User:Dvcap/sandbox

Artificial Intelligence and Participatory Library (Library 2.0)
In China a participatory library named Xiaotu was developed by Tsinghua University. Xiaotu is an artificial intelligence library that allows users to interact with it by talking or chatting through a mobile app or social network. It provides real-time virtual reference service combining Tsinghua University Library capabilities with social network and third-party resources. The system is composed by a self-learning function that receives updates from users as they find some missing or wrong information. Connected to the largest social network in China, it provides easy access and owns a book reading group accessed by Tsinghua University Students in China. Its knowledge base includes Wikipedia and its Chinese counterpart, content revised by professor of the university, frequent asked questions (FAQ) accumulated from university library and other third-party resources presented in the Chinese internet. Independent of the information quality concerns th of the information provided by this AI library, the concept of a “living” library teaching students in a user-friendly platform is operating, learning and teaching based of patterns learned or dictated.

Cybervetting for Personnel Selection
Another recent research findings conducted with recruiters published in 2017 listed three primary function of a cybervetting process:


 * Screening - Process considered analogous to conventional background check and résumé analysis;
 * Efficiency - A more effective way to gather information from a candidate than the conventional process;
 * Relational - Analysis of a candidate relationship and behavior through social network posts.

The cybervetting is so contradictory that most of the participants didn’t acknowledge its usage regardless the familiarity they have with this theme. Only a few number of participants talked openly about having cybervetting current candidates.

Counter Vandalism
Copied from User:FULBERT Links I frequently use when reverting intentional or unintentional vandalism:
 * WP:VERIFY - Please remember to cite reliable sources as evidence to support your claims per WP:VERIFY
 * WP:RELIABLE - The source used here does not fulfill the Wikipedia policy of using reliable, third party WP:INDEPENDENT published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RELIABLE
 * WP:USI - Removed unsourced content per WP:USI
 * Citation Needed - add Insert > Template > Fact > Citation Needed - within the text that requires a citation.

Article evaluation
Dvcap (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Article Topic: Separation anxiety in dogs - Analysis
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * It is relevant but I found two citations that could be considered advertising, DOGTV – Premium cable TV and Digital Dogsitter that links to a commercial website.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Some Technics could be added in the treatment topic but all Technics are based on individual trainers experience and have commercial objectives.

What else could be improved?
 * Include a section of how Separation Anxiety in dog could affect the dog’s owners life.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, one citation of a website as part of the treatment methodology

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No

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

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?
 * Yes, one citation of a website as part of the treatment methodology

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Polite conversation with suggestions and changes.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated as start-class and low-importance

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * so far equal we discussed in class. I added a suggestion for a text removal where I found the commercial website citation