User:Adam192ac/sandbox

Response to Peer Review

There were several key points mentioned by the people who reviewed our article draft. Generally, people seemed to like what we wanted to add and thought our idea was definitely notable and worthy of being on Wikipedia. These were the main negatives/change suggestions I took away:

1) Need to make the points more succinct. We already had an idea that we had to do this, but since it's easier to cut words than add them, we started off a little on the cautious side.

2) Add data. This was a point that I hadn't really thought to much about within the context of Wikipedia, but I think it could be interesting. I don't exactly know how we'd do this though, because it's really difficult to find credible data sources related to social media.

3) Add more dates. I agree that this would help our section fit better within the broader context of the article. However, I worry that overdoing this might clash with our ability to shorten our work.

4) Being more specific and removing vagueness. Again, I agree that this is a fair critique.

We'll definitely be taking all of these into consideration and editing our article draft accordingly!

Drafting an Article

#Resist

Questions to answer:

1. Information of the origin of hashtag?
   1. Began soon after Trump took office in late January
   2. First seen ~November 8
   3. Exact origin is unknown, but it quickly caught on
      1. Was used commonly during NoDAPL movement in December
      2. By January, it was out in full force and was used often throughout the days leading up to the inauguration and the Women’s March on Washington.
         1. Google Trends: Huge bump in searched for “resist” in the week following the inauguration
            1. Other notable spikes: 100 day anniversary, Trump’s response to Charlottesville rally
   4. Resistance to Trump and his agenda
2. When did hashtag become popular?
   1. Right after Trump took office, but it has popped up in prominence several times since then
      1. Twitter: #Resist appeared 2.5M times in 3 days following Muslim Ban in late January
3. Any other information
   1. Can be said to symbolize solidarity against Trump and all his policies that would further marginalize minorities, women, etc.
4. Prominent people that tweeted it/used it
   1. Very decentralized movement, so random groups have sort of come together in this case
   2. Been used millions of time→strength in numbers
   3. Examples: Shailene Woodley, Zendaya, SIA, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Olivia Wilde, Sophia Bush
      1. https://twitter.com/Sia/status/825459576036220929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4653873%2Fdonald-trump-immigration-ban%2F
      2. https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/825521264353804288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4653873%2Fdonald-trump-immigration-ban%2F

Of all the social media movements that have defined Anti-Trump sentiment, the most popular thus far has been #Resist. This was first used on Twitter and across other platforms starting right after the election in November. Though the exact origin of this hashtag is unknown, it quickly caught on and spread across the internet.

Generally, this hashtag symbolizes solidarity against Trump and all his policies that would further marginalize groups such as minorities and women. Though its height in popularity came in the days following Trump’s inauguration, it has resurfaced during times of political controversy and animosity. For instance, there was a notable spike in usage throughout the week of Trump’s response to the Charlottesville rally. In the 3 days following the announcement of the initial Muslim ban in late January, #Resist appeared in over 2.5 Million tweets. Several prominent celebrities have used the hashtag to show opposition to Trump, including Shailene Woodley, Zendaya, SIA, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Olivia Wilde, and Sophia Bush.

Room for Additions, Sources to Use

We're focusing on Protests against Donald Trump (and the #Resist movement), and despite the fact that there is a very cohesive article already written about that, there is no section for the Social Media impact. We think this is the best opportunity for us to add important info about our topic to Wikipedia. We were thinking of maybe including a timeline, and could also outline the various platforms being used.

The following sources could be useful for us in compiling information:

• News articles about specific movements/events
• https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RESIST (search feed for #Resist)
• Popular/trending facebook/instagram posts against Trump
• Major news sources (CNN, Fox, BBC, etc.)

This is a fairly recent topic, so I wouldn't expect to be able to find any books/non-online sources. That's completely fine, as the scope of our research covers only the social media impact (and books ≠ social media).

Group Sandboxes

• User:Daniella Wenger/sandbox
• User:Raffiter10/sandbox

Possible Topics:

LeBron James and Political Activism

• Related to Trump, BLM, etc.
• LeBron James#Off the court

Mark Cuban and Response to NFL Anthem Protests

• Mark Cuban#Political activity

Practice citation

Article Evaluation: Google.org

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant, though I don’t really know if “Renewable Energy” makes sense as a section as that could easily fall under “Major Initiatives”

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article seems pretty neutral, though I guess it uses phrases like “high-impact” which glorify Google.org’s initiatives. I think that this is ok but I could see the counter argument. 

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think that the “overview” section could be much larger. I’d like to know more about how this offshoot of Google was started, who wanted it to happen, why they did it, etc. 
     And again, I don’t know if “Renewable Energy” needs its own section

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The citations work, and the sources do seem to support the article. However, many of the sources are taken from Google.org, so it seems to me like that could create some sort of informational bias within the article

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

See above…not entirely neutral sources 
     Don’t see the bias noted anywhere

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The “Major Initiatives” section says that the list is as of 2016, so yes it’s a little outdated. I’d like to see more content added that talks about some of the more recent projects they’ve undertaken

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

People are looking for more solid sources to back up some of the claims in the Wiki page
Some people are providing clarity over Google.org vs the Google Foundation 
Not too other many topics on the talk page

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated as “Start,” meaning it’s not very high quality. It contains a warning about potential improper references 
Yes, it’s part of WikiProjects (rates as “Start-class”)

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We got a personal/biased perspective in class from Justin, so this article is pretty different to me. Though there may be some bias issues, it covers a lot of areas that Justin didn’t discuss. On the other hand, it obviously provides way less insight into how people within the company view it.