User:Adamng926/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Civic engagement was the subject of the article that I chose to evaluate, as I was curious to see how technology could be integrated alongside how people are currently looking to address common causes of concern. Throughout the article, I was able to learn more about how actions can be both political as well as non-political in order to generate change that causes public concern. The article was able to touch on different types of civic engagement, including community-wide efforts, government policies being made, and "individual volunteerism," all sparked by some problem that needed to be solved.

When analyzing the article, I personally felt as though everything written was relevant to the topic. The author took us through a deep dive behind the definition of civic engagement, its various forms, and how it generally is aimed to better the community. Case studies were brought up from 2014 advocating for certain causes, whether it be through health, education, or political voting. In addition, at least one citation was made per paragraph, and all links were completely functional. I found that many of the sources were reliable due to the fact that many came from balanced reports written and published, all relating to civic engagement in their own individual and unique forms.

However, I felt as though the article may not have been completely neutral (though there is also no clear bias). For one, much of what was stated behind civic engagement was positive, though there was little to no mention of setbacks that may have occurred (as an example, the most recent form of youth civic engagement is Hong Kong's protests, which have sparked much controversy within the international community). Much of what was stated in terms of advocacy was one-sided, promoting civic engagement rather than addressing those who may be opposed to it. As stated in "Pros and Cons of Civic Engagement Speeches," by Sophia Yiu, it can also "provoke arguments that create instability in the society." I also felt as though some of the facts and case studies mentioned in the article could have been more recent, as I believe that civic engagement is more prominent now than ever before. Much of the studies were taken place in the early 2000s and a few in our current decade, but I believe that there is room where more evidence can be presented to back up a substantial claim. A couple other factors that I thought could be improved in the article was its historical references. I believe that major forms of civic engagement throughout the years could have been highlighted and pointed out (both good and bad).

More importantly, I believe that technology could further be expanded into. In the article, it is briefly mentioned in one paragraph that some of the ways that technology plays a role in civic engagement is "upgrading and providing e-services, making information more transparent, allowing e-democracy, and a service they call e-production." If this was discussed with greater statistics, I believe it would be more apparent to readers about the influence that technology can truly have.

On a final note, after looking through the page's Talk Page, I realized that there were a few conflicting opinions behind the article, some stating that the title should be altered while others clarifying errors such as overall organization and plagiarism. After reading these peer reviews, I feel as though my mindset was much more open to how it could continuously be improved for the future. Thus, the article was not rated very highly, as errors still need to be fixed (though it is part of the WikiProject Politics articles category).

In comparison to our discussions in class, much of what was mentioned also dealt with nonprofit organizations, something that was rarely mentioned in the article. In addition, we touched on digital media and the rise of technology through younger media sources, though the article focuses more on core forms of civic engagement (politics, education, government, etc.). There is generally still much information that can still be added to the article.

Overall, with over 40 citations and a clear and relatively balanced article on what civic engagement is and its importance amongst the greater community, the article is well published. A few suggestions I would point out that can be improved are the dates of its sources, which can be seen as outdated, more events that have been proven to be affected by civic engagement (in the past), and more statistics to add substantial evidence to many of the claims that were stated.

Civic Engagement Peer Review
'''QUESTION: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

Attached is also a link to my peer review on what I felt could be improved in the article's Talk Page.

Possible articles to work on
After searching for five main articles through Article Finder on WikiEdu for Class S (Start-Class) articles related to civic technology, the first article I came across was Digital Citizen. Some initial thoughts on this first article was that it was very brief, and many aspects were not expanded into very well. Much of the article focused in on social media as well as journalism, though I believe the article could have also expanded more into the political realm and bring up specific scenarios in which digital citizens made an impact, either in a political election or elsewhere. In addition, I felt that though there were nine overlapping goals of digital citizenship education, none of them were expanded into, and it would be extremely useful if the article could have short descriptions of each. The second article discussed was Civic Journalism. I personally felt as though this article was mode developed, defining what civic journalism is, its origins, structure, and proponents. One suggestion I would make to this article is its impact on modern-day journalism, as many of the citations were evidence from the 1990s. Civic Application was the shortest article by far, and there were grammatical errors found in the article as well as many events that could have been added. There could have been examples of civic applications that help "participate in public good development" and examples of how social networking services have played an impact within the subject category. The fourth article I chose, Digital Divide, was interesting to me since it gave more insight behind the divide of age and groups utilizing communication technologies and utilized much evidence in order to prove many points about the divide. Nonetheless, I felt that the article had a negative bias, as it mainly discussed implications rather than of efforts to bring groups together. One final article I looked to evaluate was Open Government, which I felt was an interesting transition to privacy and political concerns over technology. This article was more structured, including history, policies in each continent, and a balanced debate about whether or not it should be open to all or subject to more privacy initiatives. I felt that the article could have still expanded more into examples of why it has proven beneficial as well as detrimental for governmental organizations in the past.

