User:Dmarbury94/sandbox

My name is DeMarcus Marbury. I'm a junior transfer from Alabama State University. My major is criminal justice and I plan to be a law enforcement officer. I like to read and play 2K, I really don't have any hobbies I just go with the flow a lot. I like mostly any type of food and enjoy just relaxing

Article evaluation Birmingham, Alabama
Dmarbury94, when you're done with all the food and relaxing, and hopefully before class time tomorrow, you can fill up this sandbox with all the exercises you were supposed to do. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes
 * Is there anything that distracted you? No
 * Is any information out of date? It is not but I'm sure a lot has changed since 2017
 * Is anything missing that could be added? Maybe a little more updated information
 * What else could be improved? Nothing. All together it was a good article


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, I feel the Civil Rights Movement was underrepresented because they was a lot of history and a lot of different things happened during that time.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Yes
 * Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? I haven't went through all of them.
 * Where does the information come from? Articles, the Census Bureau, Archives
 * Are these neutral sources? I haven't went through all of them but for the most part some of them are neutral.
 * If biased, is that bias noted? Not bias
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I don't think they're any
 * How is the article rated? B-class
 * Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes (B-class, mid-importance)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They discuss it the same way Dmarbury94 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which article?? Dr Aaij (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about sources and plagiarism
Dmarbury94 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? Because they can not be verified. Its basically word of mouth
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? Because that company has the right to put what they want on their website and who says that it is the truth?
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? Plagiarism is using somebody else's work and not giving them the proper credit for it. Copyright is using the work of somebody else without their permission.
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? Cite your sources and don't copy exactly what a person is saying verbatim

Thinking About Wikipedia
Dmarbury94 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? Everything must have a reliable source to where a person is getting the information from and a limit is people can insert any information they want whether it be real or not, just as long as its not derogatory towards a person. Some of the information may not be always truthful which is why you got to check your sources
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Ones on personal opinion or that relies heavily on rumors. Also claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities
 * Can you think of any problems that might create? Yes, maybe a conflict between editors or the person who created the article.
 * If Wikipedia were written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? It would probably be a lot more information on here but also it may be more unreliable sources just because we were not as advanced as we are now to where information can be verified.
 * What about 100 years from now? It is going to be completely different because they world is advancing more and more each day and a lot more information is being verified everyday.

Evaluation and quality control
Ed, Edd n Eddy

-There were at least 7 reviewers on this article.

-One issue was that it was one of Cartoon Network classic and it was resolved by removing that from the article because there was not a source confirming it.

-Next issue was the overview section saying it should be taking as a plot section and the sourcing should show itself, which does not require references. it was checked and corrected.

-Another issue was the production and how certain words weren't needed or didn't fit the section and it was resolved by removing the unnecessary wording.

-One editor thought it was an issue with copyvio but the person who wrote the article assured that she had all the correct information.

-The depth of the reviews from at least the 7 people I counted were very in-depth because the person who wrote the article had a few mistakes they needed to correct, but the information they already had wasn't bad. I think the reviews helped them a lot and made their article more worthy of being featured. Dmarbury94 (talk)
 * Hmm, didn't seem like it had much depth at all--it's all about copy edits, really, isn't it? Dr Aaij (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Women and the Internet
The kind of harassment and threats discussed in the article are nothing new to America, I hate to say it. A lot of people feel insecure when it comes to a woman in a position to speak freely about how they feel and see things. Mainly on big social media platforms is where it happens the most, for example facebook, twitter, myspace(if that is still used). The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed operators of websites to avoid liability for what users post, although the limits of this continue to be tested in the courts and many aspects of the Communications Decency Act provision are not entirely settled. In particular, the problems inherent on the microblogging platform Twitter, which, unlike Facebook, allows for anonymity, have been playing out publicly.

Stalking and sexual harassment are more prevalent among young women than among young men. But they are also more prevalent among young women than among women even a few years older (those ages 25-29). Women ages 18-24 who use the Internet are more than twice as likely as women ages 25-29 to have experienced sexual harassment online (25% vs. 10%) and three times as likely to have been stalked online (26% vs. 8%). In addition, they are twice as likely as that older cohort to have been physically threatened (23% vs. 11%) and twice as likely to have been harassed for a sustained period of time (18% vs. 8%). Don't get me wrong they are harassed and threatened by other women also but for the most part it is a male figure sitting behind a computer who feels a certain about the woman and what she is saying on here platforms.

How woman-unfriendly is the Internet? And which Internet?:

In my opinion I think the internet is like 60/40 the 40% being woman-unfriendly. The reason behind it is men still haven't gotten it in their heads that a woman can have just as much freedom of speech as a man. Some still feel insecure as if the woman is directly affecting them or maybe they feel hit which is why they are stalking that specific woman. The internet I think is the most woman-unfriendly is facebook. Like I stated earlier twitter allows for people to be anonymous which is basically like free game for anybody. Facebook is the platform where you can actually see who the person is basically their whole life and yet they still make threats or harass women because they know the worse than can happen is getting their profile blocked on deleted. Once that happens all they have to do is make another under a different name. Also on facebook it is more easier for that stalker to hack your account, figure out where you stay, or your every move.

Vandalism!, Reliability
I don't see the sections for those two assignments--that's serious points. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliability
Basically it was saying that even though instructors ask us not to use it, students still do and some professors too. So there you have it; it’s all over the map. Some professors have slid down that slippery slope while others hold fast against the use of Wikipedia. Some students are smart enough to check the sources while others do whatever they can get away with it. Meanwhile, an in-depth article in The Atlantic reports that an Oxford medical textbook was found to have a significant amount of text copied from a Wikipedia entry. Granted, that’s just one example, but you’d have to be delusional not to see where this is going. The unfortunate truth is that, every day, online content becomes more and more accepted as gospel even while the quality of information declines and Wikipedia is no exception. People are going to use some type of information that they find on Wikipedia.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia

The general message with Wikipedia is that here, on the face of it, is what we know. But it’s up to you to click on those links and citations and decide whether the information comes from sources you ultimately trust and are happy with. Wikipedia shouldn’t be anyone’s final stop when it comes to seeking knowledge, but rather the gateway to us being able to make up our own minds. Up on the top tabs of any Wikipedia page you’ll see one marked Talk, and this can be a look behind the scenes of Wikipedia. Here you’ll find discussion between editors – and you can join in yourself – about recent edits to a page, why new information was allowed, or deleted, calls for clarification or verification, explanations as to why edits were approved or not. We can trust Wikipedia just about as much as we can trust anyone who tells us anything. But Wikipedia, you have to check your sources and then that should tell you if you can trust the information in front of you.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/wikipedia-explained-what-is-it-trustworthy-how-work-wikimedia-2030-a8213446.html

Vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foot_(unit)&curid=202482&diff=871819487&oldid=871818663

The user said wikipedia should be shut down because it is dumb

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRChat&curid=56065176&diff=871819427&oldid=871818853

The user removed words and placed uganda and ebola in the info box

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II&curid=936661&diff=871818899&oldid=868902800

The user changed WWII in to World heisad*** War II