Talk:New media

New Media Critique

There are a lot of click links and when you click on a lot of them it shows so many ads that are possibly distracting from what the link is trying to tell us. That is one of the important ideas to acknowledge the references, a lot of the links do seem reliable only because they were constantly made within six months of 2021 rather than having a source from 1971. With one of the quotes in the history section it just tells us a quote and puts the citation next to it labeled as number one. It doesn’t really specify what the quote is going to be talking about or give us an idea of who wrote it and why they’re giving us the quote as an informational source. Some thing I noticed with a lot of the writers sources was from Wikipedia itself, I do wish that some of the sources came from actual news or more reliable sources only because Wikipedia is an easy way to find “information”. And a lot of the Wikipedia articles aren’t even reliable so that is one of the concerns. These sources can be biased, because they are written from one person and they don’t give a lot of facts into what they are talking about throughout that link but the person who wrote the new media article did a good job with backing up their statements. When the writer is talking about the academics focus in technology is funded, research and produce I want to know why they thought to write that because I don’t understand where they got that information from the kind of said it without any reason to back it up so I feel that it’s a claim that appears slightly biased. I think that their viewpoints are very presented in a good way because it’s not one person or second person it is a third person point of view! But a lot of the statements that are being used are slightly biased. When looking at the citations on the bottom of the page you can see that some of the dates are very outdated! You see 1962!, 1996, 2001, 2003, 2000 it is crazy because we are not in that phase anymore so I personally think that using information from at least two years or three years within the day we are now is very useful . Because a lot of it is being changed throughout the years, it talks about the media and how it’s constantly developing into the changes that it’s having on it, we can see now that there’s so much more technologies that we are able to use in 2021 rather than 1962, therefore a lot of the claims aren’t acceptable in this case scenario.

New Media Critique Add On - negative impact

More information about how new media can also be very effective to the mental health part of our lives is necessary . Yes it talks about the information of new media itself but something that interests other people is how new media is affecting people negatively, you would be surprised where you find a lot of the studies and research is show that people find social media as a negative impact rather than a positive impact. A new add onto this article could be like this, As we get older technology gets newer, it has impacted society.( https://www.scijournal.org/impact-factor-of-new-media-society.shtml ).Studies have shown that new media is constantly growing within each generation, such as the known as boomers don't use social media as much as those known as Gen X, Z, or millennial. This article was written by Emily A. Vogels in 2019 September 9 where there was a study conducted January 8- February 7 of 2019 of a survey that was conducted that the millennials needed to adapt to some technology measures because they were in the middle of the boomer generation and then Gen Xers. ( https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/09/us-generations-technology-use/ ) It can be beneficial by using it for teaching, work, students and etc. Although, with new media it is impacting our social lives causing environmental issues around the world. In 2018 January 4 jessica Brown created an article on what scientists think about the impacts of platforms and our mental well being. Brown says, that scientists have discovered new findings since they have done new studies and research. Social media can affect her mental health in ways of depression, anxiety, loneliness, envy, and sleep. ( https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-the-evidence-and-the-unknowns ). Studies have shown that about 2/3 of America say that social media has a negative affect on the way things are going on in the country. The article by Brooke Auxier from PEW research center wrote this in 2020 October 15, that social media can be affecting our political affiliation and ideology, mostly negative rather than positive. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/15/64-of-americans-say-social-media-have-a-mostly-negative-effect-on-the-way-things-are-going-in-the-u-s-today/ Oliviastyles2602 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)oliviaOliviastyles2602 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Olivia! Here to give you a quick peer review on your article contribution. I think that your information is definitely there, you just need to work on the presentation and structure a little.

First, There are some grammatical errors in a few places that you should go back over and proofread before posting this. The sentence that begins with "This article was written by Emily A. Vogels" does not need that formal citation within the text here, I think just the in-text citation you have at the end of the sentence is good for that and this will help shorten this sentence as it seems a little long and wordy. Perhaps a better way to present this would be to say "A survey conducted in 2019 showed that Millennials needed to adapt to some technology measures due to being between generations." Or something along the lines of that. There is another example of this in the second to last sentence about the study by Brooke Auxier. I think you should change these.

Your citations need to be coded into the paragraph so that they have the smaller number citation symbol that you see on these articles normally. You can use the "Cite" tool in the editor to do this without having to learn the annoying code.

As far as balance, your article is well balanced but feels wordy in some locations like I've mentioned above. I think compacting down your sentences and removing redundant citations would help a lot. The information is there and it comes from reputable sources, it just need more organization.

For neutrality I think you nailed this. Everything seems neutral in tone and it is all pertinent information that comes from sources that are reputable and known. Good job with this.

Your article contribution appears to be reliable and doesn't rely too heavily on one or two articles. You've used the appropriate four sources like the assignment told you to and they're all present. There are a couple of sentences that have no citations within them but they flow into the next sentences and I think this is okay.

Overall, this is a good start! I think that if you make some of the changes that I suggested, and I'm sure our Professor will suggest more, this will get polished and ready to go. --Ddelima895 (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of this article. Overall, there is a lot of relevant and helpful information; however, some grammatical mistakes and tonal errors make it a bit wordy. I especially noticed wordiness in the Intro. If this article is edited so that it can be cleaned up, I think it will be a fantastic article. 155.31.155.164 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)