User:Cbent13/sandbox

Notable Contributions While there is still a need for more long term studies, several surveys, articles and books have been addressed the topic. Gabriella Coleman published the survey Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media in the Annual Review of Anthropology in 2010. Focusing on digital media, the review evaluates the cultural politics of digital media, its vernacular cultures and its prosaics. She provides descriptions on how ethnographers are documenting the ramifications of digital media on culture. In 2011, Jennifer Rode published an article on Human Factors in Computing Systems, also known as Human Computer Interaction (HCI). The yearly conferences are a reliable source of new data, publications and academic discourse on the subject of digital anthropology and technological development. Her paper addresses the socio-technical gap related to the design of human and computer interactions and provides possible solutions on how ethnography can help bridge this gap. It was published for use at the CHI '11 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Published in 2006, David Buckinham's Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and the New Media is a social commentary on the impact technology has on adolescents and children. While not scientific or anthropological, it provides insight into the discussion of how technology impacts creativity during childhood development.

Group sandbox for WikiProject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Djon141/sandbox

POSSIBLE PROJECT TOPICS

1) Sociotechnology (start class and of interest in several wiki projects) This page could benefit from a section about the political ramifications resulting from sociotechnological advances. For example, Egypt is a great example of technology as means of communication making large political changes. Sociotechnology is the study of how technology and society effect each other. This relates to information exchange because the technologies discussed are primarily used to exchange ideas and information.

2) Digital anthropology (c class and of interest in two wiki projects) Because networked technology is, by definition, the exchange of information and digital anthropology is the study of how technology effects us as a species, I think this qualifies as an information studies topic. I think a Notable Studies section should be added, or something outlining some prominent ideas to emerge from this field.

4) Technological revolution (start class- c class and of importance to 5+ wiki projects) This article is written poorly and needs a lot of work. It needs a section on how the creation of the web abetted technological advancement as well as advancement in business and general human productivity. This topic is about how advancements change the way we live and because we would add a section about how the internet allowed information to be exchanged easily and openly, it would fall under the heading of information studies.

3) Technology transfer (start class and of high importance to 4 wiki projects). We could add a section for open source software or how computer technology changed engineering. It allows for engineers to exchange discoveries, advise each other, and work on projects far beyond their immediate vicinity and this information allows access to life saving water sanitation techniques, transportation engineering and other important aspects to well-being and advancement. This is some of the most important information that can be exchanged between peoples so I would think that it is a qualifying topic.

Article Evaluation

This is an evaluation of the wikipedia page titled "ArXiv."

Content Evaluation

The information about UC Davis's Front being called The Front by some users is superfluous but other than that the page stayed on topic and is up to date. I was distracted by the 'Moderation Process and Endorsement' section. Maybe it's the grammar or syntax but it reads poorly and feels like the are hinting at a point rather than making one. The section should just be about how something gets submitted and moderated and shouldn't include information on what it doesn't do. Anything about it not being peer reviewed should be moved to the section on 'Controversy.' It seems like they add specifics to the 'Moderation...' section in order to point out that ArXiv's vetting process needs work. I also think that 'quantitative finance,' 'preprints' and 'Front' references all need more explanation or links to other Wikipedia articles. In addition, I agree with the assertion made on the article's Talk page that the main arxiv article should include more references to the nonlinear sciences.

Evaluating Tone

Mathematics is overrepresented and I disagree with the word 'dubious' being used to describe some entries. Although I agree that those entries are indeed dubious, that word should be omitted and instead they should expand upon what makes a scientific paper hacky. As stated above, it also seems obvious that the authors have opinions about the vetting process and those opinions, although not explicitly addressed, are evident in the 'Moderation Process and Endorsement' section.

Evaluating Sources

All of the citation links worked (that I checked) and support claims made in the article. There are a few statements in the 'Moderation...' section that needs citations and there are no citations in the 'Submissions Format' section.

Checking the Talk Page

This article has a C rating and is of high importance to open-source and bibliographies/science Wikiprojects. I spent most of my time reading through all of the discussions on the talk page. Quite a lot of it is about people's opinion of arXiv and doesn't have much to do with the article. There is a very relevant discussion about whether or not arXiv can be considered open-content, the definition of 'peer-reviewed' (and whether or not arXiv meets the criteria in that definition), and a lot about whether or not arXiv is a reliable enough database to reference. There is a lot of talk about whether or not the endorsements are too lax and how that effects overall credibility.

There is also a fair bit about the article and Wikipedia. People ask about arXiv being considered free-use or fair content as is pertains to wikipedia. Some people believe (and I agree) that the article needs to contain more information about the software/technical specifications behind the platform. There is quite the debate over whether the article should quantify an amount that arXiv articles get published elsewhere. Apparently there is also a problem with redirects between this article and arXiv.org.