The first article I looked to dive deeper into began with Civic Application, which lacked much substance and content to begin with. Though there was a brief definition as well as goals behind civic applications, I felt that the article lacked examples as well as specific forms of civic applications that current play a major role in modern society. I believe the article could have also pointed out positive as well as negative proponents of civic applications, such as privacy concerns that mobile application platforms are currently attempting to solve. In addition, companies such as Accela are currently attempting to utilize software as an application to increase economic growth, and it would be useful to add modern developments to other companies also with the idea of enhancing civic applications for the general public. Other improvements that could have been made to the website include a section specifically on nonprofits and their efforts to transition technology with politics (such as Code For America), with a neutral argument for and against civic application to accelerate citizen participation with global issues and the greater political community. Overall, I generally believe that civic applications can have a much wider spectrum of content to be added into, ranging from percentage of users who see value in civic applications, debates, historical developments, and modern movements.

The second major article was Digital Citizen, which mainly focused on youth, but failed to discuss other age groups or functions of digital citizens other than through social media. I felt as though a section could have been added specifically for Political Participation, as countries such as Scotland are planning out major efforts to include digital services in everyday lives for its citizens. Furthermore, limitations on data use could have been expanded on, and I believe it would have been very helpful to have a definition of digital citizens in every major continent alongside effects that digital citizens have had in their respective regions. On a final note, other than the principles and elements of digital citizenship, there is also a history section that can be added as well as modern efforts to be inclusive. Digital citizen, like civic application, can be very broad, and it is important to be able to discuss the political aspect of what it means to be a digital citizen as well as the social aspect.

Article Contribution
For the article, Digital citizen, I plan to expand on the two sections that I have already begun creating myself, one discussing education and the other talking more about the hazards of digital citizenship. In addition, I would like to also add many more statistics to the section discussing Engagement of Youth, which can touch much more on media technology, cyberbullying, and the influence of social media on teens. After coming up with sources from credible articles as well as other publications, I am looking to insert more factual evidence regarding percentages (specifically in middle and high school students) that discuss exposure to cyberbullying as well as growing trends of media throughout the years.

Generally speaking, I believe the article was very generally written (many assumptions that are not supported or cited), and it can be improved with the use of more statistics and evidence. For example, when listing out differences between highly developed states and developing countries, specific countries and policies could have been listed out, such as Estonia's e-residency, as discussed in my civic technology class. Other general changes would be to expand more on democratic participation, economic opportunity, and inclusion, all aspects discussed but not further elaborated upon. To summarize the changes I am going to make, I believe that each section needs a lot of improvement, and I will be looking to research more into specific examples, data, and analysis on aspects such as the participation, youth engagement, limitations, and topics that I felt were prevalent to being a digital citizen, as I feel that the topic encompasses much more than what the article provides for the typical reader.

In the bibliography that I have created alongside updates I will be making to my designated article, I have highlighted several research reports as well as books that I will be citing in order to create a balanced perspective of both the positive and negative traits of digital citizenship in today's society, posted into the article's Talk Page.

= Digital Citizen Article Official Edits =

Lead (Section that is Directly Edited)
A digital citizen is a person utilizing information technology (IT) in order to engage in society, politics, and government. As defined by Karen Mossberger, author of the novel on "Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation," digital citizens represent "those who use the Internet regularly and effectively." They also have a comprehensive understanding of digital citizenship, which is the appropriate and responsible behavior when using technology; this encompasses digital literacy, etiquette, online safety, and an acknowledgement of private versus public information.

People characterizing themselves as digital citizens often use IT extensively, creating blogs, using social networks, and participating in online journalism. Although digital citizenship begins when any child, teen, or adult signs up for an email address, posts pictures online, uses e-commerce to buy merchandise online, and/or participates in any electronic function that is B2C or B2B, the process of becoming a digital citizen goes beyond simple Internet activity. In the framework of T.H. Marshall's perspective on citizenship's three traditions (liberalism, republicanism, and ascriptive hierarchy), digital citizenry can occur alongside the promotion of equal economic opportunity, as well as increased political participation and civic duty. Digital technology can lower the barriers to entry for participation as a citizen within society.

