User talk:Camomileviolet/sandbox

Peer Review 1
44 percent of all adults get their news from Facebook. [1] and Many individuals, starting with students in elementary school, have been exposed to how fake news has influenced the politic process. [2] Investigations conducted earlier this year showed nearly 40 percent of content by far-right Facebook pages and 19 percent of extreme left-leaning pages were false or misleading. [3] In the 10 months leading up to the election, 20 fake news articles shared on Facebook dramatically increased from 3 million "shares, reactions, and comments" to nearly 9 million. [4] Mainstream media articles, on the other hand, declined from 12 million of these "shares, reactions, and comments" in February to only 7.3 million by Election Day. [5]

Researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Education devised a study beginning in January 2015 which revealed the difficulty that students at the middle, high school, and college level experienced in differentiating between advertisements and news articles, or identifying where information originated. [6] The researchers worry that democracy is at risk of devolving due to the ways in which falsehoods about civic issues can quickly spread with a growing ease of access. In one assessment, high school students were asked to evaluate two Facebook posts mentioning Donald Trump's candidacy for president; one was from an actual Fox News account and the other was from a fake account.[7] Over 30 percent of students stated that the fake account was more reliable because of its included graphic elements and only a quarter recognized the significance of the blue checkmark on Twitter and Facebook, which indicates that an account was marked as legitimate. [8]

Some Elementary school teachers have decided to take on the Stanford study by showing children the importance of not being deceived by what is fake through classroom projects that focus on distinguishing fact and fiction. Fifth grade teacher Scott Bedley in California created his own version of "Simon Says", in which students are given three minutes to read an article and decide whether a news story is true or false. [9] Those who think it's false stand up, while those who think it's true remain in their seats. Bedley has a seven-point checklist students can follow to determine their choices. [10] He worked with another teacher in Kansas, Todd Flory, to devise a "fake news challenge" via Skype whereby Flory's class picked two real articles and wrote their own fake one, to subsequently present them to Bedly's class in California. [11] The teachers promoting these learning techniques say their students are encouraged at this young age to utilize these skills and ideas so they can stay with them upon reaching adulthood. [12]

Looking at the absorption of of fake news sites from another perspective is that of the study based on interviews with 61 teenagers conducted from December 2007 to February 2011. [13] Students' comments revealed that they were uninterested in "objective" news and, rather, instead they desired to gain a more balanced understanding of news that attracted them to blogs, Facebook postings, YouTube videos, fake news, and other nontraditional sources. [14] Granted, this study occurred before the most recent controversies surrounding fake news and its role in the 2016 presidential election, but its results are related to the emphasis on its influence on individuals. Consumption of news in these unorthodox ways raises concerns by researchers of the study that this may permit teens to avoid significant political stories in favor of trivia, encouraging the creation of "echo chambers" where one is only exposed to views that match their own.[15] The study expands on youth media research, finding teens gravitating towards Facebook, opinionated current events shows, and fake news more often than official news not because they are disinterested in news, but because these sites offer more provocative discussions of the news and its implications. [16]

'''Notes:
 * Italicized earlier this year in the first paragraph: because Wikipedia articles stay up, you should put the date because someone could be reading this a couple years from now
 * Italicized Granted...individualsin the third paragraph: just a little longwinded in sentence structure, could probably be reworked to get the message across more effectively

The way you wrote this addition is very Wikipedia-esque and neutral. I think the information is very informative and related to the topic at hand and was written in a really really good way. There is just a few grammatical things that stuck out to me, but otherwise it was really good. '''

Harperclouston (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for your suggestions, especially the grammatical changes you made note of; fixing these will help make the article more concise!

Camomileviolet (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rough Draft Edit Review
Mbrooke2997 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Article Rough Draft: proposed section to be inserted under "Impact": "How the public reacts to fake news sites, including Facebook"

44 percent of all adults get their news from Facebook [1] and many individuals, starting with students in elementary school, have been exposed to how fake news has influenced the politic process. [2] Investigations conducted earlier this year showed nearly 40 percent of content by far-right Facebook pages and 19 percent of extreme left-leaning pages were false or misleading. [3] In the 10 months leading up to the election, 20 fake news articles shared on Facebook dramatically increased from 3 million "shares, reactions, and comments" to nearly 9 million. [4] Mainstream - media articles, on the other hand, declined from 12 million of these "shares, reactions, and comments" in February to only 7.3 million by Election Day. [5]

Researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Education devised a study beginning in January 2015 which revealed the difficulty that students at the middle, high school, and college (level) ''levels' experienced in differentiating between advertisements and news articles, or identifying where information originated. [6] The researchers worry that democracy is at risk of devolving due to the ways in which falsehoods about civic issues can quickly spread with a growing ease of access. In one assessment, high school students were asked to evaluate two Facebook posts mentioning Donald Trump's candidacy for president; one was from an actual Fox News account and the other was from a fake account.[7] Over 30 percent of students stated that the fake account was more reliable because of its included graphic elements and only a quarter recognized the significance of the blue checkmark on Twitter and Facebook''-' which indicates that an account was marked as legitimate. [8]

Elementary school teachers have decided to take on the Stanford study by showing children the importance of not being deceived by what is fake through classroom projects that focus on distinguishing between fact and fiction. Fifth grade teacher Scott Bedley in California created his own version of "Simon Says", in which students are given three minutes to read an article and decide whether a news story is true or false. [9] Those who think it's false stand up while those who think it's true remain in their seats; Bedley has a seven-point checklist students can follow to determine their choices. [10] He worked with another teacher in Kansas, Todd Flory, to devise a "fake news challenge" via Skype whereby Flory's class picked two real articles and wrote their own fake one, to subsequently present them to Bedly's class in California. [11] The teachers promoting these learning techniques say their students are encouraged at this young age to utilize these skills and ideas so they can stay with them upon reaching adulthood. [12]

