User talk:BriannaGeneroso

According to Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia, it is a movement that brings the African American community together. It is a campaign that does not promote violence but instead unity. Their can be both negative or positive views on the movement due to the way the media affects people. This movement began in 2013 when people started hash tagging #BLM, #BlackLivesMatter, and #equality on Twitter, Facebook, and many social media platforms. In response to the visible violent acts against Black communities more the 50 organizations from across the country have come together to fight this unfairness based on color . Today this is still an issue and in my opinion media does not have a positive effect on BLM. It causes people to riot and build more hatred for each other instead of the whole concept of unity. Sometimes the media (fake news) can take things out of context, in result people will have an upsetting reaction out of people .

Why is media activism important - Its important because it spreads and informs the public with information related to politics and social issues

Why do we use it - We use it to become more aware of what is going on in the world

What forms of technology do we use - internet, news, radio, and social platforms.

How is it represented in our everyday lives- We are surrounded by media in general, whether it is the news, radio, television, or any social platform.

These are some questions I have developed and will discuss

- One thing that connects the case studies that are already in this article is that they all use social media. Has there been Media Activism in parts of the world that hasn't utilized social media as it's primary communication tool?

One case that hasn't utilized social media as its primary communication tool is the post election stickey notes that were put up on the subway walls. This form of media activism did not use technology but instead had people write down their feelings and opinions on the election. It was considered a way of venting and therapy for the people who did not agree on this election. This allowed people to have a say and be heard without writing anything online.

Recent edit to Media activism

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tito Dutta (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Brianna! Your professor asked me to give some feedback on your edits.

It looks like you've started making edits to media activism, so I thought that I'd look into that. It looks like some of your additions were removed with this edit, so I'm going to focus specifically what was removed and potential reasons why.

First off, I noticed that some claims were unsourced. All content should be sourced, but media and politics related content really does need to be sourced. I also noted that you used Urban Dictionary as a source. UD isn't something that should be used as a source on Wikipedia, especially as anyone can add a potential definition and the content doesn't undergo any sort of true editorial oversight. These definitions are also typically written in order to be funny or to make a very specific point, so the site could also be seen as a biased source. In most cases a definition there wouldn't be something that would merit inclusion on Wikipedia - typically the only time it would be included is if a specific definition was covered in a reliable source like an academic journal article or book.

You also make personal observations and comments in the article. This is something that would be fine and recommended to add in a student paper, but it's not something that fits in with the encyclopedic tone on Wikipedia. (Please don't take that badly!) You shouldn't refer to yourself in an article and ideally an article should be completely objectively written. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)