User:Alyson Lopez/sandbox

The article about “Blogher” on Wikipedia caught my attention because the name included it all, the name directly stated women and technology by saying blog. As I was reading the article it was evident that everything stated was relevant to the company “blogher”. Although all the information was relevant I found it interesting that there was not a lot of information about the community that these women have created. The article was rather short and to the point. For the most part the article is neutral, by providing statistics, specific dates and names that all pertain to the development of this network. Even though the article seemed neutral I did feel that the article put an emphasis on the history of the brand and how it started. The history of something is very important but when you have a large paragraph explaining how this successful network began and not enough information of what they are currently doing to impact women, I feel it doesn’t depict the overall idea of what this brand has done. This article only contains six links, all of these work when clicked on. When you look through these references it is clear that the articles written on “Blogher” are all relatively short. Even though the articles from outside sources are short it seems to me that they are denser with information about this brand and their achievements compared to the Wikipedia article. All of the people that were mentioned that attended the Blogher convention where cited to CNN reports which I believe to be fairly reliable source. I think the articles that are linked as the article’s references are also reliable and are not so bias that it would interfere with what the Wikipedia article is trying to show about this company. Many of the articles are done on some of the biggest accomplishment the company has had like Blogher being bought by Sheknows. This reference article show cases two very important companies in the technology field that are aimed and developed by and for women. It includes crucial information such as how much Blogher is estimated to have been worth and the content that you can find on their blog. It also shows the impact it has made in technology and for women these are ideas that I feel the Wikipedia article failed to incorporate. Something positive that I noted about the Wikipedia article was that their references where all relatively recent, something that helps with accuracy. This article was said to have a lot of room for improvement by Wikipedia which I believe references to more of the idea that there is a lot of information you can add and build on rather than saying it should be revised for skewed point of views. What I found on the talk page was very similar to what I said, that the Wikipedia article does not explain what is so special about “blogher”.