User:Elizabeth.f.chamberlain/sandbox

= Article Evaluation = Evaluating the article "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The article offers a lot of detail in the "Context" section about anonymity and Internet use; it seems to get pretty far from the original comic sometimes.

The notion of "compulsive or problematic Internet use," for instance, at first feels out of place (the dogs aren't "addicted," are they?). By the end of the paragraph, I understand better&mdash—it's setting up a discussion of liberatory use, being able to "pass" as a privileged group.

Wonder if the "in popular culture" list is still up to date. Surely there's more recent stuff.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
The article seems to be pretty pro-anonymity. Talks a lot about the liberatory potential of anonymous use.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Though there are a couple of suggestions that anonymity might be behind "illegal" use and that we are "wary" about anonymity and that anonymity might lead to Internet addiction, seems like this is missing a lot of critique of anonymity itself.

When I reverse image searched the cartoon, I came across this video that emphasized the dangers of anonymous online dating, and this podcast that points to the ways that anonymity is actually increasingly a myth online.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
The first link, actually, to an article in The New Yorker about the cartoon, works only intermittently. It's a WaybackMachine link, and the page will load at first and then say that the WBM deosn't have the page archived. Really odd.

The second link, to a UNC page, is paywalled.

Otherwise, all the Reference links seem to work.

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?
There's one quote in the second-to-last paragraph of "Context" that isn't clearly sourced, in the signal phrase, and the half-sentence after makes it almost sound like it's by John Gilmore, not sure what statements he made that the quote echoes.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
No usage after 2015. Seems like the two articles I linked above could be good.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
Someone on the talk page in 2014 pointed out my problem with the Gilmore line. Also said it doesn't add anything. Interestingly, people back in 2012/13 started talking about the alternate "'everybody' knows you're a dog." Seems like that's something worth adding for sure.

The InternetArchiveBot turned a couple of the links into archive links, apparently. May be why one of them doesn't work so well.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
It's part of the WikiProject: Internet culture, of course.

Elizabeth.f.chamberlain (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)