User:Camomileviolet/sandbox

Article Critique #1: Say Her Name 

1.) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

This article appears to lean on the side advocating for the #SayHerName movement and against the subjugation of black women as they are affected by police brutality/violence. Statements that indicate bias, for example, are "...this is exacerbated by stereotypes of aggressiveness and poor emotional control...", "...high rates of queer and transgender women of color who have been disproportionally targeted...", and the final sentence of the article, "...today, black women are raped, brutalized and killed by the police... and not empathized or helped". There is an issue with the author's stance on the topic in it not always being neutral and veering in the direction away from solely stating facts; the author instead injects his/her viewpoint by using words that reveal a strong negative or positive connotation.

2.) Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Several sources are not from independent databases, rather they are directly connect and respond to the subject, the movement #SayHerName. One of these sources is from Ebony.com and is titled, "Say Her Name: Black Women Need More Attention from the Racial Justice Movement". Additionally, the source from The Guardian offers an opinionated position on the topic with their article, "#SayHerName: why Kimberlé Crenshaw is fighting for forgotten women". Kimberlé Crenshaw is often referenced in the "Say Her Name" Wikipedia article to support statements made in favor of the movement and its objectives. Sources known for their neutrality and oversight of content such as academic presses, peer-reviewed journals, and newspapers are actually not the only ones relied upon to substantiate claims made in the article, which they should be as opposed to the aforementioned sources. The author does not actually note the bias that is made apparent in the article.

3.) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Most sections are relevant but I am not sure if it the best idea to an updated version of the #SayHerName report as the May 2015 report paragraph description seems sufficient; the list of names and specific dates I think was difficult to absorb and not necessary in the context of what the author is describing. I also think the section on "Intersectionality in the movement" is too long and could be reworked, again by having more factual sources and rather than quoting individuals who are already central to and passionate about the movement. The list of works named in the first paragraph of this section is likewise too lengthy and maybe just a few can be emphasized.

4.) Is any information out of date? Is any information missing that could be added?

The author refers to events in the year 2015 but I was left wondering on the status of the movement moving forward in the year 2016 and even now in 2017. I think information from the year 2016 should be included and if information is lacking/not extensive then the author should acknowledge this aspect. I think it would be interesting to know how other individuals of various races/ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and sexual orientations respond to this movement and its reputation, history, and aims.

5.) Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there?

There are not many comments on the "talk" page and many are in favor of what the author has to say, with one person speaking to my point about making the article more neutral overall.

6.) Where do you think this article falls on the Wikipedia quality scale? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate?

I determined this article to fall in the B scale. It is mostly complete without glaring problems but requires further work, specifically in terms of Wikipedia's neutrality condition for articles, to reach the good article standards. The language and prose is understandable for the average reader, although I do not think it is complete enough to satisfy a researcher or serious student/academic.

Article Critique #2: Fake news websites in the United States 

1.) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I think because of the nature of the article in its discussion of fake news and its inherent detrimental quality, the author does a good job in of keeping the content neutral. There is no extreme emotional focus or downplaying of how fake news affects the public and the media sphere in general. It would be interesting to mention any left-wing/liberal/Democrat scandals dealing with this topic in addition to Conservative and Russian manipulation of the news.

2.) Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Two sources (at least a small percentage of the many sources listed) appear to have biased objections to fake news and are very expressive in their views. These include, "Fake news and a 400-year-old problem: we need to resolve the 'post-truth' crisis" and "Trolls for Trump - How Russia Dominates Your Twitter Feed to Promote Lies (And Trump Too)". The author does not note any bias with these sources yet adequately omits beliefs from individuals within certain political circles on the topic and other sources references communicate an informative rather than persuasive approach to introducing stories related to fake news.

3.) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I would have liked the author to expand more on definition/s of fake news websites and the role they have in influencing society and institutions in the United States, other than with the most recent presidential election. I thought the section on the U.S. response to Syria was distracting due to its short length an abrupt section; having a full paragraph dedicated to the subject would have been more helpful. The part on "Pizzagate" seemed quite random, taking away in its very detailed point from the main idea of the article broadly-speaking on how fake news in the U.S. is becoming more evident with the rise of outlets that use such sites to demonstrate their power over people.