Digital citizenship ultimately covers both a social and political point of view, utilized at a local level in school and other educational systems while also being debated upon on a national level. There are many means of participating as a digital citizen to advocate for causes or specific issues that are controversial, and being a digital citizen encompasses a level of responsibility that includes universal goals that should be followed.

Developed States and Developing Countries (New Section)
Highly developed states possess the capacity to link their respective governments with digital sites. Such sites function in ways such as illuminating recent legislation, educating current and future policy objectives, lending agency toward political candidates, and/or allowing citizens to voice themselves in a political way. Likewise, the generation of these sites has been linked to increased voting advocacy. Lack of access toward becoming a digital citizen can be a serious drawback, since many elementary procedures such as tax report filing, birth registration, and use of Web sites to support candidates in political campaigns (E-democracy) etc. have been transferred to only be available via the Internet. Furthermore, many cultural and commercial entities only publicize information on web pages. Non-digital citizens will not be able to retrieve this information and this may lead to social isolation or economic stagnation. The gap between digital citizens and non-digital citizens is often referred to as the digital divide. Currently, the digital divide is a subject of academic debate as access to the Internet has increased, but the place in which the Internet is accessed (work, home, public library, etc.) has a significant effect on how such access will be utilized, if even in a manner related to citizenry. Recent scholarship has correlated the desire to be technologically proficient with greater belief in computer access equity, and thus, digital citizenship (Shelley, et al.).

In developing countries digital citizens are more sparse. They consist of the people in such countries who utilize technology to overcome their localized obstacles including development issues, corruption, and even military conflict. Examples of such citizens include users of Ushahidi during the 2007 disputed Kenyan election, and protesters in the Arab Spring movements who used media to document repression of protests.

One example of a highly developed digital technology program in a wealthy state is the e-Residency of Estonia. This form of digital residency makes it clear for both citizens and non-citizens of the state to pursue business opportunities in a digital business environment. The application is simple, in which residents can fill out a form with their passport and photograph alongside the reason for applying. Following a successful application, the "e-resident" will allow them the chance to register a company, sign documents, make online banking declarations, and file medical prescriptions all online, though they will be tracked through financial footprints. With the project aimed to cover over 10 million e-residents by 2025 and already making much progress since its founding in 2014, there are currently over 54,000 participants from over 162 countries that have expressed an interest, contributing millions of dollars to the country's economy and assisting in access to any public service online. Other benefits include hassle-free administration, lower business costs, access to the European Union market, and e-services that are broadly ranged. Though it is aimed toward entrepreneurs, Estonia hopes to value transparency and resourcefulness as a cause for other companies to implement similar policies domestically.

Participation (Added to Section)
The development of digital citizen participation can be divided into two main stages, the first being through information dissemination. Within information dissemination, one subcategory includes static information dissemination, characterized largely through citizens who utilized read-only websites where they take control of data from credible sources in order to formulate judgements or facts. Many of these websites where credible information may be found is through the government. Another subcategory includes dynamic information dissemination, which is more interactive and involves citizens as well as public servants. Both questions as well as answers are implemented to be communicated, and citizens have the opportunity to engage in question and answer dialogues through two-way communication platforms.

The second stage of digital citizen participation is citizen deliberation, which evaluates what type of participation and role that they play when attempting to ignite some sort of policy change. For static citizen participants, citizens can play a role by engaging in online polls as well as through complaints and recommendations sent up, mainly toward the government who can create changes in policy decisions. Dynamic citizen participants can deliberate amongst one another on their thoughts and recommendations in town hall meetings or various media cites.

One of the primary advantages of digital citizenship, or the ability to participate in society online, is that is incorporates social inclusion. In a report on Civic Engagement by Talitha Dubow, citizen-powered democracy can be initiated either through information shared through the web, direct communication signals made by the state toward the public, and social media tactics from both private and public companies. In fact, it was found that the community-based nature of social media platforms allow individuals to feel more socially included and informed about political issues that peers have also been found to engage with, otherwise known as a "second-order effect." Two types of opportunity rise as a result, one being able to lower barriers that can make exchanges much easier. In addition, they have the chance to participate in transformative disruption, giving people whose political engagement has been historically lower the opportunity to mobilise in a much easier and convenient fashion.

