User:Dgoydan21/sandbox

Other sandboxes - SEE HERE FOR MY UPDATES FOR MY ARTICLES

- Article1_sandbox : workspace for the first article section I am going to edit User:Dgoydan21/Article1 sandbox

- Article 2_sandbox [MAIN ARTICLE I AM REVISING] : workspace for the second article section I am going to edit User:Dgoydan21/Article 2 sandbox

Article evaluation exercise

- Article Reviewed (C class) : Corruption in India

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

When reading this article, there was no content specifically that felt un-related to the topic. Technically, everything did connect to corruption. That said, I felt inundated with macro and micro examples of corruption in India that were distracting. Some of the smaller examples, like the driver license or the domestic black money sections were small, and did not feel contributive to the article's larger mission. In all, I think the article should be much more streamlined and have fewer, higher quality examples.

''Is any information out of date?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

It doesn't appear any information in this article is out of date, per say. Rather, the majority of the citations are from the mid-2000s. It would be beneficial to this article to add more corruption examples from recent years. Given that I am not an expert on corruption in India, I cannot be sure that any information is missing. An initial read, however, does suggest that it is fairly comprehensive.

What else could be improved?

I think that this article could benefit from three major improvements. First, it could be improved with some chronological organization that shows how corruption in India has changed or evolved over time. Second, I think that the table provided on the anti corruption efforts should be more thoroughly explained or removed. Without context or explanation, the chart is more distracting than informative.. Third, the section on the impacts of corruption should be built out more as to provide evidence how corruption tangibly impacts the nation.

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

I think that the article should remove some of its normative statements or judgmental tones in its piece. Some remarks in the piece seem to cast dispersions on the nation for its corruption. For instance, the beginning of the article states: "Corruption is an issue that adversely affects India's economy of central, state and local government agencies. Not only has it held the economy back from reaching new heights, but rampant corruption has stunted the country's development." This statement, while possibly true, should be revised to be less disparaging ("not only has it held the economy back," for example). Statements should be revised or removed to promote objectivity and sensitivity.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There seem to be viewpoints that span a variety of industries as they relate to corruption. The only gap I see in the article is a discussion of culture or society. There are a lot of political or governmental points, but nothing about the nation's culture or how society itself has been impacted by corruption. Overall, though, I do not see any major viewpoint imbalance.

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

Based on the five links I checked in the citations section, they did work. The sources largely seemed to substantiate the points in the article. But there were a few instances in which it seemed the writer was drawing some conclusions or making a bit of stretch in his statement based on the source.

''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?''

The sources for this article are largely news pieces (international), followed by scientific/scholarly papers. The newspapers are all from India and, as a result, can be biased in a variety of ways. The nature of these biased sources, however, is not noted or flagged in the article. The scientific and scholarly papers, however, appear independent and reliable.

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

Some conversations on the talk page about this article are completely unrelated to the topic and seem to be advancing personal agendas or ideologies. Others discuss new sections that should be added, whether this article should be merged with others, and bring up false claims made in the article about black money.

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

This is a C class article. It is part of WikiProjects such as Crime, India/Politics, and Corruption.

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

This article relates to what we've talked about in class because it highlights how corrupt governments can try to stem or hide information from the public. For example, there is an interesting comment in the talk page for this article that a full "Whistleblower" section needs to be added. This is directly related to information control because the idea of a whistleblower is to create a safe position where an individual can share sensitive information, much like the coordinated disclosures we spoke about in class.

Choose a topic exercise - Article selection

General Possible Topics

- The WELL

- Open Casket

- Ottoman coffeehouse

Article 1 - The WELL

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

While some of the content in this article is related to the topic (the history) some of the information is not. For example, there is a section of the article on virtual communities vs a social network and, given what I know about the topic, I do not think this section is relevant or contributive.

Is it written neutrally?

This article is written neutrally. However, there is one section of this page about news that only has one sentence abut a member getting kicked off the site. Without more information, this could make the WELL seems biased or constricting on speech. Therefore, it is the absence of information here that possibly makes the tone not neutral.

