Talk:Is Google Making Us Stupid?/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Salutations, I will be reviewing this article for GA status. I intend to first post a preliminary checklist of copyediting/nitpicking issues, then once those are addressed, review the article against the GA criteria. If it does not pass, I'll put the article on hold for seven days, during which I hope all outstanding issues can be resolved. Skomorokh 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • Lead sentence: This should be a short and concise summation of what the topic is. It would seem more important to mention the author rather than the number of pages or the exact issue of publication.
    I modeled it after the featured article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" which has an identical opening sentence in the lede. I have been somewhat modeling this article after that one.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References in the lead section. This section ought to summarise the body of the article and nothing more; thus, all the content in it should already be referenced. The only times I've seen inline citation used appropriately in a lead section have been to point the reader to an explanatory footnote, to cite a quote, or to cite a particularly contentious claim that attracts a lot of edits. I'm not convinced that references are an improvement in this case.
    I have seen one or two cases where claims are made in the lede that are not later mentioned in the body but they are very small factoids, such as the number of pages for the cover story as in "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" or definitions as in "Another Featured Article I Can't Locate At The Moment". I figured I would also include the definition of deep reading in the lede without later repetition because it helps to know its roots right away. It seems redundant to then go into that detail later on. My lede may end up being controversial perhaps.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it would be better to say a little more about the "iGod" chapter; its focus or what drove Carr to expand upon it. As it stands, mentioning the specific chapter comes off as being over-detailed.
    Hmmm, I've read his book The Big Switch and while it touches briefly here and there on some of what is discussed in the Atlantic essay it really goes into it in the "iGod" chapter.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carr's main argument is that the Internet possibly has detrimental effects" could perhaps be phrased more clearly. The segment "the Internet possibly has" seems awkward; "might have detrimental effects" or "has detrimental effects" are possibilities. Another rephrase would be to say "Carr's essay focuses on the possibly detrimental effects of the Internet..."
    Okay, I'll try something a little different along these lines.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with many expressing their agreement or disagreement with Carr's argument" - this does not seem particularly noteworthy to say of an argument. If Carr's argument was particularly polarising or provocative, it might be best to mention that as well or instead.
    Yep, you're right.
  • deep reading is something of an easter egg link; it might be best to redirect deep reading to the pipe target and use that instead.
    Yep, and it seems Maryanne Wolf is working on a paper delving into this definition to be published later on, so perhaps it could eventually have its own article.
  • The sentence beginning "Carr differentiates" is a little long; perhaps breaking it up before deep reading is mentioned would help the flow. "This is sometimes called deep reading, a term" would be one way of doing this.
    Okay, I will.
  • "[deep reading was] recently referred to by developmental psychologist Maryanne Wolf with a distinct cognitive connotation." This leaves the reader hanging to an extent. I'd suggest that a little more context be added, but I'm not sure that a secondary use of a term related to the argument of Carr's essay has a place in a short introduction to topic of the essay.
    I tried to tighten up this sentence.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a treatment of the Internet's impact on memory retention was found to be lacking". It's not totally clear whether the treatment is lacking in Carr's work or generally.
    in the discourses. I made the sentence more specific.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long-term psychological and neurological studies have yet to yield definitive results confirming the correctness of Carr's argument" implies that the speaker considers Carr's argument to be correct, and I would say empirical results justify or strengthen arguments but confirm the correctness of or verify hypotheses. It seems that this sentence didn't come directly from the sources but was rather added to give context; if so, it seems to fall victim to Raul's Razor (point 13).
    I used 'justifying' rather than 'confirming the correctness' while citing Claburn's article for the fact.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "A UCLA study led" is quite long and winding; breaking it up into separate sentences or using dashes might make it easier to understand for the reader at first glance.
    Okay, broke it up. The prose in the lede is really suffering atm.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, I hope to get through the other sections in the next day or two, then start on the article in its entirety. Skomorokh 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for this review. I still have much more of it to get to. I have tackled all your points concerning the lede, but I may not have sufficiently addressed them. I'll probably keep going back to the lede and revising it for a while. I'll be looking at the rest of your review for the moment.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

  • "For several decades critics have expressed concern about the potential for electronic media to supplant literary reading." This is a little unclear - what sort of critics are being discussed here? Also, time should be defined in relation to the publication of the article or else actual named decades.
