User:Kyungback/sandbox

Hello World

Update:

Assignment #3 - Adding Content

I decided to add content to the same article that I critiqued. As stated below in the rough draft of the assignment #2, I tried to correct the weaknesses and left the strengths alone.

The weaknesses were:

Weak phrasing, poor citations, and possible plagiarism

The Strong point was the presentation of the main ideas.

- I made several changes and added many citations.

INST201 Assignment #2

Category: Technology in Society

Name of Article:  Sleepers, Wake!

Link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepers,_Wake !

The article I will be critiquing is a short, four-paragraph and two sentence description about a book called 'Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the Future of Work' written by Barry Jones, a former Australian Minister for Science during the 1980s. The details of the book are minimal with brief summary of the book, Jones' main ideas, and random information regarding the book and the author.

There are many issues to point out. Beginning with references, there is only one reference given in the entire article. The reference is placed after the fourth paragraph where the writer quotes Jones word-by-word about the future of working conditions. The given reference is for a television broadcast script from an Australian TV (ABC). The link failed to work as it is directed to a page that no longer exists. Under the External section a link is provided to direct the reader to the "cover" of the 4th edition of the book. The link also fails as it is directed to a non-existent website.

The writer points out many facts with no references. For example, he states that the book was "published in 1982 and reprinted many times" without any source to prove that claim. The proceeding sentence confuses the reader as it states that the book was "published in 1995 in a revised and updated fourth edition" without any reference for the history of the updated editions. In one of the descriptions of the book, the writer attempts to discuss the "key points" but resolves to explaining only one key point. The writer tries to support his selected key idea by stating: "Some of the book's key points, such as technological innovation is a major component in economic growth, are more widely accepted now than in 1982." The word structure of this sentence creates confusion because it might suggest that the writer added his own opinion than of the author's. Providing a source of data for the claim would be preferable but the reader passes by hoping that the claim was a book summary instead of personal opinion. In the proceeding sentence the writer decides to reinforce the previous claim with a direct quote from the book, thus violating the rules of Wikipedia by plagiarizing the cited source. This sentence serves as a basis to the only existing reference that would eventually be missing. By adding a direct quote, the writer reinforces the idea that the previous statement is from the Wiki writer's personal biased view than of Barry Jones. The fourth paragraph should have been reworded with careful paraphrasing and updated references for support.

One of the concluding sentences contains a flaw. The first sentence presents the idea that the fourth edition of the novel uses the "1991 Commonwealth census data" to prove Jones' thesis, but with a nonexistent directory to the fourth edition nor the census data, the reader is first confused as to which part of the thesis was confirmed and second, disinclined to believe whether both the revised edition and census truly existed.

The strong points of the article are that the writer provided highlights of the book and the central ideas of Jones without many biases and judgment. The reader is able to grasp the main ideas and infer what the book will be about. For validity, the article also provides direct links to the Wikipedia pages of the author and list of the Australian Minister(s) of Science. The citation --along with the proper ISBN--is also provided for readers to search for the actual book. To strengthen the article the reader recommends updating the current references with properly functioning websites, adding more data and information to support the claims, and most importantly, rewording to leave no hint of plagiarism, personal opinion, and clearly presenting the ideas of Barry Jones.