Talk:Digital content/Archives/2017

How this is different from Data (computing)?

Data (computing) was here since 2005. 01:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Good Question. I'll Suggest a merge. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Digital data seems more relevant to what's unique about the information type. Data (computing) seems to be more about the how the information is processed on a synthetic computer regardless of the information type. Digital data can be processed without a synthetic computer as in the case of tabulating machines. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Digital Content Merge

I'm suggesting this article be merged into two separate articles. There is no need to narrow the scope of content (media) to digital content if there isn't anything unique about a digital content format compared to an analog content format. And if there is anything unique about a digital content format, it should be part of the digital data article. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

• Opening Paragraph

The information added to this section of the page makes it clear what the remainder of the article will discuss as well as gives a straightforward description and definition of digital content as a whole. The use of linking to other wikipedia sources is very well done and appropriate, allowing for the viewers of the page to easily access relating material and get a general overview of what the topic correlates with. It might be helpful to mention the types of digital content within this paragraph in order to indicate what will be discussed in further detail later, although this is clearly not a necessity. Also, the image added made the page far more advanced in its design and was cited properly, it was definitely a great addition to your stub article. Enbarlev (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Paid Digital Content

Hi, there is a lot of good content information under this column of your stub, such as the addition of globally recognizable examples such as Netflix and Amazon. This is a very efficient method in quickly allowing readers to connect with the data provided in order to relate to and to understand the material more personally. Make sure that whatever content that is lacking citation be correctly revised to ensure that the content is being justly credited to their rightful authors/sources. Kevchow (talk)

• Non-purchasable Digital Content

According to your #12 source reference, the information added to this content section seems to be sufficient for the objective of expanding and adding to a stub. Kevchow (talk)

• Business Implications

I feel the information provided in this section can be expanded upon including what are the latest trends when it comes to digital content. I liked the inclusion of revenue stats and listed names of the top companies. I think user generated content should be another explored category in the article piece as well as its business implications (ex. Facebook). A table can be made to display in order the top 10 companies in relation to what they make off of content. Also talk about which type of paid digital contents get the most revenue. Talk about what revolutionary changes business are taking when it comes to digital content. But otherwise a very good introduction and starting statistics related to the topic and business. Faazahmed (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Free Digital Content

Great examples of free digital content. It is clearly stated that there are some type of digital content that people can access. There are examples of videos, audio, images, software. These examples given are concise and to the point. One thing could be added to this section is that you could talk about the importance of free digital content. Try to come up with some ideas that could illustrate how free digital content of videos, audio,etc contribute to individuals' lives. Or you could talk about ways of creating free digital content. Overall, this section is great!Kaito54 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• History

I really enjoyed this section of your wikipedia page. I think you do a great job of setting up the full history by including the digital revolution and how computers came into use. This helps set up the history of digital content. I also think it was very important to provide the problems that are coming about as new technologies are introduced. Another thing you did well was avoid bias, while still providing a look at what the past and present are pointing to in the future. As for total content, I'm sure this could go more in depth, but I believe you covered a lot of the basics and important facts necessary in this section. To improve this section, I would look into providing more examples of channels that distribute digital content. Also, I would look into potential ways that people avoid the problems you mention. This would provide a more in depth history to digital content, as I mentioned earlier. Lastly, checking sources #4 and #5, I was not sure how credible and reliable these may be. I'm sure you know more about the specifics than I, so maybe you have a way to confirm that they are reliable, but that is something I would consider looking into. In full, I believe you did an excellent job with this section.michaeljmiller94(talk) 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Your group did a really great job editing the Digital Content page. The headings and subheadings that you added made the page very easy to navigate and feel more organized. The addition of a historical background made the subject matter easy to understand and grasp the evolution of digital content. One suggestion to further improve your article is to expand your non-purchasable digital content section. You list six non-purchasable categories but fail to elaborate on what each entails. It would be interesting to further understand how those categories differ from purchasable digital content. It is evident that you spent a large amount of time on your edits. Great job. Ghalp (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

This Wikipedia stub on “Digital content” is much improved from its earlier version. This updated, enhanced version is better written, both stylistically and grammatically. The organization of the information is presented in logical order. There are three main topics – History, Types, and See also – with the discussion of Types divided into four sub-topics. This structure makes the article easy to read and understand. More importantly, the text reads neutral -- or as neutral as it can be.

The stub’s lead section is informative with key points of Digital content highlighted -- definition, forms and types, and applications. The section on History is brief and concise, as well as balanced in that it points out challenges, such as intellectual property rights and copyright, that need to be recognized and addressed. The links to other Wikipedia pages also are well justified, that is, they are good choices which seem reliable. The sixteen sources listed are definitely sufficient to support the article.

There are a couple areas that could be developed further. First, it would be interesting to address in more detail the sub-topic “Digital Companies” since the ‘business’ of digital content is ‘big business’ though still a relatively new direction. Beyond the business angle, a more general discussion of the implications/consequences of the growth and development of digital content would add ideas for further consideration. Ewags (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought the additions to this stub article proved to be very useful and a drastic improvement on the limited content that the article previously provided. I liked how you start with the “History” tab because it provides good insight into how the digital age has become so dominant. It helps uneducated readers to understand how the digital revolution has recently changed the outlook of accessing content as well as how future content will be distributed. Additionally, all the content presented in the “Types of digital content” tab seemed very informative and helpful again to those who may be unaware of the modern digital advances in society. However, one minor problem I see with this article is the overuse of hyperlinks. I think there are several times when the utilization of hyperlinks is excessive without adding much relevant value to the information being presented. Specifically, for example, the “History” tab includes unnecessarily repetitive hyperlinking of the “digital revolution” and this does not provide added significance beyond the first hyperlink. Still, overall I would say the article is very strong and much improved compared to the initial information it provided. Dcreilly814 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought you did a good job editing this article. I liked how you added new sections to make it easier to find certain information and make the article more organized in general. I also found the article to be very well written and well organized. I thought adding the History section was smart because it sets up the rest of the article, and provides good information. I did think that there were a lot of hyperlinks; maybe you could remove a few of them and instead provide some more content. Otherwise, I thought you did a really great job improving this article! Aaanadel (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I really enjoyed this article. I thought you guys did a great job and made edits which obviously explored the topic on digital contents in further depth. In your introduction I liked how you recognized that digital content can be viewed in a narrow and broad way, I felt like this marked your ethos and gave you guys validation; you researched all spectrums of this topic. Additionally, the under the contents the three subtopics of "types of digital content" made it very easy for a viewer to follow. The examples you included were mapped out in a understandable and visually appealing way. In your introduction you include information that states "Digital content has seen an increase as more households now have access to the Internet." It might have been useful to include some factual statistics of how much it actually increased. Also under your topic "Digital Companies" I found the information a little vague and it could use a little more explanation. Overall, you guys did a great job! Jruder13 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)jruder13