    Okay, I reworked the sentence. I draw on the sentence in the NYT article: "At least since the invention of television, critics have warned that electronic media would destroy reading." It's a nice introduction to Background, and then I delve into the critics that are relevant to Carr's essay, basically Birkerts and Wolf.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to add a little about what "literary culture" means to readers who might be unfamiliar with it/the term.
    I have a vague understanding of what literary culture is. I can in no way enlighten this discussion however I hope that the wiki magic will create an article about this. It would definitely be worthwhile. Many articles here at Wikipedia discuss the literary culture of a town, or whatnot.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birkets wrote a book that criticised x "in a collection of essays...". Is the book the same as the collection of essays? If so, this should be clarified; if not, why bring it up in the middle of a sentence about the book?
    Copyedited.
  • "that alternative delivery formats for the book will be inferior to the paper incarnation". Not sure that the future tense is appropriate here.
    Copyedited.
  • "In the book's essay, "Perseus Unbound",...". I'm sure it's standard English to attribute the essay to the book, nor to call it "the" essay of the book when there are many. Perhaps "In "Perseus Unbound", an essay from the book,..." or similar?
    Copyedited thusly.
  • "In the book's essay, "Perseus Unbound", Birkerts cautioned, in a reservation about...". One too many "in"s here, I think.
    Copyedited thusly.
  • "that the "long-term cognitive effects of these new processes of data absorption" are unknown...". Book was published in 1994, so past tense rather than present would be appropriate.
    Done.
  • "Most recently developmental psychologist Maryanne Wolf took up...". Perhaps missing a comma after "recently"? Readers might mentally attach "recently" to "developmental".
    Done.
  • "Preferring to maintain an academic perspective, Wolf firmly asserted that her speculations have not yet been scientifically verified but are deserving of serious study." You switch tense mid-sentence here; recommend using past throughout.
    Done.
  • The final paragraph starts off a little jumpy; is it possible to say anything about Carr's relation to/influence by the debate just outlined? Skomorokh 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. I was going for a transition from the inspiration for the essay to the opening of the essay in which he thinks he's figured it out.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

  • The tense of this section ought to be consistent and accurate. Either describe it in the present tense, as referring to a play or film, or strictly in the past. When switching from describing something going on in the article to something in the external world, the tense should change from present to past. The word "recent" in the sentence starting "He prefaces his argument" treats the UCL study in-universe, when it ought to be assigned its real world date. This issue applies in several other parts of the section.
    Okay, I kept this tense in the present and hopefully modified the passages appropriately when discussing external world events. Let me know what you think.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, in Carr's considered opinion...". I'm not a native speaker of English, but "considered opinion" sounds a little like flattery; is it? If it's neutral then there's no problem.
    I guess... can't say for sure. I changed to "purported".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "While acknowledging that..." sort of loses me halfway through. Could it be broken up? Damn Internet rotting my attention span!
    Okay, broken into two. A lot of "Carr this... " "He that..." "Carr then..." now, though.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carr recalls how Friedrich Nietzsche's prose arguably changed". "Arguably" is weasel word; the claim that Nietzsche's prose changed should be attributed to whoever is professing it.
    Removed the arguably.
  • "knowledge work" seems a vague description; is it possible to clarify this?
    I wikilinked the term.
    I also put a clause in between emdashes explaining the term.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You discuss Taylorism without explaining what it is; one or two explanatory clauses would suffice, I think.
    I added a clause.
  • "the dominant business model of the Internet thrives when...". Is this claiming that there is a dominant business model of the Internet, and then it thrives when... etc.? If so, tell us what the model is. If Carr is saying that the prominent business model of the Internet is one which thrives when..., then let the reader know. Does the business model itself thrive, or do the companies that adopt it?
    I rewrote these sentences.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were ineffective in anticipating the benefits that these technologies might hold for human knowledge". Better to simply say "failed to anticipate"? Also, the anticipation was in the past tense, so might have held or held would perhaps be more appropriate.
    Rewritten.
  • Generally well-written and engaging prose in this section, excellent summation.
