User:Mbrooke2997/sandbox

Article Critiques

Article Critique from List 1 for- "Yik Yak":

1. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? After reading through the article and looking at the references, I made sure I clicked them to see that they worked. Almost every fact in the "Yik Yak" article is referenced. However, not every single fact in the article is referenced at the end of the article. The facts that need to be referenced in the article begin with the history and financing content- the last sentence in this section which discusses the exponential growth of Yik Yak needs a reference and citation, another fact that needs a reference is in the features content- the last feature, hidden features, has no reference to it.
2. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Most of the information on the "Yik Yak" article is revenant to the topic. However, one section that did distract me a bit was the section on "Use in US Politics". The only reason that this section is distracting is that it doesn't have much content to it- only a sentence, so it seems pretty unnecessary. It also just seems to be an opinion based sentence in which the reference just refers to a singular tweet. In my opinion, one tweet that revolves around one persons belief does not constitute a whole section to be devoted to it. If this section is to stay on the article, it needs to have more information on it to back it up. One tweet is not representative of a common understanding of Yik Yak in the 2016 Presidential Election. Especially now since the election has ended, it might be possible to gather more information on it. I also believe that the article was simply missing a lot of pertinent information about Yik Yak. I don't think that the section regarding Controversies is as important as learning how Yik Yak was created and how it just simply works other than it working within 5 miles of people. I also believe that the Features section needs more content and substance; for the section doesn't entirely explain the actual different features in depth.
3. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the information seems to come from journalistic sources such as The Huffington Post, The Seattle Times, The Emory Wheel, Business Insider, Techcrunch, NBC, and among many others. These all seem to be relatively neutral sources. However, if you take a closer look at the information presented about "Yik Yak" there seems to be some bias. The bias in this article seems to favor the two creators of the app and seems to put the app in a good light especially in regards to the controversies section.
4. Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there? In the "talk" page of the "Yik Yak" article there is a lot of information on sections that should be added to the article itself. I actually found this information rather interesting. The "talk" page includes that there should be more information and a closer look at the point of view of the facts such as on the section on advertising.
5. Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate? The "Yik Yak" article actually has been rated on the quality scale. The quality scale it has been given is Smart-Class which basically means that not all the references and facts on it can be trusted and that the article is still in the works of being complete and trustworthy. I honestly think that this rating is rather accurate. After close inspection of the article it seems that it needs a lot of work and that not all its references are really accurate and don't really make sense as an actual reference.

Article Critique from List 2- "Anonymous Social Media":

1. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? After reading through the "Anonymous Social Media" article, I noticed that almost every fact was referenced with a source. However, after clicking through most of the references provided with the facts many of them don't specifically relate to an article catered just to anonymous social media itself. What I mean by this is that most of the references provided have to do with other subjects and information on anonymous social media just so happens to be part of the article that the reference belongs to. Most of the sources seem to be from journalistic sources which are said to be very reliable because they have been fact-checked.
2. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I honestly think that everything in the article is very relevant to the article topic. Nothing really distracted me. If anything, actually, I felt that a lot of the content in the article was rather interesting and I wouldn't have thought to include it. For instance, I believe that the section regarding degrees of anonymity is rather important. However, I do think that there could be more information added to this section and I feel that it could be related to other topics as well. Another section that I thought was important and very revenant was the section on controversies. Anonymity on the web is very controversial. It has rumored to be unsafe to trust anonymous people and I think that this is a very prevalent section.
3. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? I think that a lot of the information in this article is very relevant and important. A lot of the information comes from journalistic sources and is rather helpful for someone really searching anonymity on social media. However, after looking through the references provided in the section of the article from the facts given, it is clear that a lot information is rather out of date. The most recent reference provided is from August 2014. I think that a lot of more information could be provided on this article especially more up to date information. In particular, I think that in recent events with social media as well as the 2016 Presidential Election the idea of anonymity is very prevalent. I feel that there must be so many more facts and references out there that could really help improve the quality of this article. I also think that more information could be provided for the different forms of social media in which anonymous users are allowed- instead of being glanced over.
4. Read the "talk" page of each article. What do you find there? The "talk" page on the "Anonymous Social Media" article doesn't really have any valuable information on it. For one, there isn't much said on that page and for another what is said doesn't particularly make sense. One of the posts on the "talk" page article doesn't really make sense grammatically; it is rather hard to understand it.
5. Take a look at the Wikipedia quality scale and compare it to your article. Where do you think it falls? If the article has a rating assigned to it, do you think it is accurate? The "Anonymous Social Media" article actually already has a quality scale rating assigned to it. It's rating is Smart-Class, meaning that it needs a lot of work and attention. The article also is rated under High-Importance, meaning that information should be added to it at the earliest convenience because its information is pertinent and wanted.

