User:Ama069/sandbox

 Article Evaluation 

Evaluating Content

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? is there anything that distracted you?


 * There is no stated credibility for Pamela and Tim Vos. What makes them experts on the matter?
 * In the last paragraph the author starts talking about conclusions made by Mr. White, but two sentences in says that Mr. Gates is making these conclusions. Who's ideas, specifically, are our focus for this section, Mr. White or Mr. Gates.
 * "though not yet given a formal theoretical name" I consider this as fluff and unnecessary.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?


 * This article was dated by in 2006, and there are articles that are from the 1950's being referenced. So i believe a lot of the information is outdated, especially since there has been so much progress with the media and internet channels we use for communication.
 * After looking at the Talk page, there was so much information that was stripped that it is hard to find what could be successfully added.

What else could be improved?


 * I'm starting to see a pattern with this Wiki article. Each section is just based on other articles or studies. this would be fine, but its only using one article in discussion for each each section.


 * The 21st century section, specifically, is one sided. they talk about one negative view over the effects of the internet on "gate keeping." I doubt this is the only study over this subject in the 21st century, but it is the only one referenced for this section. I am sure there are other studies or articles that discuss how the internet helps the gate keeping process.

Evaluating tone

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * At first I believed that the article was neutral, but reading it all the way through, this article is just a collection of other articles--not just an overview of a single concept.

Are there view points that are overrepresented or underrepresented?


 * One thing I thought was interesting was about audience gate keeping. I believe that could've been further discussed.
 * Under the Gate Keeping Model Section,
 * Section is very small, non-detailed.
 * The entire section is a direct reference to the first article referenced in the history section. Plagiarism.
 * If that is all that can be found for the subject in this section, this section should not be here.

Evaluating Sources

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?


 * Under the definition Section, Tim Vos link doesn't exist.
 * Most of the article comes word for word from the cited pages.These aren't neutral resources, but articles and studies based on the researcher's hypotheses.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?


 * There are A LOT of direct quotes from sources in this article.
 * the entire history section is based off of one person's study and how one single man processed information based on his own opinions. There is little data on how it evolves throughout the years until now. The entire last paragraph is restating opinions by Mr. White about what gate keeping is. This is most likely paraphrased even if it is cited.
 * Going through the rest of the Wiki article, it seems like each section just summarizes other studies and articles instead of simply presenting the basics if what gate keeping is and how it works and then citing to show where the information came from. In the beginning of the article, it discusses how gate keeping is a way the media processes information to the public, but then uses only two types of media as examples to discuss for the rest of the article. Media is more than just newspapers and twitter.

Checking the talk page

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?


 * From the talk pages, it seems like this used to be a completely different article about gate keeping in politics specifically. Some of the concerns were about the accuracy of the information and demands for more reliable sources. there were arguments about the very concept of gate keeping itself and what it means.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?


 * This article is poorly rated at a C level. It is apart of the WikiProject Media.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class.


 * A lot of what we go over in class is about thinking cognitively about the information that we are given. It is important we look for different resources on the same subject to get a well-rounded view. The article is talking more about our a lot of our information from the media is screened and processed by what the masses would be more interested in and at the same time have the power to shape what they learn. I feel like what we're learning about, information literacy, is kind of a way to counteract things like "gate keeping."