    Thanks. I hope I have addressed all of your points. Of course, I hope you will chime in with more comments when I take this article to peer review.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-publication[edit]

The issues with this section were generally minor and straightforward, so I was bold and edited them away myself - feel free to revert and we can discuss them here. I would say that the heading of this section does not fully describe the content; "reception" or "critical reaction" might be more apt. Skomorokh 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this section heading from the featured article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". Thanks for the copyedit to this section.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-titled the section as "Reception", which I think is a little more specific.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

Coping with abundance
  • There is no lead-in segment – the section dives right into Shirky's reactions. A line or two of background/context/summary would be helpful; you could mention what areas analysts focused on, the consensus if any, and the main problems found with Carr's argument.
    Okay, I'll try to lead-in with something about how this discussion wasn't exactly on argument.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Added two sentences.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are three separate references really needed for the boxed quote?
    Okay, I removed one. It was a secondary, then tertiary, then fourthiary source kind of thing.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Shirky] acknowledged that there is a possibility of an unfortunate "cultural sacrifice" of important works due to the proliferation of new media." This implies that the claim is true; Shirky's agreement with his opponents on a point does not make it so. "Shirky acknowledged x's claim that there is a possibility..." would be one way of addressing this. There is again the issue of using the present tense, but it would seem strange to say '[Shirky] acknowledged that there was a possibility of...'.
    Is this better: Shirky frequently invoked the term "abundance" to describe the unprecedented quantity of written material available on the web, and purported that potentially there could be an unfortunate "cultural sacrifice" of important works due to the proliferation of new media.
  • "However, he believed that the solution is..."; tense issues here. It seems as if you want to treat Shirky's writing as in the past tense, but the issues in the present; that might be an accurate reflection of the state of affairs as of December 13, 2008, but it will not always be. Similar tense issues occur throughout the rest of the section.
    I see... yeah, a lot of tense issues. I'm picking through them. I've tackled the ones in this section I think.
  • "rather than leaving it up to the commercial marketplace"; this phrasing assumes the reader follows perfectly what you have just said. For a topic that is quite sophisticated compared to most Wikipedia entries, a quick rephrase of what Birkets is talking about in his quote could help cement the reader's understanding.
    I'll define what "leaving it" means... what "it" is.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say this is an especially well-written section, a very well-judged selection of coverage. I wonder if it really falls under the heading of "analysis" though; it seems more dedicated to Shirky's riffing off some of Carr's ideas that actual analysis of those ideas.
    Unless I haven't looked closely enough yet, that's pretty much what Shirky does: riff off of Carr's piece. But Carr responds, his only response at the Britannica blog, to Shirky's comments so it has some bearing. It is also interesting analysis even though it isn't on argument.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... not so sure it was entirely riffing. I did think that before. But there is some element of "distraction" involved in "info-snacking" which might be rampant nowadays given the abundance of media. I think "Analysis" is an appropriate section heading atm.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So I was quite wrong here. I've corrected the error. Shirky made a valid argument with his comments on abundance but some of the other stuff was off argument as Carr says. So I've cleared this up, I hope.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A focus on literary reading
  • First sentence has five commas and a conjunction; you gotta break it up. For example, you could say x was criticised, finish the sentence, and then explain in the next sentence what the criticism was, or lead with the criticism and then explain what was criticised in the second sentence.
    Okay, I broke it up.
  • Perhaps related to the previous point, the lead sentence is ambiguous regarding Carr's comment on War and Peace. Your claim is that "The selection of [the] quote … was criticized for misrepresenting other types of literature, such as technical and scientific literature, which have, in contrast, become much more accessible and widely read with the advent of the Internet."
It seems to me that there are at least two readings of this:
  • The quote falsely represented other types of literature.
Meaning: The reader would get the wrong idea about tech + sci lit from the War and Peace example.
  • The quote failed to represent other types of literature.
Meaning: Carr presented the War and Peace example as applying to all "old" literature, when it only applies to a subset (narrative literature)
The second interpretation seems more plausible, but you could make the point clearer by rephrasing.
Yes, the second interpretation is correct but as for your comment right below it, that may or may not be correct. I'll look into this aspect of the analysis again. I've quickly used your phrasing, "The quote failed to represent other types of literature..." I'm working through your points piecemeal.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first reaction on reading the intro first sentence was to wonder who the blogger was and who the critics were. You go on to name one critic (Shirky) and his interlocutors, which is a minimal amount of context, but don't mention who the blogger was at all. If Carr names him/her, the article should too; if Carr does not, the article should note that the blogger is unnamed.