Plans to Contribute to "Anonymous Social Media Websites

• more information regarding the section "degrees of anonymity".
  • Bring up huge "current" events that have occurred in regards of anonymity on the internet.
• talk more about anonymous sites as well as apps
• input more information in the "background" section
• discuss more "current" event cases in regards to controversies with anonymous social media and website use- in particular, the problems it brings with cyber-bullying
  • the article only provides a short paragraph about cyber-bullying. I think there should be more provided about the effects of it in terms of anonymous content

Rough Draft For Article: "Anonymous Social Media Websites:

For Controversies Section:

Controversy[edit | edit source]

Apps such as Whisper and Secret have elicited discussion around the rising popularity of anonymity apps including debate and anticipation about this social sharing class.As more and more platforms join the league of anonymous social media, there is growing concern about the ethics and morals of anonymous social networking as cases of cyber-bullying and personal defamation occur. [For instance, the app Secret, got shut down due to its escalated use of cyberbullying. The app Yik Yak has also helped to contribute to more cyberbullying situations. Even though Yik Yak is still up and running, the Francis W. Parker Upper School tried to force its students to delete the app and not to re-install it. In an objective to try to stop students from using this anonymous social media app, the school district affiliated with this school also blocked Yik Yak from their internet network.. Another app called, After School, has also recently sparked controversy for its app design which lets students post any anonymous content. Due to these controversies, the app has since then added new protections against cyberbullying.] As the number of people using these platforms multiplies, unintended uses of the apps have increased, urging popular networks to enact in-app warnings and prohibit use to middle and high school students. 70% of teens admit to making an effort to conceal their online behavior from their parents.

Some of these apps have also been criticized for causing chaos in American schools, such as lockdowns and evacuations. In order to limit the havoc caused, anonymous apps are currently removing all abusive and harmful posts. Apps, such as Yik Yak, Secret, and Whisper, are removing these posts by outsourcing the job of content supervision to oversea surveillance companies. These companies hire a team of individuals to inspect and remove any harmful or abusive posts. Furthermore, algorithms are also used to detect and remove any abusive posts the individuals may have missed. Another method used by the anonymous app named Cloaq to reduce the number of harmful and abusive posts is by limiting the amount of users that can register during a certain period. Under this system, all contents are still available to the public, however only registered users can post. [Other websites such as Youtube have gone on to create new policies regarding its anonymity. Youtube now does not allow for anonymous comments on videos. In order to comment one has to have a Google+ account so that all commentators are accountable for their comments.]

For Degrees of Anonymity Section:

Degrees of Anonymity[edit | edit source]

Across different forms of anonymous social media there are varying degrees of anonymity. Some applications require users to sign up for an account, even though their profile is not linked to their posts. While they still remain anonymous, these sites might sync up to the user's contact list or location to develop a context within the social community and help personalize the user's experience. Other sites, such as 4chan and 2channel, allow for a more pure form of anonymity as users are not required to make any kind of account, and posts default to the username of 'Anonymous'. While users can still be traced through their IP address, there are anonymizing services like I2P and Tor that encrypt a user's identity online by running it through different routers. [Secret users must provide a phone number or email when signing up for the service and their information is encrypted into their posts. This can help prevent problems such as cyberbullying since the app contains a way to track down the poster. This can help prevent a future problem from occurring because if something bad were bound to happen then the app itself would have a way to track down the poster.]

For Prospective Uses Section:

Prospective Uses[edit | edit source]

There are also promising opportunities anonymous social media networks offer regarding authentic human connection and semi-anonymous communication. [For example, an app called, Memo, allows for employees of specific workplaces to anonymously tell employers and other employees how they feel in their respective workplace. This sort of safe, anynymous place allows for more transparency in the workplace among employers and employees. ]Other anonymous social media formats are not public and rely on controlled anonymity like tellM and rumr. In this case, users only interact with their contact list, allowing people to connect with people they know anonymously. [Another app, called Anomo, allows for users to start entirely anonymous and then users get the option to reveal different aspects about themselves to other users. This type of range of anonymity allows users to try to get to know one another in a safe community. ] With room for free expression and communication among semi-known identities, there is discussion that with this type of technology a market for political activism in other parts of the world is possible. [Anonymous social media websites have now been a place recently used for political expression and platforms. Since the 2016 Presidential Election, anonymous social media websites are now a prevalent place in which political expression is asserted.] Moreover, anonymous social media can also provided authentic connection to complete anonymous communication. There have been cases where these anonymous platforms have saved individuals from life-threatening situation or spread news about a social cause.

Proposed Edits to my Rough Draft

Emily Morse told me to check over my grammar. I am definitely going to look over my grammar and implement this suggestion into my work before I publish my additions onto the article page. I will also take away some extra comma's that aren't necessary.