User:Magically.pink/sandbox

Article Evaluation

The article I have chosen for the Wikipedia assignment is titled “Gender differences in social network service use.” I picked the article solely for the titled and was very unsatisfied by the article itself. My immediate notice was how outdated the article was. The article is intended to list how different genders use social media differently however, the forms mentioned most are Facebook and Myspace. Myspace is very outdated and most of today’s generation have moved onto other platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter. Most of the cited sources are very old, as old as 1985, while the most current is from 2014. Social network is constantly changing and to have the most current source from 3 years ago, is not acceptable.

I decided to go on the talk page and see what activity has occurred. I discovered that some users made comments about the significance of the article. They claim it’s not a valuable article. As of now I agree because the article does little to support the topic. The article has a very short entry. The first sentence alludes to research and yet no research is mentioned until much later in the article.

The article is broken down by five sections historical connections, differences, similarities, traditional roles, and gender identities. I thought the section on historical connections was very broad. It didn’t go into enough detail nor does it have enough evidence. It mentions just two topics telephones and computers. I also thought the section overall was confusing as the article is about gender differences in social networks. The differences and similarities sections was good. It needs to be updated significantly as the networks mentioned are Myspace and Facebook only and the sources are from 2007. It also needs more research. There is a sub section on privacy that was quite long. I found most of the section to be confusing the article talks about one claim only to negate it later. The best section of the article is the uses section. It talks about how men and women use social networks differently. I found it to be interesting. I think if the sources were updated and added to it would be a great section. The article ends on a section titled other gender identities. I found this to extremely lacking as only one sentence is under the section. It doesn’t mention much. So much headway has been made with new identities that it needs to be mentioned or at least tried to be covered here.

It is no surprise that the article is unrated. It is very outdated and needs to be added to with significant evidence and research. Most of the sources mentioned are old and not relevant. It lists 32 references and seems to not actually use all of them I’m surprised that an article like this one hasn’t been changed. I agree with many comments made on the page. It needs to be improved if it expects to be useful to people today,