    I've now named him. I was leaving his name out because it felt like the article was picking on him. I may add a descriptor or two about how he's a medical blogger and so on.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one reaction to Carr's essay, writer Clay Shirky pugnaciously observed..."; you've already introduced Shirky and his reaction in the preceding subsection so I think the context here is unnecessary and you could simply lead with "Shirky pugnaciously observed..."
    Okay, done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the War and Peace tidbit not mentioned in the synopsis? It seems that if you're going to devote a paragraph of analysis to a particular topic, that topic is important enough to get a short summary in the synopsis section.
    I've decided not to mention the War and Peace tidbit in the synopsis. I've summarized it as He prefaces his argument with a couple of anecdotes from bloggers on their changing reading habits The War and Peace bit is an instance that a blogger uses to best illustrate the difficulties he believes he has with sustained reading. In the context of the essay the mention of the novel takes on a different connotation to some critics, so they have discussed this. It is true that Carr doesn't mention scientific and technical literature in his essay in the same sense that he does novels like War and Peace. I really can't modify the Synopsis in a way to reflect this without sort of taking a position on it. Carr would probably say that he used narrative literature as an example and didn't exclude scientific and technical literature on purpose. Others would see a bias... and stated as much. I still have to work on this section... but it will probably stay in Analysis.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shirky's comments on War and Peace were derided by several of his peers as verging on philistinism,[47][48][8] however, in..."; the use of "however" here is possibly ungrammatical and definitely awkward – I recommend ending the sentence on "philistinism" and elaborating in the next sentence. The problem is exacerbated by three inline citations in the middle of the sentence; this is perhaps a necessary evil, but as refs 47 and 48 are only used once each (i.e. here), you could combine them into a single footnote to minimise the visual disruption of the sentence for the reader.
    I broke up the sentence, removed the 'however'. Perhaps refs 47 and 48 could be combined into a single footnote about Larry Sanger's comments at the Britannica Blog. But I think Sanger actually has more than two posts at the Britannica Blog.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...inventor W. Daniel Hillis wrote that books "were created to serve a purpose" yet that "same purpose can often be served by better means"." I think you're missing a comma after the first quote; the lead into the second quote does not seem to work but I can't think of how to improve it.
    Okay, I rewrote it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue in the next line; you need a comma after the first quote and the lead in to the second seems off (try reading the quoted and unquoted parts of the sentence in different voices to hear what I mean). Perhaps full direct quotes are not entirely necessary here? The quotes don't seem especially unique or controversial (note).
    This sentence is a little unwieldy. I'll take care of this in the next copyedits I do of this section.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impact on memory retention
  • "Evan Ratliff of Salon.com was disappointed to find little insight into the effect of Internet and gadget usage on the capacity to recall information."
  • 1. Is this referring to the essay itself, the debate generally, or something else?
    • Rewritten.
  • 2. Is it uncontested that there was "little insight"? This seems to be perspective rather than fact, and if so, should be presented as such.
    • It was a small quibble in Ratliff's piece so I just dropped the concern and focused on what they were saying.
  • This subsection perhaps uses quotation excessively; the turns of phrase here are not especially striking or unique.
    I tried to provide more analysis instead.
  • "Ben Worthen, a Business Technology blogger"; should BT be capitalized here? Is it the name of a blog, company or other body?
    No capitalization necessary. I just called him a business technology blogger but yeah, his blog falls under the section "Business Technology".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid the use of 'we'; it's unencyclopaedic. Refer instead to humans, internet users, twenty first centurians or similar.
    Haha, Un-American?
  • The Worthen quote is quite nice, and a pithy reaction to the essay in toto; you might consider giving it more prominence.
    Which Worthen quote were you referring to? I totally rewrote this section at your urging because it really didn't provide much analysis.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responsibility for the problem
  • What is Edge; the third culture?
    I've seen it described as an 'online journal'. I'll add that in somewhere: "the online journal Edge" and "John Brockman's Edge - the third culture".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Settling on "online scientific magazine".
  • "a minor discourse considered"; on the contrary, only sentient beings consider. Secondly, what is a "minor discourse"? Is it that the discourse was not paid much attention, involved non-noteworthy commentators, or covered less significant topics?
    Rewrote section as a high level introduction to the analyses.
  • "who might be responsible for any detrimental effects the Internet potentially has on cognition"; the reader may get lost in the qualifications here.
    Removed.
  • Larry Sanger needs an adjective or two of introduction.
    Described Sanger as Wikipedia's co-founder.
