User:Lwilson32/sandbox


 * Gender differences in social network service useLwilson32 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article I am critiquing is about gender differences in social network service use. The article talks about historical connections, differences, similarities, traditional gender roles and other gender identities in social networking. This article had 30 references which were majority coming from universities, journals, and outside research. There were only a few sources that came from websites. All of the claims were supported by research done in the field. Every section within this article was relevant to the topic. I think it was helpful how they had a section about traditional gender roles. Overall there was nothing in the article that made me take my focus off of the topic. I feel the article is neutral because they present research that has contradictory results and shows different finding about gender roles and social media sites. They use phrases like “some researchers found… other researchers found…” By doing this, the contributors are keeping a neutral tone and not leaning more to one side more than the other. I felt like the article presented unbiased information. Even though males were talked about in the article women were overrepresented throughout the article. For example, gay men were the first to use social network services but they were not mentioned in the article as much. Though the article gives off the viewpoint that is written from a neutral point of view at times it almost feels that the biased is from a woman's perspective. You can sense this in the privacy portion of the article as women are mentioned in both terms more likely and less likely compared to men who are not mentioned as more or less likely. Most of the links were still working but some of the links when we clicked on them it took me to an error page or either taking us to the home page of the link. Regarding the links I looked at there was not any paraphrasing or plagiarism in any articles that I looked at. The author did a very good job on gathering information from other articles and putting them in his/her own words. I do not think any information is out of date because I feel like I can use information from every article there. Also, the information has historical value because you gain insight on early social network services such as myspace and friendster that you wouldn't gain otherwise. The one thing that the article is missing is newer sites that are used today such as Twitter, and Google+. Something I think I can add on to this article is more research about how boys and girls use current social media sites differently
 * Something I think I can add on to this article is more research about how boys and girls use current social media sites differently.Lwilson32 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)