Nonetheless, there are several challenges that face the presence of digital technologies in political participation. One way it can do so is through the use of poorly designed technology. A communication technology director, Van Dijk, stated, "Computerized information campaigns and mass public information systems have to be designed and supported in such a way that they help to narrow the gap between the 'information rich' and 'information poor' otherwise the spontaneous development of ICT will widen it."

Alongside a lack of evidenced support for technology that can be proven to be safe for citizens, the OECD as identified five struggles for the online engagement of citizens:


 * 1) Scale: To what extent can we allow every individual's voice to be heard, but also not be lost in the mass debate? This can be extremely challenging for the government, who may not effectively know how to listen and respond to each individual contribution.
 * 2) Capacity: How can digital technology offer citizens with more information on public policy making? The opportunity for citizens to debate with one another is lacking for active citizenship.
 * 3) Coherence: The government is yet to design a more holistic view of policy-making cycle and the use of design technology to better prepare information from citizens in each stage of the policy-making cycle.
 * 4) Evaluation: There is a greater need now than ever before to figure out whether or not online engagement can help meet the citizen as well as the government's objectives.
 * 5) Commitment: Is the government committed to analyze and use citizen's public input, and how can this process be validated more regularly?

The Overlapping Goals of Digital Citizenship Education (Added to Section)
According to DigCit.us, the overlapping goals of digital citizenship education include:


 * 1) Digital Footprint: An acknowledgment that posting and receiving information online can be tracked, customized, and marketed for users to click and follow. Not only the Internet use but individuals' digital footprints can lead to both beneficial and negative outcomes, but the ability to manage one's digital footprints can be a sub-part of digital literacy. Digital footprints do not simply comprise of the active participation of content production as well as sharing of ideas on different media sites, but they can also be generated by other Internet users (both active and passive forms of digital participation). Examples of digital footprints includes liking, favoriting, following, or commenting on a certain online content creation, or other data can be found by searching through history, purchases, and searches.
 * 2) Digital Literacy: Almost twenty years ago, Gilster (1997) defined digital literacy as "the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers." Digital literacy includes the locating and consumption of content online, the creation of content, and the way that this content is communicated amongst a group of people.
 * 3) Information Literacy: The American Library Association defines information literacy as the overall ability for an individual to target information that is valuable, being able to find it, evaluate it, and utilize it. This can be through information creation, research, scholarly conversations, or simply plugging in keywords into a search engine.
 * 4) Copyright, Intellectual Property Respect, Attribution: By knowing who published sources and whether or not content creation is credible, users can be better educated as to what and what not to believe when engaging in digital participation.
 * 5) Health and Wellness: A healthy community allows for an interactive conversation to take place between educated citizens who are knowledgeable about their environment.
 * 6) Empowering Student Voice, Agency, Advocacy: Utilizing nonprofits as well as government-affiliated organizations in order to empower students to speak up for policy changes that need to be made. Currently, more than 10 different mobile applications aim to allow students the opportunity to speak up and advocate for rights online.
 * 7) Safety, Security and Privacy: Addressing freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world and the balance between the right to privacy and the safety hazards that go along with it. This area of digital citizenship includes the assistance of students to understand when they are provided the right opportunities, including the proper access to the Internet and products that are sold online. It is on the part of educators to assist students in understanding that it is crucial to protect others online.
 * 8) Character Education and Ethics: Knowing that ethically speaking, everyone will come with different viewpoints online and it is crucial to remain balanced and moral in online behavior.
 * 9) Parenting: Emphasizing the efforts of educators, many want to continue preaching rules and policies addressing issues related to the online world. Cyberbullying, sexting, and other negative issues that are brought up are regulated by the School Resource Officers and other school counsel.

Altogether, nine of these facets contribute to one another in the development of a healthy and effective education for digital technology and communication.

Digital Citizenship In Education (New Heading)
According to Mike Ribble, an author who has worked on the topic of digital citizenship for more than a decade, digital access is the first element that is prevalent in today's educational curriculum. He cited a widening gap between the impoverished and the wealthy, as 41% of African Americans and Hispanics use computers in the home when compared to 77% of white students. Other crucial digital elements include digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, and digital etiquette. He also emphasized that educators must understand that technology is important for all students, not just those who already have access to it, in order to decrease the digital divide that currently exists.