  • "The meaning behind Carr's emphasis on "computer engineers and software coders" as the designers of the Internet's technologies was interpreted by Larry Sanger as an assignment of blame to them". This could perhaps be better phrased. Leading with "[Adjective] Larry Sanger interpreted.." would be one way to tackle it, but the "as an assignment of blame to them" section also seems forced.
    Rewrote section. this sentence is gone.
  • "...according to Sanger, the concern essentially boils down to"; what concern? a second ago it was an emphasis. You need to state the progression of this line of thought more explicitly for the reader.
    Rewritten.
  • Lanier needs introduction.
    Described Lanier as a computer scientist and writer.
  • The transistion to the Lanier quote is awkward; I think you're letting the quote do a little too much of the work here again.
    Yep, so I rewrote the section in a better way.

Overall, this section is extremely interesting but contains a lot more he said/she said reporting rather than in-depth analysis. On the other hand, it seems to be addressing the topic of the debate spurred by the article rather than the article itself, which may be straying from focus of the topic of the article, depending on how narrowly one defines that; this is a major issue with the article. Skomorokh 02:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have addressed this. There is great depth of analysis now and less he said/she said. In retrospect this section was pretty bad.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and motifs[edit]

Technologies can alter the brain's neuronal circuitry
  • Neither "themes" nor "motifs" tend to be structured as propositions; perhaps the subsection might better be titled "Effect of technology on the brain's neuronal circuitry".
Did that then changed to "Effect of technology on the brain's neural circuitry".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening sentence is quite convoluted. I recommend stopping after saying that Carr used an episode in Nietzsche's life as illustration, then telling the reader what the episode was in a new sentence.
For some reason I have a fear of splitting a sentence in two. I'll get over this fear and fix it.
  • I'm not sure the average reader will be able to grasp what "the brain's malleability" is intended to convey; a parenthesised explanation might help (i.e. "the brain's malleability – the ease with which it can be shaped –" or similar). Likewise "the brain's neuronal circuitry". I say this as a complete partisan of course :)
    Yeah, no need for the word 'malleable' anywhere in the article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arguably" is a weasel word; if someone worth noting actually argued the point, say so. If you're using the word "arguably" because the source does, then it might be best to use a direct quote instead (thus making the source author look like a sloppy writer instead of you ;)).
    I changed it around.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of noting that the Nietzsche anecdote was "explained by German scholar Friedrich A. Kittler in his book Gramophone, Film, Typewriter"? If that is where Carr drew it from, you ought to make that explicit i.e. "Carr illustrates [x] with an example from the life of Friedrich Nietzsche as described by German scholar Friedrich A. Kittler in his book Gramophone, Film, Typewriter."
    I think I got it.
  • The three sentences in the first paragraph act like they relate directly to each other, but on closer inspection the relations are tenuous. Shirky's claim that Nietzsche was always aphoristic reads as if it is a refutation of one of Carr's points, but you don't have Carr on the record as saying anything about Nietzsche's style other than it changed. Again, to avoid he said/she said constructions, it would be best to go into a little more detail here by expanding on Carr's claim and the alternate explanations of Kelly and Esposito. The subheading of "Technologies can alter the brain's neuronal circuitry" oversells the content of this paragraph at present.
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to several scientists" – can you tell us anything about them? If they are too numerous or non-notable to name, perhaps their field or allegiance (institutional or otherwise) could be included in the interests of transparency.
    Rewriting this section.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source for this statement is in the NYTimes article, reading: "Neurological studies show that learning to read changes the brain’s circuitry. Scientists speculate that reading on the Internet may also affect the brain’s hard wiring in a way that is different from book reading." I'll try to match up a little closer if possible to this statement when I copyedit this section. But that for me is a perfect introduction for a main theme in Carr's essay.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are not going to explain what the shape of the "brain's neuronal circuitry" means, perhaps a wikilink or two might rescue readers who are out of their depth?
    Good question: I'm not sure of the different between neural circuits and neuronal circuits. Or neural networks and neuronal networks. I'll try to use more plain english to describe these terms after I use them. Their definitions are important and I'm just figuring it all out.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plausibility seems to me to be more of a question of judgement than one of fact. Instead of saying 'According to x, the argument was reasonably plausible', how about 'x found the argument reasonably plausible'?
