User:Gabriel Mont/sandbox

Assignment 7 (responding to my peer review) completed
Since I did not get a peer review, I reached out to the Wikipedia staff for this course and received feedback, which can be found on the talk page here. I took into account the criticism, especially regarding vague descriptors and the lack of a clean end to my third paragraph, and incorporated new information and reworded some sentences to make my article contribution better. The criticism I received was very helpful, not only highlighting flaws in my work that I had completely overlooked, but also giving suggestions on how to mend said flaws or improve my writing.

Peer review Assignment 7 Completed
I, Gabriel Montes, have posted a peer review of Marcus Moores's contribution to the article History of Self-Driving Cars on Marcus Moores's sandbox talk page. My review can also be found here.

= assignment5 = (This is where I will work on my addition to the article Luddite.)

Reputation
At the time of the Luddite activities between 1811 and 1816, the protestors were respected and admired by a subset of civilians and workers; the imaginary figure of General Ludd was even considered a hero. However, throughout the centuries following the end of the movement, the word "Luddite" has become an insult, a shift brought about in part by conflicting encyclopedia entries that paint the English protestors in a negative light. The reputation of the Luddites has changed in another way: historians studying the 18th-century protests have debated and influenced each-other's opinions on the matter, resulting in an ever-changing perception of Luddites in the academic sphere.

Public Reputation
Parliamentary records from the mid-1950s contain the first known association of the word “Luddite” with technophobia, but an unfavorable image of the Luddites was already present in encyclopedias. The 11th Edition Britannica from 1911, possibly to appeal to its well-off readers, frames the Luddites as antagonists to the machine owners whose equipment had been vandalized. The same work also insults Ned Ludd’s intelligence and focuses on the destruction of the movement, avoiding mention of any part machine owners might have had in the rise of the Luddites. The 1938 Americana discuses the Luddites with vague language and avoids mentioning the punishment inflicted on the participants who were captured by the government. Over time, the Britannica changed its facts, stating that citizens supported the Luddites in the 1929 edition, but then saying the rioters received only a small amount of approval in the 1969 edition. In 1961, the Luddites were pitied as fools by a compiler, who stated that the machines were not really causing job loss. Overall, by focusing on the machine smashing and siding with the government and machine owners, encyclopedias throughout the centuries modified the portrayal of the Luddites from protestors to technophobic rioters desiring chaos. A 2017 digital Britannica article is much more favorable to the Luddites, however, and displays sympathy for the workers who were suffering from job loss, reflecting a change of readership and the general human mindset. The word "Luddite," though, is still used as a derogatory term to label people as technophobic.

Views of Historians
The word "Luddite" has a very specific definition among history experts: it refers only to protestors that were active in specific areas of England from 1811 through 1816. The identity of the Luddites is uncontested, but historians have argued over other aspects of the movement. Two particularly hot points of contention are whether or not the machine-smashers were politically motivated and if the movement left lasting consequences.

Early historians consented that the actions of the Luddites were a form of protest, with an exception being put forth by Frank Peel in 1880. Peel focused on the Luddites’ way of speaking that resembled the rhetoric of a revolution. Later, F. Darvall took a more traditional stance, believing that the Luddites had acted for job-related motives without politics being involved. John L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, through studying documents, came to the conclusion that Luddism arose to prevent unfavorable changes in laws and the workplace. The British historian Eric Hobsbawm combined some notions of previous historians to conclude that the Luddites broke machines in a strategic manner to bargain for control in their trades. E. P. Thompson later considered that the Luddite movement might have arisen due to a combination of political and work-related issues. Thompson thought that Luddism was a symptom of the unification of workers, and the British historian was the first to frame the riots as a contributor to progress. M. I. Thomis, however, did not see the movement in such a positive light, arguing in the 1970s that Luddism was merely a small piece in the history of trade unions. In the 1990s, Kirkpatrick Sale published a study that greatly contributed to the modern view of Luddites by the public. To Sale, the Luddites were mostly upset with the inclusion of machines in the workplace, portraying the workers as technophobic.

The contrasting viewpoints historians have put forth over the past few centuries have not wholly been consolidated, and experts regard Luddites in various ways depending on the location of the protests being discussed. Regardless of the many differing interpretations of the Luddite protests, most historians agree that a strict, rigid government, ignorant to the dissatisfaction of the working-class population, was the prevailing cause, directly or otherwise, of the riots.

Option 1
Luddite

The lead is apt, and the organization is relatively satisfactory. The article is unbiased and provides a good amount of information on the topic, but more detail on specific individuals involved or more clarification on the response of company owners to the movement could enrich the article. Some citations are needed, and there are some sources with questionable reliability. If I choose this article, I will create a section on the reputation of the Luddites through history; the concept is similar to the “Modern Usage” section, but I believe I have enough different information to warrant a new section.

Some sources I found are:

Linton, David. “THE LUDDITES: How Did They Get That Bad Reputation?” Labor History, vol. 33, no. 4, Fall 1992, p. 529. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00236569200890281.

Clancy, Brett. “Rebel or Rioter? Luddites Then and Now.” Society, vol. 54, no. 5, Oct. 2017, pp. 392–398. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s12115-017-0161-6.

Donnelly, F. K. “Luddites Past and Present.” Labour / Le Travail, vol. 18, Fall 1986, pp. 217–221. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/25142685.

