User:Siboyle/sandbox

Yik Yak Article Critique
I thought this article was relatively neutral in its analysis of Yik Yak, particularly in its discussion concerning controversies involving the anonymous app. The article discusses not only the negative aspects of the application (such as cyber bullying and general racism and hate speech) but also the fact that the media may have embellished the harmful effects of Yik Yak and masked some of its beneficial components (giving everyone their own voice on campuses, helping to prevent suicide, etc.). Because the article outlined the positives and the negatives of the app in a fairly neutral tone, I considered it to be mostly unbiased. In my opinion, not everything in this article was particularly relevant to the topic. Most people searching Yik Yak are concerned with the nature of the application—what it is, how it works, the effect it has had on users, what the public generally thinks about it. The sheer length of the Controversies section accurately highlights this—the majority of people are going to be interested in the application's role in society and the issues or benefits that have been created as a result of the app. The section I found to be irrelevant was the paragraph dedicated to the finances and funding of the application, which I think probably appeals to a really small fraction of the Wikipedia audience. It's a fairly unnecessary and mundane detail that actually drew my attention away and distracted me from the more important aspects of Yik Yak. I think the article could be made more concise and improved through the removal of this section.I found the Talk Page to be somewhat shocking. People didn’t seem to be having conversations about mundane edits; mainly everyone was pointing out major issues with the article. Two users mentioned that this article was problematic because nearly the entire thing had been edited by one user whose account was deactivated, which was interesting to see. Another user warned others that advertisers for what I believe is a Yik Yak competitor were editing the page to plug for their own application. I’ve never thought about Wikipedia being used unethically by companies to promote their products, and it’s good that the Talk Page exists so users can warn each other to look out for this sort of behavior. Wikipedia differs from our class discussions by blurring the lines between differing opinions to try to create an unbiased account that covers both sides of an issue. For example, our class debates typically consist of individual students expressing their own opinions and defending themselves against other remarks. On Wikipedia, these debates may still be happening—but they are displayed in a much more cryptic manner. They are put forth as neutral, “some may argue” statements and work in tandem with their opposing sides to cover all parts of an issue and create a holistic account of the topic. I would give this article somewhere between a B and C rating. It had a lot of good relevant information on the topic, but was lacking in some sources. The Talk Page also brought up some concerns about strange users editing the page and biased advertisers tweaking with the information to benefit themselves. It also spent a lot of time focusing on the specifics of finances of Yik Yak, which I already mentioned I found to be unnecessary and not particularly relevant. This article has a good foundation but could definitely use a little more attention and edits.

WhyIStayed/WhyILeft Critique
Apart from the first sentence, which lays out the origins of the incident and explains the abusive event that instigated the trending hashtag, everything in this article is cited and cited well. The sources are reliable—from CNN to USA Today to the Washington Post. It integrates useful and relevant quotes that enhance the feel and quality of the article. Even though what is written is currently accurate, this article is quite brief. Simply due to its brevity, I would say that everything included in it is relevant—although the nod to Digiorno’s mistaken use of the hashtag felt distracting without any in-depth analysis. I would consider looking further into that error and making it a section of its own, describing the backlash the company received for accidentally stealing a hashtag from an abuse awareness campaign. While none of the information was out of date and everything was cited with reliable sources, I did feel this article was missing a substantial amount. Something I felt was absent from this article was a response from Janay Rice. Perhaps she didn’t speak on the issue, which is something I would like to look into as part of this project, but to me it was a burning question as to why Beverly Gooden was essentially Rice’s voice of defense and Rice had no comment on the issue. I am also curious as to how Ray Rice responded to a campaign that was in response to his horrendous actions. More information and research about the event that spawned this trending movement rather than sole focus on the movement itself would improve this article immensely. There doesn’t seem to be any activity on this article’s Talk Page yet, which is surprising and a little disappointing for me. I would have been curious to see if anyone agreed with me about the strange lack of discussion about the Rices, or if someone would have explained the reason they threw in the Digiorno fact without going into any kind of elaboration. This article was denoted as a Start article on the quality scale, which I completely agree with. Everything in the article right now is fairly sound and nothing currently there is problematic—it has the basic bones of a good article and is backed by a few solid sources. Still, there is immense room for improvement and elaboration, which is exactly what the quality rating suggests.