  • The sentences starting with "Carr's argument" and "Merzenich and Small" might work better run together. How about cutting out the reptition of names and punctuating with a colon/semi-colon instead of a period?
  • Again, second paragraph could use a little more filling-in of the gaps and a little less straight reporting of who said what. Otherwise, this is a fine subsection.
    I'm going to reorganize this section. I have more information now from neuroscientists and I see there is a lot of nuance here that I'm over simplifying and not explaining properly. I'm rethinking the layout a little bit. The neuroscientists are a really important part of this essay and I hide them in this Themes and motifs section. I'm not sure exactly what to do yet.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I am going to include generally what the neuroscientists have said, Merzenich and Olds, about Carr's essay, and begin with the NYTimes' commentary about what scientists think about screen reading vs literary reading in general. Then I'll ferret out the common themes in Merzenich and Olds' statements, and use Doidge's book to give biographical information on the two. I think that may work.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HAL in 2001 A Space Odyssey
  • It's been a while since I watched the film but "the mind of an artificial intelligence named HAL is slowly disembodied" seems to be an odd choice of words. It would seem peculiar to endorse a particular stance in the mind/body problem (viz. the "embodied mind" thesis) here. What do you mean in plain terms exactly? That HAL/Carr is losing his mind, or that it is actually becoming detached from his body in a more literal sense?
    Yeah, you're right. According to Merriam-Webster the definition of disembody is: "to divest of a body, of corporeal existence, or of reality". I really must use plain english more often. I will do anything to avoid using the verb 'said'. But often 'said' will do just fine. Same situation here. I guess HAL's mind is being taken apart memory bank by memory bank until it reverts to a simpler program.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four commas in the Brin sentence; if the point cannot be made without disrupting the flow of the sentence, perhaps a second sentence is needed.
    Done. But I'm reading Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and he is more comma-happy than me. Is this a prose style that has gone out of style?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to expand a little on the HAL metaphor; were I not familiar with the film, the segment "Sergey Brin, in a PBS interview, comparing Google's ambitions of building an artificial intelligence to HAL, while dismissing the possibility that Google might become similarly dysfunctional" might go over my head. The only thing you've said about HAL thus far is that his mind was being disembodied; is this all that Brin is calling dysfunctional?
    Done.
  • I cannot resist the classic pedant's objection that "like x" is a simile rather than a metaphor (cf. "like clockwork", "like computers").
    Yeah, but in the essay Carr says: "The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level." Simile is too uncommon of a term I guess. I'm sure there's a debate over this somewhere. The metaphor vs. simile contrast probably only applies when you are doing a study of literature. In journalism I doubt simile is used often. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second paragraph, after having described a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Carr compares himself with HAL in the sentence, "I can feel it, too." That's a metaphor, right? In the last paragraph he then uses two similes as far as I know: "Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm." and then "In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine." And then another metaphor in the last paragraph: "as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence." I'd even venture that this is a metaphor, "who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency". Could this even be a metaphor: "the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind". Do computer's really have minds? Not really, so it's a metaphor. Then again, in the fictional universe of 2001 HAL does indeed have a mind, at least its not a metaphor but a supposed reality for them. Anyhow, I'm going for a motif in the essay, and it's something to do with HAL. That Carr likens himself to HAL is a sourced statement from Bill Thompson's article [1]: "He likens himself to HAL, the computer in Arthur C Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, reverting to child-like singing as its memory banks are disconnected by astronaut Dave Bowman." The additional business about Google comparing itself with HAL on the PBS show is an interesting ancillary, which Carr mentions in his book:

SPENCER MICHELS: Sergay Brin thinks the ultimate search engine would be something like the computer named Hal in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.
SERGEY BRIN: Hal could... had a lot of information, could piece it together, could rationalize it. Now, hopefully, it would never... it would never have a bug like Hal did where he killed the occupants of the space ship. But that's what we're striving for, and I think we've made it a part of the way there.

  • I've got work to do here. This section is not at all precise enough, clear enough, or written well enough. Do you have any comments on my collection of facts from above? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Spencer Michels is saying that Sergey Brin has offered a vision in which Google is like HAL. Therefore Sergey Brin has offered a vision of Google in which HAL is a simile for Google. Should I actually start making these distinctions between simile and metaphor? I think you might be right after all.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What more, Carr says "The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor." Carr talks of metaphors but supplies similes. I guess this would be the second instance in which Carr has used a common term rather than a more precise term for the sake of accessibility. He did likewise with the term 'ideogram'.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he explains that HAL is an apt metaphor" ...for what?
