Talk:Digital divide in Malaysia
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction: Emily Loisel
[edit]Hey guys! I'm Emily Loisel. I'd like to possibly contribute a section about the education in Malaysia which could be affecting the digital divide. We can each choose a subtopic that we want to explore and add to our article. Maybe we can have a section about the Malaysian economy or go into how to overcome this divide in Malaysia. I'd love to hear some of your ideas as well!
Introduction: Jordan Aliers
[edit]Hey group! My name is Jordan Aliers. I am a senior here at LSU (probably for another year or so). As far as the project goes on, I don't mind using my sandbox as a group sandbox for everyone to coordinate on. I try to get on Wiki at least 3 times a week.
I'd also would like to contribute a section on potential causes of the digital divide in Malaysia. Let me know your thoughts!
Possible Sources
[edit]Wikipedia Malaysian Education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Malaysia
Wikipedia Malaysian Economy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyloisel (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A Glance At The Malaysian Education System.:
Literacy Rate Statistic Photo:
http://en.unesco.org/countries/malaysia
Literacy Rate Statistics:
https://knoema.com/atlas/Malaysia/topics/Education/Literacy/Adult-literacy-rate
This paper outlines the digital divide among youth in Malaysia:
file:///C:/Users/jacob/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/22648-75012-1-SM.pdf
News source outlining conditions as of 2014 and possible improvements:
General overview of digital divide in Malaysia including reasons why and possible improvements:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5142/696573b65e524eb84975f720757e9936fd22.pdf
Group Comments
[edit]First of all, excellent work on beginning your work on your project. However, by this time you should already have a working outline in the group sandbox space. You should also be working in the sandbox primarily, and not the talk page. I would also recommend having each group member type their name by each section they are working on, as this will make it easier to see who is doing what during the drafting process. I am including a link to the Digital Divide in South Africa. This is an excellent example of about how much you should be writing for each section, though obviously your sections will likely not be identical to the South African ones. [Divide in South Africa] Remember, if you need any extra help come to mine or Dr. Benoit's office hours. Again, great job on the beginning work on your project.
Mmaggi9 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000
Group Comments for the Draft
[edit]You have a good beginning for your lead. As this week you should be completing the beginning of your first draft, I would suggest first making an outline. Your section headings should reflect what you're discussing in your lead, as well as anything you considered in your group discussions. If you have any questions please contact Dr. Benoit or myself.
Mmaggi9 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Melanie Maggio: TA for LIS 2000
Outline
[edit]Introduction/Lead -All group members -Introduces the topic, general definitions, and sections
Possible Causes of Digital Divide in Malaysia -Jordan Aliers -Discuss several possible reasons for the present digital divide in Malaysia -Also discuss possible solutions (working and theoretical) to mend the digital divide or gap in ICT that is present in Malaysia
-Emily Loisel -Discuss the effect of education in the digital divide in Malaysia
- Other group members feel free to add a general outline of your section within this post***
Jmaliers (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional comments
[edit]Taking a look on Monday morning, I can see multiple stages of development in your sections. This makes sense since everyone is working on their own sections. Emily make sure to edit down your section, and everyone else should flush their's out further. Finally, make sure that you are logged into Wikipedia when you are editing. We can see who edits what based on the logged in user, and if you are not logged in only gives us an IP address (and we cannot verify who did what work). Eabenoit (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)eabenoit
Xavier's peer review
[edit]I think that your sections of the article are really well thought out. I looked throughout for examples of bias, but I was not able to find any. That is impressive, along with the fact that you do a good job of explaining the problem and the solutions. One criticism i have is that some of your sources are not clickable. I am not sure if this is meant to be, so I just wanted to let you know in case it is a mistake. Overall, the best section is the Effect of Education, and the one that could use a little more work is the lead. It's not bad by any means, but I think you could elaborate a little more on what the "digital divide" actually means, like a definition. Xh98 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Prynceston's Peer Review
[edit]The lead section is informative and easy to understand. I'd suggest that you define some of the main terms in the lead section a little more extensively just so the reader has no confusion going forward. In the second section, the information regarding age, education, wealth, and location, and how it effects the digital divide provides numerous perspectives. This helps the reader grasp the concept of digital divide better and gives depth to their understanding. Great job. The "Effect of Education (Emily)" section is very informative and its placement in the article is perfect. Its section length is equal to its importance regarding the article. Great job including information that is thorough and informative while staying neutral in your content. Overall, this article was done well, it had a clear structure, reliable sources, and balanced coverage. Maybe compare Malaysia's information technology access to other countries to give some more perspective.
McKenzi Bellard's Peer Review
[edit]Overall, great job on the article. It is very detailed. Just a few things could be changed to improve the article, in my opinion. The last sentence of the lead section is a little lengthy and worded funny. The sentence that starts with "age, in respects..." is worded strange, as well. I don't think the "in respects to young vs elderly" part needs to be included. Half of the following sentence could probably be taken out too. I would suggest making the sentence following that one something similar to "Though, in general, the elderly are recognized as one of several groups that struggle to keep up with advancing technology, it is evident that age is not the main issue when attempting to mend the digital divide in Malaysia." I'd put a citation right behind that first percentage stated, just to be safe. I don't think you need to say things like "this will be discussed later." The first sentence under "effects of education" could be split into 2 or 3 sentences. "In addition" is in two sentences in a row. The sentence that starts with "Shaffril stated in his article..." needs a citation. Vision 2020 was described after it had already been mentioned in the article. The description needs to be moved up. The last part of the "effects of education" section sounds like a conclusion, which isn't necessary. The first sentence of the last section could be seen as an opinion. Lastly, I suggest adding more citations. On wikipedia, you don't have to wait until the end of a sentence to put the citation. Put a citation after every time you state data. It's better to be safe than sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:105:B00B:4125:0:0:0:E753 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Improvements After Review
[edit]Summary: We appreciate all of the good feedback from everyone. We are working to improve our article by doing the following:
1. Addressed clarity issues in lead section by re-wording some sentences and elaborating on meanings of terms used in article.
2. Added 2 more sources to lead section to further support claims/definitions.
3. Looked into 'non-clickable' sources. Unfortunately, some are journals in PDF form and a direct link is unavailable. Jmaliers (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
4. The first sentence under "Effect of Education" was split into two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyloisel (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
5. I personally disagree that I need to add a citation after the sentence "Shaffril stated in his article.." I cited this article in the previous sentence, and I do not think it's necessary to cite it again especially after saying who the author is I am referencing. I also don't think it's necessary to add more citations just to add more citations. I think as long as you have enough to not plagiarize it should be enough.
6. I fixed the double-stated "in addition" issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyloisel (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
7. I addressed the issue regarding Vision 2020 being mentioned in the beginning and explained later by giving a very brief description of it in the beginning including a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyloisel (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
8. I deleted "Because of the significant difference in education, both computer oriented and otherwise, that different members of Malaysian society received, education remains a major factor in the digital divide in Malaysia; however, several practical and important measures have been taken to reduce this major cause to help close the digital divide" since the peer editor said this was unnecessary. I copied and pasted it here just in case I end up needing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyloisel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)