WhyIStayed/WhyILeft Article Selection
I saw a lot that I could add to this article. I plan to do more research on the Rices themselves and how each party reacted specifically to this trending hashtag. I also want to look further into the Digiorno controversy, as the article has only a nod to the fact that the pizza company accidentally used this hashtag as a part of promoting their pizza. Perhaps a few specific examples of stories that abuse victims have shared would also work to enhance the article. Further, I'd be curious to see if this movement encouraged anyone to leave an abusive relationship and what their stories are. Mainly, I'm going to try to take what is already in this article and try to delve deeper into everything.

Article Draft

 * 1) WhyIStayed became a trending hashtag in November 2014 in defense of domestic abuse victims after a media release of security camera footage that appeared to show NFL player, Ray Rice, punching his then-fiancee, Janay Rice, sparked public conversation on why Janay and other victims of abuse choose to stay in abusive relationships. The hashtag was started by writer and domestic abuse survivor Beverly Gooden via Twitter in an effort to "change the tone of the conversation." It began to trend nationally five hours after its creation and was used more than 46,000 times that day, according to the Web analytics tool, Topsy. The #WhyILeft was a later addition to the Twitter conversation.

Background

Beverly Gooden's rationale for staying with her husband was that it was step one in her move to eventually leave her abusive relationship; Janay Rice, on the other hand, expressed that she has no intention of divorcing her now-husband and does not view herself as an abuse victim. In the wake of media attention after the release of the tape, Janay came out in support of Ray on Instagram, writing, “To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret every day is a horrible thing.” Beyond the pull to stay together for the sake of their daughter, Rayven, Janay argued that the violent night in Atlantic City was an anomaly in their relationship. In an interview with ESPN, she said, “As angry as I was, I knew it was something that we could move on from because I know Ray." She added that the violence was not one-sided; Janay was the one to initiate it, slapping Ray before he assaulted her. She stressed that she hopes people can see the love that the two have for one another despite one isolated incident, and how much they have grown because of it.

On Monday, November 8, creator Beverly Gooden posted the following message to her website to elaborate on her inspiration for #WhyIStayed:

"The internet exploded with questions about [Janay Rice] … why didn't she leave? Why did she marry him? Why did she stay? I can't speak for Janay Rice, but I can speak for Beverly Gooden. Why did I stay? … Leaving was a process, not an event. And sometimes it takes a while to navigate through the process. I believe in storytelling. I believe in the power of shared experience. I believe that we find strength in community. That is why I created this hashtag. I hope those tweeting using #WhyIStayed find a voice, find love, find compassion, and find hope."

Stories of why victims stayed varied from feeling unable to leave out of fear to not knowing that abuse was abnormal. On the contrary, victims left because they realized their lives were in jeopardy, they started to believe they deserved better, and/or they wanted to protect their children.

Response

In response to #WhyIStayed/#WhyIleft, Janay said she was thankful that her experience with domestic violence instigated the movement. Despite the difficulty of enduring the scrutiny that comes from the publicization of a private moment, Janay said that the fact that it began a conversation about abuse was a silver lining.

The hashtag gained significant attention from the national media, as well as from the National Domestic Violence Hotline via Twitter. The organization thanked all who were sharing their stories with #WhyIStayed and informed users about their services.

Misuse of the Hashtag

After #WhyIStayed became a trending topic on Twitter, it was mistakenly used by the DiGiorno's Pizza Twitter handle as a marketing effort. They tweeted, “#WhyIStayed You had pizza.” The administrator for the account later removed the tweet and apologized for the mistake, claiming that no one had looked into the implication of the trending hashtag before taking to Twitter. While many Twitter users brushed over the mistake, others were deeply angered as they believed DiGiorno was making light of an incredibly serious topic. In response, DiGiorno answered every negative tweet with personal messages conveying their apologies. DiGiorno has since removed the original tweet—but not before screenshots were taken to verify the event.