    Done.
  • "because it recalls how" – what is the "it" here? It seems to be "HAL", but that would mean that 'HAL recalls how HAL is the one'. A reword may be in order for clarity's sake.
    Done.
  • Given that you've only mentioned one film, it does not seem necessary to name it the second time.
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the humans onboard the space station appeared as mere automatons" might lead a reader unfamiliar with the film to think that the humans were apparitions. I think maybe you mean the humans appeared to be automatons, as in appeared to the viewer, rather than appearing as automatons in the film itself.
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a little more fleshing out would greatly benefit this subsection, though it is interesting and to the point. Skomorokh 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developing picture of how Internet use affects cognition[edit]

  • "a developing picture has been unfolding" Do pictures unfold? News to me :)
    I changed it to "developing view".
  • Not sure you need to specify that it's "Carr's Atlantic essay" as I don't recall the article mentioning any other of Carr's essays up to this point
    Okay, that's a good point. I felt a need to be precise given the beginning of a new section but you're right. It's the only essay by him that is discussed in the context of this Wiki article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Studies" is a little vague; if you can decisively say what kind of studies they are, do so (if not, don't worry).
    Perhaps neurological studies and even another adjective for the UCL study.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So neurological and sociological studies. Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Challenges to Carr's argument have been frequent with Kevin Kelly" does not make grammatical sense. Maybe you meant to put a comma after "frequent".
    Done.
  • Even then I'm not sure "frequent" is a great choice of words, because you haven't really defined the time period in which this is supposed to be happening, only to allude to the notion that it is after the publication of the essay. "Challenges to Carr's argument were made frequently" might be better.
    Done, verbatim.
  • You're into your bad habits of five comma sentences here in the "Challenges..." sentence.
    Fewer commas now.
  • Maybe stick in a link to verificationism? Depends on how ideological/methodological a point Kelly et al are making here.
    How would you apply verificationism to the sentence? Could you show me an example?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Carr firmly believes that his skepticism is warranted" – you're in a new section here, it might be no harm to remind the reader exactly what Carr is skeptical of.
    Good idea. I added: "Carr firmly believed that his skepticism about the Internet's benefits to cognition was warranted"Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "While Carr" sentence has four, commas, in, it, making it flow abruptly.
    Fewer commas now.
  • Once you get to the "that long-term" part, however, the sentence is very well phrased, nicely done.
  • "Scholars at the University College London" – I don't think the definite article is used before referring to this institution. "The University of London" maybe, but not "the University College London".
    What do you mean? The University of London is a federal mega university made up of 31 affiliates (19 colleges and 12 institutes), and UCL is one of those colleges.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would use the definite article in the case of UoL but not for UCL; the former is still used as a phrase while the latter is only used as a proper name. Skomorokh 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. What about New York Press? Is it: ... reported in New York Press, or, reported in the New York Press? I haven't been able to figured it out. Most often adding the definite article before New York Press makes the sentence read easier.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose initial results suggested" – I think "whose" only applies to persons. Try the clumsier "the results of which suggested"
    Done.
  • No link to Skimming (reading)?
    That's a good idea. I'll use it if I expand this section which I'll be looking into soon enough.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "which provoked serious reflection among educators about the implications for educational instruction" – can you say anything about what the educators thought these implications might be?
    I'll see about adding more later.
  • Why is it important that the results were "reported in a press release"?
    Well, they weren't published in a journal, which is to come... so I noted that it was the UCLA press release.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tested two groups...of which half...were". Half of two is one, no? It seems that saying "only one group of which were experienced web users" would be clearer and more concise. If you want to keep "half", then tell the reader what the total number of test subjects was.
    You're right. Done.
  • The sentence starting "While they read books" switches from present to some sort of past tense (past perfect progressive?) and then to regular past tense; best be consistent.
    I did a copyedit. I'm not too familiar with the definitions for these tenses you mention but I have a feel for what you're saying.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misuse "however" in this sentence. You need to start a new sentence or at least preface the "however" with a colon or dash (read it aloud and see how long the pauses are and where).
    Done.
  • "searching the web" is a 1990s cheesy metaphor :) Can it be put a little more technically or by just saying "surfed the Internet"?