Furthermore, in research brought up through an article by Common Sense Media, approximately six out of 10 U.S. K-12 teachers used some type of digital citizenship curriculum, and seven out of ten people taught some sort of competency skill utilizing digital citizenship. Many of the sections that these teachers focused in on included hate speech, cyberbullying, and digital drama. A problem with digital technology that still exists is that over 35% of students were observed to not possess the proper skills to critically evaluate information online, and these issues and statistics increased as the grade levels would increase. In terms of videos such as YouTube and Netflix, they have been utilized approximately 60% of the time from K-12 teachers in classrooms, while educational tools such as Microsoft Office and Google G Suite have been used around half of the time by teachers. Social media was seen to be used the least, at around 13% in comparison to other digital methods of education. When analyzing the social class differences between schools, it was found that Title I schools were more likely to utilize digital citizenship curricula than teachers in more affluent schools.

Response to peer reviews
In response to Melissa Wang, I would like to thank her for complimenting me on my submission on the edits to my article. Though she stated that I was able to detect parts of bias in the original article, I believe that I could have done a better job of expanding upon the criticisms that many have of digital citizens and present case studies highlighting recent events that have occurred regarding the negative effects that it has had in popular media. Much of the introduction states that digital technology "lowers the barriers to entry," when in fact, it can also increase barriers in many other ways. For Melissa's second point, I agree with her in that I aimed to fix and add in sections in which I felt needed more detail and discussion toward. However, I still believe that I could add more conflicting viewpoints from the Talk Page, as I mainly cited sources rather than took opinions from what other users spoke into the issue on the talk page. I appreciate Melissa also giving me praise for incorporating discussion led in class, and I believe I can further expand into class topics such as Estonia and their E-Democracy while bringing up other examples that were brought into discussion, potentially looking into the business side and seeing how civic technology startups are targeting digital citizens. In terms of resources, I felt as though my scope was still limited in contrast to what Melissa stated, though they all were fairly recent. All in all, I thank Melissa for her kind comments, and even though she commented on a lot of positive points in my articles, I look to improve even more on aspects that still could be looked deeper into.

To respond to Erika Badalyan's comment, I would like to also thank her for her kind words in myself choosing a hefty topic such as this one. I believe that though the topic itself consists of much information, not much was said about digital citizens in the Wikipedia Article, and that is why I thought there was much to add. To address Erika's first point, though I was not the individual who made the particular edit to address the definition of digital citizen, I will be sure to edit the sentence out and define who Karen Mossberger is. I think this is also great advice for me, as I noticed that everything I edited were sentences that I added. I know now that I need to go back into the article and replace already written information that can either be biased or not properly written. For Erika's second point, I also did not add on the sentence for this, though Erika is completely correct in stating that the claims are stated with a lack of confidence. These initial errors were all made in the introduction of Digital Citizen, which I did not make any edits to, and I believe that I should probably condense the introduction and revise information such as these. I will re-read the entire article over again without my edits and make the appropriate changes in the near future. For Erika's third point on the section of nine elements, I completely agree in that it was too wordy, and I will definitely look to simplify the explanations written. I also believe that I could have cited more sources in order to make it more credible, and the wording is something that I know will have to be more simplified and direct. Onto Erika's last point regarding my references, I thank her for complimenting me on those, as many research papers were extrapolated from the web that I thought gave good insight into various parts of what Digital Citizen entails. Thank you Erika for all the help and support! I appreciated the critical commentary.

For the review from Nicholas Zhao, I agree in that the Lead needs to include an introductory sentence rather than diving straight into examples for the topic. My Lead also needs to include descriptions for the major sections, and it needs to be more concise. Though Nicholas stated that the content was up-to-date and relevant, I felt as though I missed some content on criticisms behind digital citizens and a few more case studies that could have added details to the article to create a more neutral tone and balance. Onto Nicholas' next point, I believe that he was correct in stating that my content was a bit random, and I may need to balance out each section better and make my content more organized, though at this point, it may either be chronologically or through different topics that are more compartmentalized. Thank you Nicholas for being detailed with my review and helping me improve even further on my article!

My final reviewer was Alex Tran. I definitely feel as though I need to begin my Lead with a better introductory sentence than to start with a citation and a statistic. Alex was also correct in stating that I had newfound information in my Lead, which is not beneficial and should be added in a subsection later on in the article. I would also like to thank Alex for telling me how I can be more clear and not force too many statistics into my introduction. I look forward to improving on the weaknesses that Alex mentioned, and I would like to thank him as well for helping to give me a holistic view behind my content and what else could have been improved upon.