4.) Is any information out of date? Is any information missing that could be added?

Information seems pretty up-to-date, except it might be beneficial to mention any facts regarding fake news sites that were relevant beginning in 2017. It would be interesting to include the history of fake news sites specifically in the United States as a whole section of the article (and maybe take away less impactful ones like "Pizzagate"). I think adding a more substantial definition of fake news websites without citing the election as part of the definition and comparing the websites to that seen on television, for example, would be helpful to readers as well.

5.) Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there?

The "talk" page has a lot of suggestion for editing the article and excluding or adding information. Several people state that this article should be merged with the article titled "Fake news website" which I think is interesting to think about but also detracts from the potential this article has to discuss in-depth and more extensively how sites have shaped the U.S. public and their conceptions of truth, fiction, and legitimacy in the news. The author responds to the comments provided by others in an agreeable manner, which is encouraging when considering the future of the article and its reach.

6.) Where do you think this article falls on the Wikipedia quality scale? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate?

I think this article falls in the Start scale as it is developing but is still incomplete and in need of improvement. The content I find to be meaningful and important, with room for additions and modifications. This rating corresponds to the rating assigned to the article and thus I determine to be appropriate.

Proposed Article: Contribution Ideas

I would like to add up-to-date information on how fake news sites have influenced the public's perceptions of events beginning in 2017 and how they might work in tandem with other social media to exacerbate the deception and anxiousness people may experience. Additionally, I think it would be helpful to include the history of fake news sites in the U.S. as its own section of the article. Providing a more substantial definition of fake news websites (without citing the election as part of the definition), listing examples of sites, and comparing such websites to what is communicated through televised broadcasts, for example, would be beneficial for readers to know as well. I like the section which discusses legislative and executive responses; if possible, I could maybe expand on certain significant cases involving fake news and how legislators/politicians within the U.S. federal government decide to proceed.

Article Final Draft: Proposed section to be inserted on its own below "Fake news websites" 

Spread and identification of fake news

44 percent of all adults get their news from Facebook. Investigations conducted in 2017 showed nearly 40 percent of content by far-right Facebook pages and 19 percent of extreme left-leaning pages were false or misleading. In the 10 months leading up to the 2016 presidential election, 20 fake news articles shared on Facebook dramatically increased from 3 million "shares, reactions, and comments" to nearly 9 million. Mainstream media articles, on the other hand, declined from 12 million "shares, reactions, and comments" in February to only 7.3 million by Election Day.

A study conducted by the Stanford Graduate School of Education from January 2015 revealed difficulties that middle, high school, and college students experienced in differentiating between advertisements and news articles, or identifying where information originated. One concern noted by researchers of the study is that democracy is at risk of devolving due to the ways in which falsehoods about civic issues can quickly spread with a growing ease of access. In one assessment, high school students were asked to evaluate two Facebook posts mentioning Donald Trump's candidacy for president; one was from an actual Fox News account and the other was from a fake account. Over 30 percent of students stated that the fake account was more reliable because of its included graphic elements and only a quarter recognized the significance of the blue checkmark on Twitter and Facebook, which indicates that an account was marked as legitimate.

Additionally, elementary school teachers have decided to challenge results from the Stanford study by showing children the importance of not being deceived by what is fake. Fifth grade teacher Scott Bedley in California created his own version of "Simon Says", in which students are given three minutes to read an article and decide whether a news story is true or false. Those who think it's false are told to stand up while those who think it's true remain in their seats. Bedley worked with another teacher in Kansas, Todd Flory, to devise a "fake news challenge" via Skype whereby Flory's class picked two real articles and wrote a fake one, to be presented to Bedly's class in California. Teachers are promoting these learning techniques with the hope that such strategies and skills will stay with their students' for the rest of their adolescent and adult lives.

Camomileviolet (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)