User talk:Kyle.chan201/sandbox

Article Evlaution
Article Evaluation

On the Civic technology page,

Under the definition section of the article, I noticed that the article was a bit biased toward the Knight Foundation's point of view on what civic technology ought to be. They specifically point out what the Knight Foundation cares about only without presenting other sources representations. I did notice as well that some of the sources lead directly to websites that lead to a civic technology advocacy group that voices their viewpoints. Most of the article does do a good job handling the government-led initiatives and the citizen-led initiatives and being objective as possible in terms of just reporting what was passed and citizens are doing. They do not add any commentary the action to indicate whether or not the policy or action was good or bad.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? In the article when explaining the civic technology situation in various continents, there are lots of information and facts that are missing primary sources. The sentences that do have source cites - the links to the citations all work.

On the Talk page, I noticed that there are many different entities attempting to edit the article - other universities, research centers, and Wikipedia users. I also noticed that it is truly a deep, civil discussion of the information presented in the article and whether or not certain facts need to be on the page, what is missing, if there is any bias, recommendations on improvements for sources, and new sections to add. Kyle.chan201 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible Articles to Work On
Topics: 1. Voting Machines - Area to improve: Issues inherently arising from using voting machines at all = - Can add empirical studies/data on voting machines in the past, specifically in the US, state by state, or other countries - Area to improve: Voting Machine (Baldwin County, Alabama) - would recommend not to add this section as it wants to talk about republican bias and is not necessarily a wide enough scope 2. [|Social Media Use in Politics] - N/A - nothing in the talk section 3. [|Politics and Technology] - Area to Improve: incorporating technology, hacking risks, politics on social media, politics on twitter, political apps, voting, representation - would definitely add to each of these ideas to improve the article, would do research on this. 4. Civic Technology - Area to Improve: Reliable References and Sources - would add more sources that are more journal based, most are just websites

Voting Machines: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf - This study talks about the history of voting machines a bit and also mentions potential remedies and solutions to the voting machine issues. It also discusses the empirical facts about voting machines and whether or not they have worked in the past. https://libertytreefoundation.org/sites/default/files/documents/scientificamerican1004-90.pdf - This article proposes potential enhancements and solutions to the problems that voting machines present.

[|Social Media Use in Politics]: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2482/ecc6d7e3f7cc99b535720325a9411e2dfe07.pdf - This article talks about the effects of technology on politics and governance. The Wikipedia article doesn't necessarily talk about the effects on politics in such a direct manner. file:///Users/koolc/Downloads/the-social-economic-and-political-impact-of-technology-an-historical-perspective.pdf - This gives a historical point of view on the effects of technology on politics. The article does not cover the history and how it has evolved over time.

Effects of Social Media on the Elections First Draft Peer Review
Hi Kyle! I felt that the article focuses on the effects of social media very successfully. There is an order of events, and it is obvious that the article aims to cover a lot about the topic. There are great supporting examples. If you want the article to focus only on US, then I think the examples are good, but if you would consider more of a global side of it, I feel that you can add more examples to support the global scale effect of social media (maybe a section at the beginning before going in depth to the US). All of your sources look good, and I am planning on using some articles you found as well (I will be adding a social media side to my article). I think you explained the effects on the youth very good, but maybe a part about the elder or middle aged population would be nice. Even if you find that there is no effect, you may mention that as well. I hope this helps! Beril gur (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer review feedback (2)
Hi Kyle! Very nicely done! I liked how every section of your article starts with a clear claim and then a couple of strong examples to support your argument. Some of my favorite examples you included in your articles are the Facebook group advocating for Barack Obama and the comparison of the likeliness to vote between teenagers that use social media to learn politics versus the ones that don't use social media. Similar to what the previous classmate has commented, I also believe that your article could have a well-rounded perspective if you include more examples from countries other than the U.S., U.K., and Canada. There are also some minor grammatical errors that I noticed in the article. A quick Grammarly check would be helpful. Again, I really enjoyed reading your article and seeing how you used a wide variety of examples to support every one of your claims. Well done! Yifanbao1 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Yifan Bao