User:Jasmair/sandbox

Article Editing (Decision Making)
There are five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. It is important to keep in mind that these five different decision-making styles change depending on the context and situation that is presented, and one style is not necessarily better than any other. To better understand each decision-making style, there is an example provided after the definitions. In the example, Individual A is working for a company and is offered a job from a different company.

The rational decision-making style is an in-depth search and a strong consideration for other options and/or information prior to making a decision. In this style, Individual A would research the new job being offered, review their current job, and look at the pros and cons of taking the new job versus staying with their current company.

The intuitive decision-making style is confidence in one's initial feelings and gut reactions when choosing a decision that needs to be made. In this style, if Individual A initially prefers the new job because they have a feeling that the work environment is better suited for them, then they would decide to take the new job. Keep in mind that Individual A might not make this decision as soon as the job is offered, but rather still wait to accept the new job offer.

The dependent decision-making style is asking for other people's input and instructions on what decision should be made before making a decision. In this style, Individual A could ask their friends, family, coworkers, etc. Keep in mind that Individual A might not ask all of these people, and it could range from asking one person to asking as many people as they deem necessary.

The avoidant decision-making style is averting the responsibility of making a decision. In this style, Individual A would not make a decision. Therefore, Individual A would stick with their current job.

The spontaneous decision-making style is a need to make a decision as soon as possible rather than waiting to make a decision. In this style, Individual A would either reject or accept the job as soon as it is offered rather than waiting to do so.

Article Selection

 * 1) Conflict in collectivistic cultures
 * 2) * There is no section about conflict in this article, but there is a lot of research done on how people in collectivistic cultures deal with conflict. To add on, when I create my own section on conflict, I want to add the tendencies people from this culture have when dealing with conflict and the decision making process they go through.
 * 3) * This is a C-Class article, so there is a lot of editing and additions that need to be made. Also, this is a level-5 vital article, so it is an important article to edit.
 * 4) Conflict in individualistic cultures
 * 5) * Same as above, there is no section about conflict in this article. If I were to choose this article, I would make the same changes as above, but relating it too individualistic cultures.
 * 6) * This is also a level-5 vital article, but this is a Starter-Class article. This means that even though this is an important article to edit, this is more developed than the collectivistic article. I am hesitant in editing this article over the previous one because the other one needs more work.
 * 7) Special Olympics USA
 * 8) * I have been a part of Special Olympics for eight years, so I have experience with the organization, and that's why I looked at this article. I noticed that there is information about each year's USA Games, and the games sections are not updated. This past year, the USA Games were held in Seattle, WA and Special Olympics Washington helped organize and facilitate. So, if I decided to work on this article, I would reach out to staff from Special Olympics Washington to point me in the right direction of where I could obtain this information. I am hesitant in doing this article because there are no scholarly sources for the information.

== Article Evaluation == Evaluating content


 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 2) * Everything in this article was relevant. I believe this was because intercultural communication is a widely studied topic. However, in the opening paragraph, the last sentence states, "Many people in intercultural business communication argue that culture determines how individuals encode messages..." which I believe distracts from the article. This is because it emphasizes that those in intercultural business communication believe the phrase that follows and can be misinterpreted as the people outside of intercultural business communication do not agree with the phrase.
 * 3) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 4) * After reading through the whole article, there was no information I noticed that was out of date. But, some of the wikilinks in Section 3.5 no longer work, and could be removed. Also, there was no information that could be added, but I do suggest other improvements in the next question.
 * 5) What else could be improved?
 * 6) * The sentence I talked about in the first question, could be moved to the opening paragraph of Section 1.1 Also, I believe that pictures draw the interest of readers more, so I would add a relevant picture in the opening section.

Evaluating tone


 * 1) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 2) * This article is neutral, and it did not appear that certain claims were heavily biased. I believe this is because there are many edits that have been made to this article since July 27th, 2004 up until the most recent edit being December 29th, 2018.
 * 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 4) * Since this article is neutral and does not have a bias towards any particular position, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Even though certain sections are smaller than other sections, there are wikilinks and citations provided to learn more about a concept. For example, Section 1.2 briefly mentions collectivistic and individualistic cultures, but provides wikilinks to both.

Evaluating sources


 * 1) Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 2) * As mentioned above, there are a handful of wikilinks in Section 3.5 of the article that do not work. Also, in the References section, a lot of the citations do not direct the user to an article. To add on, Reference 22 requires the reader to log in to Kindle to access the article which causes issues of accessibility for readers if they want to check the sources or learn more. Even though there are some issues with the links, the rest of the links that I clicked on and the sources I looked at do work and do support the claims in the article.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) * Each fact was referenced, but due to accessibility issues, mentioned in the previous question, I could not tell if each was a reliable and appropriate reference. For those that took me to a external link, to me, some were appropriate and reliable while others were not. For example, References 2 and 3 were not peer-reviewed or scholarly articles. On the other hand, Reference 10 was a peer-reviewed, scholarly article. To add on, nothing popped out that was of concern showing that the sources were bias or not neutral.

Checking the talk page


 * 1) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * 2) * There are no current conversation happening behind the scenes about this article. The most recent conversation was in November 2014.
 * 3) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * 4) * This article is a part of WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Translation, both of which rated the quality of this article as C-Class.
 * 5) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * 6) * Wikipedia discusses this topic differently than the way this topic has been discussed in my previous classes. This is because there is less of a conversation happening and more of the theories being presented. By this I mean, there are no personal examples given. In a classroom environment, students, including myself, relate theories and concepts to their personal lives, and some even share these examples whereas Wikipedia does not allow a space for this.