User:Lizjee/sandbox

Article Evaluation

•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? ⁃All the information was relevant. Topics and subtitles seemed to be cohesive, and all relevant to the digital divide. From the "Contents," it is known that the article is well written with though out information and knowledge. The bulleted topics gave a great synopsis of the article to follow.

•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? ⁃Very neutral. I noticed even in the "Criticism" and "Implications" sections, claims that were made, were referred back to facts and figures. Often, these topics are difficult to write because it is easy to show bias. However, the writers were straightforward and excluded any persuasion or commentary.

•Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? ⁃Under "Criticisms" > "Knowledge divide", I believe could use more information and facts. This is a huge issue for the digital divide. Adding more information would be valuable to the topic's importance.

•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? ⁃Citation links were usable. They directed the page when clicked, to the appropriate source and article. Sources were related to issues that were stated in the article: technology, information inequality, economy, division of labor, etc.

•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, the article was well incorporated with references when stating claims and numbers. Most references originate from reputable databases such as, Cambridge Press, Journal of Information and Technology, and many prestigious universities. Sources are neutral. Blogs were not referenced.

•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? ⁃The data used in figures are from early 2000 - 2014; fairly relevant. However, it is 2017 so some things could be updates as far as percentages in diagrams and figures.

•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? ⁃General suggestions on what can add more support to the topic. users have suggested adding attempts on how the divide is being fixed. Also some external links were corrected. Another user also suggested using more pictures and diagrams. This is very important to be more user friendly, especially for visual learners. The article of Global Digital Divide was also recently merged with Digital Divide in 2013.

•How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? ⁃Rated "start" due to the article is still in the process of development and being completely written in depth. It is also rated "C" because the information of the entire topic isn't completely included. There is a lot of material that can be added and is needed to support. WikiProjects whom are interested in the article include: WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Globalization, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject United States Public Policy, and WikiProjects Libraries. •How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? ⁃In class, we began from the beginning with the telegraph and telephone. However, this article begins in the late 1990's/ early 2000's. Wikipedia also focused more on numbers and percentages of the population.