(Looking at the absorption of of fake news sites from another perspective is that of the study based on interviews with 61 teenagers conducted from December 2007 to February 2011). Another perspective of looking at the absorption of fake news sites is from a study based on interview with 61 teenagers that was conducted from December 2007 to February 2011. [13] Students' comments revealed that they were uninterested in "objective" news and, rather, they desired to gain a more balanced understanding of news that attracted them to blogs, Facebook postings, YouTube videos, fake news, and other nontraditional sources. [14] Granted, this study occurred before the most recent controversies surrounding fake news and its role in the 2016 presidential election, but its results are related to the emphasis on its influence on individuals. Consumption of news in these unorthodox ways raises concerns by researchers of the study that this may permit teens to avoid significant political stories in favor of trivia, encouraging the creation of "echo chambers" where one is only exposed to views that match their own.[15] The study expands on youth media research, finding teens gravitating towards Facebook, opinionated current events shows, and fake news more often than official news not because they are disinterested in news but because these sites offer more provocative discussions of the news and its implications. [16]

Changes I've made are shown through bolded and italicized words and (parentheses show what was there before) -Overall, I really enjoyed reading this. I have been really interested in this subject to begin with and I think that you really captured what was needed to complete the article. This was well-written and only needed a few minor grammatical changes which I put in as suggestions. I think this would be a great encyclopedia edition for the article; great job! Mbrooke2997 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Response

I appreciate your encouraging words and clear identification of changes that you suggested. Thank you.

Camomileviolet (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
44 percent of all adults get their news from Facebook [1] and many individuals, starting with students in elementary school, have been exposed to how fake news has influenced the politic process. [2] (A Study?) Investigations conducted earlier this year showed nearly 40 percent of content by far-right Facebook pages and 19 percent of extreme left-leaning pages were false or misleading. [3] In the 10 months leading up to the election, 20 fake news articles shared on Facebook dramatically increased from 3 million "shares, reactions, and comments" to nearly 9 million. [4] Mainstream media articles, on the other hand, declined from 12 million of these "shares, reactions, and comments" in February to only 7.3 million by Election Day. [5]

Researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Education devised a study beginning in January 2015 which revealed the difficulty that students at the middle, high school, and college level experienced in differentiating between advertisements and news articles, or identifying where information originated. [6] The researchers worry that democracy is at risk of devolving due to the ways in which falsehoods about civic issues can quickly spread with a growing ease of access. In one assessment, high school students were asked to evaluate two Facebook posts mentioning Donald Trump's candidacy for president; one was from an actual Fox News account and the other was from a fake account.[7] Over 30 percent of students stated that the fake account was more reliable because of its included graphic elements and only a quarter recognized the significance of the blue checkmark on Twitter and Facebook, which indicates that an account was marked as legitimate. [8]

(Elementary school teachers have decided to take on the Stanford study by showing children the importance of not being deceived by what is fake through classroom projects that focus on distinguishing fact and fiction.) Fifth grade teacher Scott Bedley in California created his own version of "Simon Says", in which students are given three minutes to read an article and decide whether a news story is true or false. [9] Those who think it's false stand up while those who think it's true remain in their seats; Bedley has a seven-point checklist students can follow to determine their choices. [10] He worked with another teacher in Kansas, Todd Flory, to devise a "fake news challenge" via Skype whereby Flory's class picked two real articles and wrote their own fake one, to subsequently present them to Bedly's class in California. [11] The teachers promoting these learning techniques say their students are encouraged at this young age to utilize these skills and ideas so they can stay with them upon reaching adulthood. [12]

(Looking at the absorption of of fake news sites from another perspective is that of the study based) on interviews with 61 teenagers conducted from December 2007 to February 2011. [13] Students' comments revealed that they were uninterested in "objective" news and, rather, they desired to gain a more balanced understanding of news that attracted them to blogs, Facebook postings, YouTube videos, fake news, and other nontraditional sources. [14] Granted, this study occurred before the most recent controversies surrounding fake news and its role in the 2016 presidential election, but its results are related to the emphasis on its influence on individuals. Consumption of news in these unorthodox ways raises concerns by researchers of the study that this may permit teens to avoid significant political stories in favor of trivia, encouraging the creation of "echo chambers" where one is only exposed to views that match their own.[15] The study expands on youth media research, finding teens gravitating towards Facebook, opinionated current events shows, and fake news more often than official news not because they are disinterested in news but because these sites offer more provocative discussions of the news and its implications.


 * Parentheses indicate suggested changes or places you could reword. I think you did a very good job with this!!!Evanmgold (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for offering parentheses to think about sentences/ideas to reword. I will certainly keep these in mind as I develop my final draft.

Camomileviolet (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Mia, nice work here. I did not read through all your peers' copyediting suggestions, but I agree that some places are a little wordy and could be cut down or smoothed out a bit. Follow some of their suggestions and do a general read-through for copyediting on your own. Content-wise, I think we should strategize the best way to integrate this into the article when we meet -- it seems almost like you could have two different sections here: the 1st and 4th paragraphs are conceptually linked around the public's spread of fake news and seeming disinterest in fact-checking, and the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs discuss more the public's inability to discern fake from factual news. Perhaps we can come up with appropriate headers for these two slightly different ideas together. If you want to keep it as one section, I would move the 4th paragraph up after the 1st, and have a transition sentence/phrase between the two components.

--Jmstew2 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

That sounds great. I think once the paragraphs are organized more clearly, the themes I highlight relating to fake news will be made apparent to readers.

Camomileviolet (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)