://namati.org/network/organization/nossas/, https://www.nossas.org/en/technologies.  Chile: https://www.citizenlab.co/about.  Venezuela: https://freedomhouse.org/country/venezuela/freedom-net/2021, https://www.elnacional.com/venezuela/buscar-un-hospital-oxigeno-apps-ciudadanas-contra-el-covid-19-en-venezuela/, https://www.javenda.me/2021/04/15/acceso-a-mapa-de-centros-asistenciales/.  Uruguay: https://atuservicio.msp.gub.uy/, https://data.org.uy/mision-y-vision/.  Paraguay: https://www.tedic.org/. SealSquared (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)