User talk:Prof.bgreg/Mass communication

Notes

Hi guys, before this is posted live, I have some notes. The first group is general, the second is more specific. I know that not all of the things addressed here were done by yourselves, however they still need to be addressed and fixed.

• Some of the content here is unsourced or undersourced.
• We can only summarize what has been stated in the source material, which should specifically focus on mass communications.
• The article has some issues with grammar and punctuation.
• The grammar in several sections also does not fit in with Wikipedia's style guidelines.

• The writing should not directly address the reader, nor should it refer to the writer in a singular sense. The section about second-person pronouns covers this, but essentially the reason why this should not be used in an article is that it's an inappropriate tone. It shouldn't ask them questions, nor should it really interact with the reader. It should instead take a passive voice.
• The tone should also not be instructional, as this assumes several things about the reader and can also make the article non-neutral in the process. For example, it can assume that the reader is a specific type of person with a certain level of knowledge. It can also come across like we're leading the reader to see things in a specific fashion. See the section on instructional and presumptuous language for more information on this.

Here are the more specific notes:

• Definition section

• The first paragraph is too conversational and runs into the issues posed above. The second asks a direct question and answers with bullet points. Direct questions are not seen as encyclopedic and bullet points are most useful as reminders, not to communicate new ideas to people with nuance.

• Field of study

• This starts with a definition, which makes the definition section redundant.
• The second paragraph takes a more conversational style with "since the beginning of time".
• Communications and mass communications aren't the same thing, so the two need to be differentiated and not represented as the same thing.
• The second sentence is too telegraphic - don't need details, but needs to be meaningful to people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
• The third paragraph jumps directly to the United States, which doesn't really make sense unless other countries are going to be contrasted/compared against it, as the article is meant to address mass communications on a global scale.

• Characteristics or features

• The term large number of audience isn't grammatically correct, nor is wide area, and the entire section needs to be copyedited for grammar.

• Types of mass communication

• Rather than say something like “advertising… refers to”, it should say “Advertising… is…” as the Wikipedia style is to write about things, not terms
• Both that and journalism sections have an excess of commas
• This section contains a lot of definitions and history, which is unnecessary since this information will be in each type's respective articles. What should be here is information on how these specific types are considered to be mass communications. For example, the history of recorded music and radio don't belong in this article. If they're discussed it should only be in the specific context of mass communications as opposed to a general history.
• This is especially important with things like catfishing, which doesn't really make sense as to why it's listed here. This seems like it's an aspect or facet of a larger type (social media) as opposed to a type itself. For that matter, I'm not sure why this is specifically mentioned in general. There needs to be some sort of justification as to why this is a notable aspect of the mass communications type as far as it applies to mass communications. If it's discussed in the source material as an aspect of how social media can be a deceptive type of mass communications, then it should be mentioned along the lines of "Criticism of social media as a form of mass communications includes its ease of deception by users by methods such as catfishing or (other type of common deception)." I'm also not sure why cultural convergence fits this section. It seems a little arbitrary as well in how it's listed.
• This kind of applies to all of the things listed here since none of them are covered in the context of mass communications. There's history but not the history of how they came to be considered mass communications. This is especially important with things that would be considered mass media but not necessarily mass communications, like video games. The two aren't automatically the same thing. Any information on how they are or came to be seen as a part of mass communications needs to be cited with reliable sources that discuss it in this context, as otherwise this is considered to be original research.

• Major theories

• This section is too brief and statements like "Cultivation is closely related to the idea of the mean world syndrome." doesn't tell me anything. Is "mean world syndrome" another major theory? A minor theory?
• This doesn't tie the theories to mass communication, as far as I can tell.

• Methods of study

• This is too general and could be considered a description of research methods in the social sciences. It doesn't connect them with mass communications.

Again, I know that not all of this was done by yourselves, but these are still things that need to be addressed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Austinpearcesfc, Sg Gallo, Mandthunter, Ggannascoli, Smull97, TeiAlvarez, Gcornell, Mjoyc97, Kcortes2, Manderson3, Alanachristine, Cberk2, EvanKellerSi1997, ARod86, MarinaEspa, Msrachd, JoshuaisLynch, Prof.bgreg Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Shalor

Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk):

Thanks so much for your extensive comments on our work on the mass communication article, including your comments on the article overall and the various sections.

For the assignment, as the primary source the class used our textbook Pavlik Converging Media: A New Introduction to Mass Communication.    The students selected their topics from the ones covered in the textbook and created new sub-sections under the section “Types of mass communication” that was in the Mass Communication article.  During class, I copied the content from the live article and each student began researching and writing their sections here, on our course sandbox page.  

The goal was to have each student choose a topic and create a sub-section under the “Types of mass communication” in our course sandbox. Using the textbook along with one peer-reviewed journal article as sources, the students then wrote one paragraph in their sub-sections.  Afterwards, a few students then began to revise the grammar and punctuation in other parts of the article.  For the most part, the students work focused on their individual sub-sections.  

Is there a way that the class could post our work to the article, as it is today?  The students have done some great work, students in future semesters can build upon. It would be great if our class could have their work live on the Mass Communication page.

Thanks so much for all your help!

Prof.bgreg (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend against it, as there's just so much that needs to be done to improve this and there's a strong chance that this may get reverted by another editor. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk): I'd like there be some happy medium. The students worked really hard on the project this semester and the other times that I've this class and the Wikipedia project, the students have been able to see their results of their work in Wikipedia on the live pages. While I completely understand that there are improvements that need to be made, is there any of their work that can be posted so that the students can have something to show for their efforts this semester? Best, Prof.bgreg (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• A colleague and I reviewed this just now and here's what we thought: the section on audio media should be left out, as it's off topic. The catfishing section is also off topic, as there's nothing there that specifically ties it to mass communications. There are also two photography sections, which needs to be fixed. There also needs to be checked over for grammar and general copy-editing.

If these are fixed, the students could post their work live. Part of the reason for my concern here has been that we (Wiki Education) is obligated to do any clean-up work that needs to be done, so if the community sees the work as unhelpful it may be that the edits have to get reverted and it's often expected that I be the one that does them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk): Completely understand. I can make a few edits and will remove those sections. The students began to do general copy-editing and grammar on the page but were not able to do much work outside of the individual sections they worked on. If just do copy-editing on their sections and not other parts of the article that were untouched, will this by okay? Prof.bgreg (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's perfectly OK to not copy-edit the sections they didn't work on, especially since I know that time is at a premium right now. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk): I edited the "Types of mass communication" section that my class worked on. In particular, I fixed the two photography sections and also edited the recording and radio sections to tie them more to mass communication. I also tried to tie the catfishing section (under social media) to mass communication. Please take a look at the edits I made and let me know if it is okay to post this section or if there are other revisions to be made. When I post, I'll make sure to post to the Talk page for the Mass Communication article that this work is for a class. Thanks for all your help! Prof.bgreg (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)