Deseriis, Marco. Improper Names : Collective Pseudonyms from the Luddites to Anonymous, University of Minnesota Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=4391798.

Fox, Nicols. Against the Machine : The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives, Island Press, 2002. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=3317360.

Option 2
Technophobia

The lead starts out good, but contains information not present in the article and is unnecessary long. The article itself, while neutral in tone, is unbalanced, with the majority of focus put on technophobia in arts. The history section ends abruptly after the 1960s, and the section on the Luddites could have been included under “history,” but is instead separate. Information on the psychology of technophobia or the impact the fear has on individuals is almost completely missing and could be a good part to write.

Some sources I am considering are:

Information Tomorrow : Reflections on Technology and the Future of Public and Academic Libraries, edited by Rachel Singer Gordon, Information Today, Inc., 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=3316126.

Chevalier, Jacques M., and Daniel J. Buckles. Participatory Action Research : Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=1143737.

I also have a few more sources, but they are research reports, and I believe such sources are disqualified from Wikipedia.

Option 3
Technophilia

The lead is mostly good, though the last sentence is out of place and unnecessary. The article, thought unbiased, is extremely short and underdeveloped, having only three sections and as many paragraphs (excluding the lead). I would add a section regarding the presence of technophilia in the modern age.

Sources I am considering include:

Chevalier, Jacques M., and Daniel J. Buckles. Participatory Action Research : Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=1143737.

Technology, Trust, and Religion : Roles of Religions in Controversies Over Ecology and the Modification of Life, edited by Willem B. Drees, Leiden University Press, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rcbc/detail.action?docID=3327105.

= Article Evaluation = I chose to evaluate the article on the Luddite s because the movement associated with them was a consequence of the implementation of technology into the workplace.

Lead
The lead for the Luddite article is satisfactory. The first sentence defines the term Luddite and what the organization hoped to accomplish. The remainder of the lead summarizes the whole article in a concise manner; however, the second sentence contains a grammar error—using “was protesting” where “protested” is more applicable—and is awkward to read. Also, the final sentence states that “Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters,” yet the article does not cover the actions of business owners against the Luddites.

Content
The content of the article is mostly relevant to the creation, actions, and abolishment of the Luddite organization. An exception occurs, however, in the section titled “Legacy,” where the topics of “precarious employment prospects” and “the organization of manufacture” are covered, but neither subject is linked to the Luddites. The rest of the information, though, is composed of relatively well-written content that does not dwell too long on each particular point. More information regarding the Luddite leaders would enrich the article, but what is written is satisfactory.

Tone and Balance
The article maintains a neutral tone, taking neither the Luddites’ or the government’s side. The article explains the harsh conditions that spurned the creation of the organization, but the actions of the Luddites are not glorified as morally superior or evil. A more in-depth look into the responses of the targeted businesses to the Luddites is lacking, with the exception of one quote by mill owner and murder victim William Horsfall.

Sources and References
Despite having thirty-six sources in the references section, some facts are not cited in the text. The sources that are cited, however, often lead to references of questionable reliability, such as digital magazines, dictionary definitions, and news cites. Some sources are of quality, though, including The Quarterly Journal of Economics, and various books or excerpts from printed text. Unfortunately, many sources, especially the more reliable ones, date from the mid-1900s to the early-2000s. On the other hand, as the Luddite movement occurred hundreds of years ago, the date of the sources is not of much concern. The links do work, and, though a majority of the sources are written by men, the nature of the topic as a movement against employment issues does not necessitate the input of both sexes.

Organization
The article is generally well-written, though a noticeable amount of awkward sentences and grammatical errors are present, such as the example previously stated in the evaluation of the lead. The section titled “Birth of the movement” begins with two sentences that do not pertain to the content of the remainder of the section and have not logical reason to be present. Sometimes the topic transitions without warning, such as in the last sentences of the “Birth of the movement” section, where Heathcote is singled out without reason as a victim of the vandals and then promptly neglected. The overall organization of the article is apt, with all the major points of the Luddite organization being touched upon. The exception is the “Legacy” section, which has no reason to exist, as the information found within it makes no contextual sense, as previously stated.

Images and Media
The article contains two images, and both provide a depiction of the Luddite assaults and are situated on the right side of the text in an unobtrusive way. The second image contains a lengthy caption that describes the image well, but also contains information regarding the punishment of vandals that should have been in the accompanying section instead. Both images are dated over two hundred years ago, and are therefore not protected by copyright; however, both images lack attribution to artists.

The talk page
On the talk page, conversations range from discussing the addition of a new section, titled “Modern Perspective,” to the errors of the “Background” section, or whether the Luddites were actually an organized group. The article is C-rated and is part of six WikiProjects: Sociology, Textile Arts, Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and History.

Overall impressions
The article provides some good information regarding the Luddites, but there are enough errors or dubious additions to warrant caution. The article covers the etymology of the word “Luddite” and the historical precedents leading to the movement in a satisfactory manner. The lead is apt, and an unbiased view of events is presented. If unnecessary sentences were removed, clarification added to some information, and the structure of some sentences revised, then the article would improve drastically. The coverage of the Luddites is thorough, though more insight into specifics, such as the leaders of the group, or if there were leaders, would also improve the article.