User talk:Loneflash/hacker-culture

Week 12 feedback: Great additions from solid research. This is ready to move to live Wikipedia. Adrishaw (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to find more sources to help build upon this article. More copyedits need to be made as well to make it cleaner and flow more nicely. Below are things Dr. Shaw wants me to work on as well as my evaluation from the earlier Wikipedia training that I will refer to for changes.

Things to work on for your Week 9 continued edits (from Dr. Shaw): Copyedits: When you move those to the new sandbox, publish each with explicit notes on what you changed from the original Wikipedia article. That way when you migrate your work to live Wikipedia you will be able to publish and explain each change as you go. Doing so is a required part of the Week 13 Wikipedia assignment. You should also go through and see what other copyedits you can make to the exisitng article as what you did for that exercise (which was enough for exercise) was just a brief section. Bibliography: This is a good start for a bibliography, but you should starting summarizing this work and possibly finding more to build out your contributions to the existing Wikipedia article. There are for instance a call outs for "citation needed" in the existing article, are there some you could add there? Citing sources: You did this assignment, you just need to add more and make sure it is clear where in the existing article those additions will go. Adding media/hyperlinks: Your image upload was removed because the sharing license for it was "non-commercial" whereas Wikipedia rules don't allow for that (you can review the rules/training if you want to upload different images). You don't have to have an image in your final contribution though. Be sure before you add media to the live Wikipedia article that it is actually necessary or contributes to the article (that is, you had to do it for this assignment, but in your final Wikipedia contributions don't add it just to add it). You added a hyperlink required in Week 8, but you should go through and see if there are things that should be hyperlinks in whatever you add and the existing article. Overall: You seem to be doing things week by week, but now you really need to focus on the bigger picture of what you plan to add/edit here. Is there more in the existing article that needs copyediting? More citations you can use to expand on the sections you are working on? The more planning you can do now the easier it will be for you to chip away at those edits between now and November 22 when you need to move your final edits to live Wikipedia.

Evaluation: Lead Guiding questions Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content up-to-date? A lot of the sources and citations are from the 1980s and 90s and 2000s. There is one source from 2014 Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is definitely content that doesn't belong. Having "warez d00dz" in an article doesn't seem too professional Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions Is the article neutral? Kind of Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article talks a lot about hacker culture being primarily positive, which is not always the case Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say the negative side to hacking is underrepresented Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I personally kind of felt like the article was trying to say hacker culture was a good thing for society which isn't always the case for some people Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Not a lot of them Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There was one source that was used to heavily write one section of the article Check a few links. Do they work? Not all of them Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A few Are images well-captioned? Yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No Images and media evaluation Checking the talk page Guiding questions What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Controversies about certain phrasing of some sections, as well as author's context to their original sources compared to what the user wrote How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's apart of 2 WikiProjects: Computing and Sociology. For Computing it is rated a start-class, low-importance. For Sociology it is rated start-class, high-importance How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It's kind of messy and isn't generalized in a good way Talk page evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions What is the article's overall status? It has a lot of problems What are the article's strengths? Good older sources How can the article be improved? The writing could be cleaned up and more could be talked about the negative connotation of hacking culture, as well as people's perception of hacking How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it has a good start, but is definitely underdeveloped Loneflash (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Loneflash (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]