Does each claim have a citation?

Many claims have a citation. There are some, though, without citations. For instance, I added a citation to a related page on the topic as part of the citation addition exercise. Additionally, the topic's page notes in the banner that it is in need of more citations. Therefore, there is certainly room for improvement.

Are the citations reliable?

Not all of the sources are reliable. For instance, one of the sources I clicked on led me to a nondescript blog. Additionally, tertiary (or encyclopedias) were used often, not secondary sources.To be sure, there are some major works on the topic used as sources.

How would I improve this article?

My two main improvements would be 1) building out the sections, and deleting unnecessary ones and 2) adding more citations overall. On the content side, I'd like to add a section about how the website itself works, especially because it was different from how we use the internet today. In addition, I want to build out the "topics of discussion" section to highlight how the platform was used as a meaningful site for information sharing and connection. I'd also like to explain what the site it like today. On the citation side, I would like to change some of the existing citations with more reputable sources. I would also like to add sources for some of the easy, factual statements to aid future Wikipedia users.

How is this relevant to our class?

'''This is relevant to our class because the WELL was a technology platform in an era of alternative information when people came together and shared knowledge. While not technically subversive, it is reminiscent of the technologies radical groups use to share information.'''

Article 2 - Open Casket

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

There is not much content for this article. But all of the information that is provided is directly relevant to the matter. In general, though, more information needs to be provided.

Is it written neutrally?

I believe that the article was written very neutrally, especially given the sensitive nature of the topic. One could have become biased in this article, but the piece remained thoroughly quoted and included hedging statements when appropriate.

Does each claim have a citation?

Each claim seems to have a citations, but the same citations are used repeatedly. This indicates that the article was written from a narrow source base and may be over relying on certain pieces to build the article.

Are the citations reliable?

Not all of the citations are reliable. Many are from reputable news sources, but there does not seem to be any scholarly literature on the topic given its recency.

How would I improve this article?

I would like to improve this article by first providing more background on the painter and the work, and then second, organizing the critical response section better. For the first improvement, I would include more information about the artist and include a picture of the work itself. For the second improvement, I'd like to chronologically order the discourse about the painting and interject some of the artist's own remarks about the painting and its meaning.

Article 3 - Ottoman Coffeehouses

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Given what I know about the topic, I do not think the article's content is related. Ottoman coffeehouses were major social hubs and locations for exchange. It was where information was shared, spread, and spied on. In the Wikipedia article, however, it doesn't talk about that at all. It oddly mentions music and then compares these coffeehouses to European ones. Overall, a very weak article on the content front.

Is it written neutrally?

I think that the article is written neutrally, but that is only because there are only a few sentences on the entire page. Without more content, it is difficult to tell whether an article is fair or not.

Does each claim have a citation?

No, each claim does not have a citation. There are only three references in the entire article. There are some quotations provided that do not even have a reference included.

Are the citations reliable?

The three citations that exist are from reputable sources (jstor and secondary books). However, three references is a startlingly low number.

How would I improve this article?

The biggest improvement that this article needs is more targeted content. I want to highlight coffeehouses as a key location for information exchange, which is currently missing from the article. If I had additional time, I would also investigate bolstering other sections to include more information about their background and differences from other coffeehouses.

How is this relevant to our class?

'''This is relevant because the coffeehouses were a site of information exchange and sometimes spying. It is a pre technology form of information sharing that was effective and cultural'''

NOTE: PLEASE SEE ALL FURTHER WORK ON MY ARTICLE IMPROVEMENTS (SOURCES, THOUGHTS, ETC.) ON THE LINKED SANDBOXES ABOVE

Adding a citation exercise

- Added citation to the first sentence of the "WELL" section of Stewart Brand's page : Stewart Brand

Linking to other articles exercise

- Linked to four other Wikipedia pages from the WELL's main page

- Added links to two biography pages to connect to the WELL

UPDATE: I included peer reviews of Art Destruction and Voter Suppression on the Talk pages of my peers' sandboxes.