User:Zachmcmahon/sandbox

Article evaluation- Digital rhetoric


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The topic is very thorough and nothing really distracted me
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * In a field that covers something as ever changing as digital communications some examples may seem dated in the changing landscape. an example is using the comparing the tweets of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush these references could be updated.
 * What else could be improved?
 * Besides updating and maintain current uses and theories it's a very complete representation of the topic.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * the article seems very neutral with 69 citation throughout the piece with the majority of those being from academic works and books published by respected members of the field it seems very natural.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * In a topic as board as digital rhetoric it would be difficult to equally represents all the parts that make up a digital life. I think the article does a good job showing as much as it can, with links for more information if you really wanted to dive deeper in a particular area.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * yes all the links I clicked on worked, and yes with 69 links the article is well supported.
 * 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?
 * besides one citation needed which seems to have been fixed I found the references appropriate and reliable. Mirroring an answer above the majority of the citations are from academic works and books published by respected members of the field. There is a note about the use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines but with it being such a broad topic I wonder if that has something to do with it.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Updating the name of the article from eRhetoric to digital rhetoric in 2013 was a big step as well as moving a few things around and updating as things change in the field.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of four WikiProjects: WikiProjects Media, WikiProjects Philosophy, WikiProjects Linguistics/applied linguistics, and WikiProjects Computing.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed this topic specifically in class but it does fit in the terms of the scope. Being all about digital rhetoric you can see how it would apply to social media and work from there. We covered technology last week and lots of the issues are part of the concepts section of the page.

Push-Pull-Thinking
Push-Pull-Thinking is best understood by the application of how new technology is created. When new demand for a product is the driving factor behind its creation then it is the "pulled" method, while when a new technology enters the market with new possibilities for application or innovation then it is the "push method."

Examples of Push-Pull-Thinking
It's easier to understand an example of Push-Pull-Thinking where technology is the driving factor as one from an engineering or research and development background. Sony's Walkman personal stereo cassette player would be an example of a technology push where there was no market need.

In cases of Push-Pull-Thinking, where demand is the driving factor, the needs or requirements of society or market its best to take a market research approach to innovation. Innovations regarding safety are often seen as pulled innovations with car airbags and new medical advancements usually listed as examples.