Absey

I'm a current high school student with a wide variety of interests. I have an interest in science, specifically the biological sciences though I do also enjoy environmental science. I am a very amateur photographer, usually taking nature and wildlife photos. I also dabble in writing light fiction or fantasy, but I do a lot of reading of all types of literature. My biggest hobby is my music, I play piano, and flute and I teach young kids piano.

Wikipedia is a very interesting site to me, though I know very little about it. I'm very interested in learning how all of the different functions of the site work. I don't really have any areas of expert knowledge that I feel like I could contribute to a page about, so I'm mostly going to try and fix small grammar mistakes. If I were to contribute to any pages, it would probably be a page on the history of music or a page about northwest wildlife and birds.

Article Critique

Article Review:

I have always enjoyed doing some DIY and I like learning about independent musicians but I didn't really know anything about what is called DIY ethic, or even what it is. So, I visited the DIY ethic page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: the age of the citations, the point of view of the article, and the citations.

Age:

Most of the citations and research stated is very old. One citation is from 2015, but the rest of them are from 2010 and before. When they start talking about computers and music the points and topics they bring up are outdated. Since a lot of their topics and points are fairly time sensitive (producing music, movements of DIY, and internet) it seems more like a history of DIY rather than an introduction.

Viewpoint:

A few of the paragraphs and lines in this article show a pretty clear bias. It is not an article that is written to give all views on DIY ethic, but rather to convince the reader that DIY ethic is better than wanting to purchase something. The way the article is written it looks down on any big industries or any musicians that are a part of a company.

Citations:

On top of the citations being slightly outdated, there are also very few sources. Quite a few of these sources are not the most reliable, coming from magazines along with simple examples of DIY projects to do. A lot of the sources are also have very clear biases towards the good of DIY and how much better it is than bigger industries with nothing really backing up their claims.

Summary:

In total it was a fairly well-written article, with a few problems that need to be fixed. It had almost all the main components of a good article, but needs some better sources and a few spots need to be rewritten.