User:Luckettj/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Technology and society. Technology and society

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I thought the intersection of technology and society is interesting and there are many policy issues that arise from these two areas.

Evaluate the article
= Technology and Society = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_and_society

Wikipedia article evaluation

Jonathan Luckett

February 11, 2023

The Wikipedia article that I chose is Technology and society. I thought this would be an interesting topic and wanted to see how much of this article was replicated in the discussion we are having in class and the text that we are reading. I have specific notes on the article sections below.

Lead Section

Not a very good opening paragraph. I got stuck on phrases, such as, “co-dependence,” “co-influence,” and specifically, “co-production.” I’ve never heard of co-production in the context of technology, so I had to look it up. This distracted me immediately.

The internet is not mentioned until the end of the second paragraph. The second paragraph talks about tools, and specifically how prehistoric people utilized tools to tame fire, and the neolithic revolution–again, something I had to look up. To me, this distracts and takes away from making the connection regarding technology and society and how technology has changed culture in the past 100 years or so.

The third paragraph talks about how technology has advanced economics but doesn’t give any examples. It introduces the concept of the “leisure class,” a phrase I am once again not familiar with. This paragraph also mentions how technology leads to pollution and depletes the earth’s natural resources. This seems like an extremely unbalanced introduction to how technology serves societ.

The fourth paragraph talks about how technology is debated as to whether it improves the human condition or “worsens it.”  The paragraph continues with mentioning “neo-Luddism,” “anarcho-primitivism,” and reactionary movements that criticize technology.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic?

No.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s main sections?

No.

''Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (it shouldn’t)''

No, it does not.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is not very concise, but worse, it does not do a good job of introducing the issues of technology and society. It does not elaborate on any benefits of technology, especially since the advent of the internet, mobile devices, m-commerce, and the like.

Content

This section begins with Historical–Stone tools, control of fire and plant agriculture all played a role in how societies developed. Modern Examples and Effects mentions digital technology but does not provide examples. The article references a 1982 NY Times study that talks about the videotex industry (not familiar with that term). An entire paragraph is devoted to this topic. Digital technology including downloading music and DVDs. The use of the internet in schools. Social media has altered the way gen Y views the world. Negative aspects of social media leads to depression in adolescents. “Technology has a serious effect on youth’s health.” Example cites sleep deprivation.

Economics and technological development–tech keeps the economy moving. Covid enhanced the company's digital technology offerings. Funding–Govt and private. Government funding for new technology. Billions invested in new technology. The UK govt invested over $6M pounds in 1980 with equipping each school in Britain with a computer. Tech is also driven by the military. Private funding includes foundations and nonprofits fund technology. Article mentions Kickstarter in 2009.

Values–Tech influences society by changing expectations and realities. 3 major values:


 * 1) Mechanistic world view views the universe as a collection of parts that can be analyzed and understood.
 * 2) Efficiency–each element is expected to perform higher and reach the highest possible performance, output, or ability.
 * 3) Social progress–is “beneficent.”  Society believes in cycles and then provides a paragraph on cyclical theory.

Institutions and Groups–Tech enables very large organizations such as the government, the military, and supranational corporations. Tech leads to the “commercialization of leisure” including sports. Tech provides for the almost instantaneous dispersal of information. International–globalization of ideas. Environment–tech can provide an understanding of the world around us. Tech produces waste and pollution. Development and technologies’ implications–ech is usually developed with profit in mind.

Values–This paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me. Negative effects on the environment. Depletion of non-renewable natural resources. Choice–Society controls technology through the choices it makes. Choices include distribution of tech, style, freedom of choice, economic value we place on the environment, wealth, and govt control.

Autonomous technology–Technology develops autonomously, and technology feeds on itself. Humanity cannot resist expanding our knowledge and tech capability. Article references a 1980 paper critiquing automation of technology. Government–Controls the side effects of the negative consequences of tech.

Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

Not really.

Is the content up to date?

Very little specific examples. References are from the 80s.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No mention of the iphone and the world wide web. Personal computers, m-commerce, and mobile devices.

''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gap? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?''

No mention of historically underrepresented populations. No mention of the digital divide, which is a huge issue with technology and society in general.

Tone

Is the article neutral?

I think the article is neutral. My issue is that it presents a lot of unnecessary information as if the purpose is to cite esoteric references that really don’t have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Not really.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

The article spends a bit of time on how technology negatively impacts the environment. I do think this is not a balanced view.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No mention of underrepresented people or discussion of how minorities and developing countries are often excluded from technologies that could significantly impact their lives in a positive way.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Not really.

Sources/References

Are all the facts backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Some, but not all of the article is backed up by a reliable source of information.

Are the sources thorough?

I don’t think so, but that is based more on the structure of the article and the content than the specific references.

Are the sources current?

There are 24 sources ranging from 1991 to 2022. Some of the sources are esoteric and not relevant, i.e., “Policy assessments for the carbon emission flows and sustainability of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China,” and “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.”

''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''

Not really.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

Since there is no discussion of modern technology and the benefits, there are a number of better/modern sources that are simply not included.

''Check a few links. Do they work?''

Yes, random samples of links showed that all worked properly.

Organization and Writing Quality

''Is the article well-written? Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?''

The article reads like the author was trying to show how “intellectual” he is by referencing certain sources and utilizing words and phrases that are not common in technology. Example, I have never heard of co-influence or co-production as it relates to technology. A mention of tektology and videotex.

Does the article have spelling or grammatical mistakes?

I don’t see any spelling or grammatical mistakes. From the talk page there is discussion of spelling and grammar mistakes. My assumption is these have been corrected previously.

Is the article well-organized?

I don’t think so. The fact that the article doesn’t mention iPhones at all, or the WWW seems a blatant disregard for technology innovation that has occurred in the past 30-40 years.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are two images in the article. One is of a windmill with a nuclear reactor in the background. The second is of a roadway that is filled with smog. So, no, the images do nothing to enhance the understanding of the topic.

Are the images well captioned?

Here is the caption of the second image:  “Smog caused by the invention, construction, dissemination and use of car-technology and -infrastructure alongside possibly less than suboptimal product- and industrial production-designs.”  I don’t even know what that means.

Do all the images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations?

Yes, both images use the creative common licenses.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The images do nothing to enhance the article and are not laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion

What kind of conversations are going on behind the scenes?

There are a number of back and forth conversations regarding merging content from old articles into this new one. Some of the comments have to do with STS (Science, Technology, and Society) being a very broad field and this article trying to synthesize all of that content into one single article. Other comments are more practical, such as describing prehistoric technology as being distracting, and the need to add modern examples. One commenter wrote an extended paragraph about the use of computers, how the internet influences society, and how communication has drastically changed society because of electronic communications.

''How is the article rated? Is it part of a Wiki-Project? ''

I could not find a rating for the article. The article was part of a Wiki Education Foundation supported course assignment.  

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we’ve talked about it in class?

In class we are utilizing the textbook, which references mostly modern technology issues and challenges. And the information is presented in a straightforward way. This article seems extremely disjointed.

Overall impressions

What is the article’s overall status?

It is still very disjointed and lacks modern examples. It reads too much like it is attempting to showcase a number of irrelevant academic theories and topics that don’t related to the actual content.

What are the article’s strengths?

I could not cite any strengths to this article.

How can the article be improved?

It needs a complete rewrite. The tone needs to be changed so it is more informational and not “look what I know.”

How would you assess the article’s completeness?

Incomplete at this point.