User:Shahnib2003!/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
With my partner Xipu Yu we are evaluating this article: https://mashable.com/article/oatmeal-backfire-effect-comic

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) We choose this article because it was a review of the comic and we can find the interpretation of the comic and what readers gathered from it.

Evaluate the article
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Almost everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The author proved why “there’s a huge catch”, such as she suggested that experiments of “backfire effect” are hard to replicate.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? What else could be improved?

The article was published in 2017 and the author used some evidence to support her point of view. For example, she suggested, “that a large-scale, peer-reviewed study presented last August at the American Political Science Association’s annual conference couldn't reproduce the findings of the high-profile 2010 study that documented backfire effect”. So, from the time that the article was published, we  might conduct the study, which related findings in 2010, was published at the American Political Science Association’s annual conference in 2016. It's 2021, so 2010 and 2016 data may have out of date issues. Moreover, one of the pieces of evidence found by Brendan Nyhan was published in 2013, so it might also be out of date.

The review is about a comic “You are not going to believe what I’m about to tell you” and the idea of “backfire effect” in the comic. So, I think it will be easier for readers to understand this review article if the author could first introduce the content of the comic detailly, like the comic including the story of George Washington's teeth were made of gold, lead, and even horse and donkey teeth.

Moreover, it would be better if the author could better explain the meaning of “backfire effect”, for example, it “is a cognitive bias that causes people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs to reject that evidence, and to strengthen their support of their original stance.”(Effectiviology, 1). Even though the author provides an explanation of this key term, I searched its meaning on Google. So, I think the definition should be more clear.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is relatively neutral. At first, the author wrote a lot about why there’s a big problem with the “backfire effect” with lots of supporting evidence, including the study from authority organizations, the research conducted by specialists on politics, Tom Wood and Ethan Porter, and so on. So, she did really well on supporting her point of view. Then, she also argued, “this doesn't mean that Inman's comic is inherently wrong.”,  and started to discuss why the comic shows the idea of “backfire effect. So, the author of this review article discussed the two sides of the issue and that is the reason why I think this article is quite neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Viewpoints are clearly explained by the author of this review article. She firstly pointed out problems about the “backfire effect” with supporting evidence. Then, she also discussed why we should not dismiss the idea of the "backfire effect" in the comics. She used more sentences to talk about her own point of view, but I think that’s not meant to be overrepresented since this is a review and she ought to say more about her own ideas, especially those that  are different from most other readers.

Check the source

The first citation is seen within the first paragraphs and references how in August 2016 even the American Political Science Association’s annual conference couldn't reproduce the findings of the high-profile 2010 study that documented backfire effect. The links do work and heavily support the author's claims within confusion explaining the backfire effect. Rebecca’s main claim is that “These well-researched psychological phenomena mean that we can be prone to choosing information and data that support our worldview while diminishing or dismissing evidence that contradicts it.” and while the comic isn’t wrong the sources support this main claim provided in the article.

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?

At first I feel there is bias apparent from the beginning of this article analyzing this comic. The author Rebecca Ruiz claims the comic is persuasive and we should know more about it or get another perspective. Most sources Author Ruiz provided were from scholars and research professors and these sources are neutral as there are pages of detailed research trying to understand this effect and how it affects politics. The information comes from a multitude of sources that contained reliable references.

Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?

The sources presented in the article come from a multitude of professors and scientist who primary research is studying this effect. Tom Wood and Ethan Porter, political scientists and assistant professors at The Ohio State University and George Washington University, collected over 8,100 people for this study and noticed the people involved Lost the desire to value false information when provided with valid informational sources. Other professors involved were Brendan Nyhan a Scholar in Health Policy Research School of Public Health University of Michigan and Jason Reifler who is Assistant Professor Department of Political Science in Georgia State.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page:

Although there isn’t an article about the comic in itself there is an article about where the comic comes from which is The Oatmeal.com.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

On The Oatmeal's talk page site, they talk about Inman’s age and a big portion of it regards his legal dispute with The Oatmeal and Funnyjunk.com. Most are discussing how accurate information regarding this case is questionable and that there is not much discovery of what happened next between The Oatmeal and Funnyjunk.com disputes.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The oatmeal comedy site is a part of the WikiProjects and its rated B-class. This article is also supported by WikiProject comics.

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

We haven’t talked about this article in class but I feel like the backfire effect is an uncommon topic that isn’t talked about due to the confusion surrounding it. This famous comic led to another pattern of deep research from scholars inquiring about how this effect makes them worry about people's opinions and the future of politics.