User:Makibakahuwagmatakot/Evaluate an Article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: Platform capitalism
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've chosen to evaluate this article because I'm interested in the different intersections between capitalism and technology, especially the ways those intersections are evaluated in court.

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic, encapsulating the article's major sections and all information present in the article.

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. However, I don't know if it's necessarily up-to-date given that the article is a stub; hence, further concrete elaboration is needed beyond a theoretical definition. The article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps around knowledge and addresses an academic topic that also relates to historically underrepresented populations, given that it deals with social networking and other sites as platforms and Internet access may be a problem for certain populations.

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Yes, the article reads as neutral and no claims are heavily biased toward a particular position; the article reflects that platform capitalism has been met with polarized opinions, citing sources who both approve and disapprove of platform capitalism. Consequently, the article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another; it simply lays out a skeleton framework for the topic and existing viewpoints.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Some of the facts in the article are backed up by peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, but others -- like "Delete Your Account: On the Theory of Platform Capitalism"^[1] are not. Thus, they only reflect some of the available literature on the topic, and given that they range from 2016-2019, they are relatively current; however, there has likely been more research that has been published since 2019, so more work can be done to update this article. The sources are written predominantly by white men, with only one author being a white woman. There are no links listed; to check the articles, I had to copy and paste each source's name into Google.

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read; it has one grammatical error (a lack of a comma between model & both: In this business model both hardware and software are used as a foundation (platform) for other actors to conduct their own business), but aside from that, the grammar was perfect. The article is as well-organized as it can be; the paragraph breaks are good at delineating sections, but given the sparsity of the present information, there's only so much that can be accomplished.

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The article includes no images or additional media.

Guiding questions.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

There aren't any current conversations on the Talk page about how to represent this topic; the article is rated a Stub and hasn't received a rating on Wikipedia's importance scale. It is part of WikiProject Economics. Given that the primary discussion of technology we've faced is the Daubert standard and the distinction of scientific versus technological experts by the courts, Wikipedia discusses this topic with more depth than our class.

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is underdeveloped, despite being straightforward and neutral. It's currently a stub, so adding more information through looking at more current literature and news articles, as well as articles authored by folks from historically marginalized backgrounds could be helpful. That being said, for a stub, it explains the theory concisely and provides a good general overview.

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: