User:Jmatthewross/sandbox

Article evaluation for edits: Neo-Luddism

• Section on philosophical principles needs copyediting, is confusingly written.

Section: In 1990, attempting to reclaim the term 'Luddite' and found a unified movement, Chellis Glendinning published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". In this paper, Glendinning describes neo-Luddites as "20th century citizens—activists, workers, neighbors, social critics, and scholars—who question the predominant modern worldview, which preaches that unbridled technology represents progress." Glendinning voices an opposition to technologies that she deems destructive to communities or are materialistic and rationalistic. She proposes that technology encourages biases, and therefore should question if technologies have been created for specific interests, to perpetuate their specific values including short-term efficiency, ease of production and marketing, as well as profit. Glendinning also says that secondary aspects of technology, including social, economic and ecological implications, and not personal benefit need to be considered before adoption of technology into the technological system.

• Article frequently uses the term "intervention," but term is undefined and unclear as to meaning, leaving the reader to cobble together from context clues.
• Article is repetitive: this sentence appears twice in almost exactly the same form: "In 1990, attempting to reclaim the term 'Luddite' and found a unified movement, Chellis Glendinning published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". "
• Section on Kazcynski needs copyediting: "Neo-Luddite Ted Kaczynski predicted a world with a depleted environment, an increase in psychological disorders, with either "leftists" who aim to control humanity through technology, or technology directly controlling humanity. According to Sale, "The industrial civilization so well served by its potent technologies cannot last, and will not last; its collapse is certain within not more than a few decades.". Stephen Hawking, a famous astrophysicist, predicted that the means of production will be controlled by the "machine owner" class and that without redistribution of wealth, technology will create more economic inequality. "
• Statement needs copyediting: "a future societal collapse is possible or even probable." Later quotes in the article make it clear that scholars predict a probably collapse, so I'd edit to remove the words "possible or even."
• Terrible writing: "These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by genetically modified organisms, nuclear warfare, and biological weapons; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political inequality, widespread social alienation, a loss of community, and massive unemployment; technology causing environmental degradation due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding."
• Lacking citation: In "The coming revolution", Kaczynski outlined what he saw as changes humanity will have to make in order to make society functional, "new values that will free them from the yoke of the present technoindustrial system", including:
  • Rejection of all modern technology – "This is logically necessary, because modern technology is a whole in which all parts are interconnected; you can’t get rid of the bad parts without also giving up those parts that seem good."
  • Rejection of civilization itself
  • Rejection of materialism and its replacement with a conception of life that values moderation and self-sufficiency while deprecating the acquisition of property or of status.
  • Love and reverence toward nature or even worship of nature
  • Exaltation of freedom
  • Punishment of those responsible for the present situation. "Scientists, engineers, corporation executives, politicians, and so forth to make the cost of improving technology too great for anyone to try"
• Inconsistent argument...the article says Heidegger first supported neo-Luddism, but later did not, then goes on at length to describe and quote his neo-Luddist views. The article's contention that Heidegger changed his viewpoint is not supported by the text of the artile.
• Lewis Mumford is mentioned as a key figure but his views are not explored: "Another critic of political and technological expansion was Lewis Mumford, who wrote The Myth of the Machine."
• Additional scholars mentioned are not explored: "Other philosophers of technology who have questioned the validity of technological progress include Albert Borgmann, Don Ihde and Hubert Dreyfus."
  
• A big takeaway for me on this article is that Kaczynski is a major focus but serious scholars who have examined this questions are glossed over. That weights the quality of the article toward one person. I get it, he is certainly the most notorious, so the bias is based most likely on the public's fascination with Kaczynski. It's understandable, and Kaczynski shouldn't be downplayed as one outcome of neo-luddite philosophy, but it makes for a weaker article. My goal in editing will first be cleaning up the writing, then adding a little depth on one or more of the other scholars who get short shrift from the current version.
  
• I also think the article would benefit from a short description of the source of the name "Luddism"--the English Luddites who are mentioned but not explored.

Article evaluation: Zeitgeist

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • "concept from 18th to 19th-century German philosopy" - no way to narrow that down?
  • distracting grammatical errors.
  • seemingly random insertion of other unrelated theories the article "does not necessarily" contrast with--maybe just unclear writing.
  • Copyediting for clarity needed.
    
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Several "year needed" or "page needed" citation notes.
    
• What else could be improved?
  • There is a template message that says the article lends "undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. It asks editors to help improve it by re-writing it in a balanced fashion.
  • The section on Aesthetic Fashion is using the word 'fashion' incorrectly, as a reference to style of clothing. The intent seems to be to use 'fashion' as a synonym to zeitgeist, instead
    

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • It does seem neutral, if unclear at times.
    
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The viewpoint on business leadership is overrepresented, and the section on modern uses of the term 'zeitgeist' is underdeveloped.
    
• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • No - randomly sampling some of the 16 citations led to the following results:
    • citation number 14 goes to a dead webpage, citation 10 goes to a dead webpage, citation 4 works, citation 9 links to an article in the MIT Technology Review that is about incrementalism in innovation. As such. But the article is cited as support for the idea that "innovation has been shaped by easy access to the internet." That link is also an aggregation of other sources, not an original source.
• 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?
  • No - Gladwell's book Outliers is cited but not linked in the citations section.
• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Most of the discussion on the talk page has to do with the translations of the word or its attendant concepts from the original German, what links should be included, and whether or not key figures or movements are included.
  • There is also no shortage of personal infighting...
    
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • There are three projects this article is a part of: Germany, Philosophy, and History.
  • In all of them it is rated "Start-class, low-importance"
    
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
  • This was under the academic topic communication studies, but has not specifically been discussed at this point in class.