    I can't really. From the UCLA press release: "The study, the first of its kind to assess the impact of Internet searching on brain performance, is currently in press at the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and will appear in an upcoming issue." It's specifically search tasks that they were given. "Surfing the Internet" is too vague, I find.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released concurrent with the press release" – do you mean "concurrently"? It seems like there should be an adverb to modify "released", but perhaps this is just an Americanism.
    Done. In one early section of the article I use "concurrent" and then in this section I use "concurrently". Same thing to me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Gary Small, the director" is a little long, but probably within reasonable limits.
    Shortened.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that such repeated exposure to technology" – such is undefined in this sentence. Nitpicking, I know, but if you're shooting for engaging, brilliant, professional prose...
    Ahh, that was inside a quote from Gary Small. The quote is gone now. But I should have paraphrased better.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "While one set of critics" sentence is very nice, good lead-in.
  • "musings" is a little poetic, but livens the prose I suppose.
    I used 'reflections' instead.
  • The sentence beginning "Among the musings" is awfully convoluted – among whether while comma comma comma and whether that are comma according to or period. Ouch!
    Less convoluted now?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claburn observed (past tense) that the findings are (present tense); as long as you're happy with this treatment of tenses and consistent throughout the article.
    No, I'll have to fix this. I realize I have big tense problems in my writing.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice finish :)

Aaaaand that's the first pass at nitpicking the prose done. Much more fun to be had ahead; ping me when you're through with these or want extra input on any point. Skomorokh 23:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I think Skomorokh has been very thorough here, and is really helping this article development. It should be bourne in mind though that a GA review should be conducted against WP:GA? criteria and not WP:FA? criteria as suggested above with the remark about "engaging, brilliant, professional prose". My own concern with the prose is that it borders on technical, and is making assumptions about the education level of the reader that doesn't make it as accessible to the general reader as it could be. GA criteria do ask that attention is paid to Wikipedia:Explain jargon and also to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I have not read all of the original 4,175-word article, though what I did read of the article was more accessible than the summary here: the article tends to use short sentences and common words. As an example of how I feel this article could be opened up - "At the outset of the essay, Carr ascribes his recent difficulties with reading books and long articles to his extensive use of the Internet" could be written as "At the start of the essay, Carr says that his recent difficulties with concentrating while reading books and long articles may be due to spending a lot of time on the Internet." I have stayed closer to Carr's own text (there is less likelihood of "interpretation" that way), and used words that are less loaded, much clearer and more common. SilkTork *YES! 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will take this into consideration. I will be re-examining the Plot Summary and all comments on it shortly. Just to make sure It is exactly as Carr has written. I am actually glad that Skomorokh is taking the time to review this article against FA criteria because that is ultimately where I would like to take this article. I am well aware that he is reviewing the article as such. I would also appreciate any comments you might have, particularly when I place this article at peer review in the future. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this, mainly from the reviewer's end? I ask since I've never seen a review tag up this long before, but it's obvious that a very detailed review is occurring here. Wizardman 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being reviewed. If the time period is a problem for WP:GA then I can give a quickie template review and a week to resolve outstanding issues, but this would be detrimental to the development of the article, in my opinion. Skomorokh 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the length of the GA review. It's been entirely helpful. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm responding to the request for second opinion put on the nominations page. I find the prose to be very wordy: "with a central premise among the essays asserting that alternative delivery formats for the book are inferior to the paper incarnation". There are much plainer ways to say this, it is written like an essay itself. It would be nice if the writing style was more accessible. I also feel that too much attention is paid to other works in order to put this one in context. I feel the article should have more to do with the actual work at hand and less to do with the overriding situation which resulted in the article, but, at the same time, it is well researched and well done, so I am loathe to say it should be deleted. Maybe pare it down? Anyway, good work and I'm impressed that you'd spend this much time improving one article, though I can remember times when I've done the same for other articles up for GA without even being interested in the subject matter. You, however, User:Skomorokh, have taken it to another level entirely. Good Work. - The Talking Sock talk contribs 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Review[edit]

Hello Skomorokh! I'm going to be completing a second opinion review of the article, as you requested on the GAN page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • At the beginning of the Themes and motifs section, the sentence "In Carr's essay, he introduces the science informing that the brain's neural circuitry can be rewired..." feels awkward to me. "Introduces the science informing that..." could probably be worded better, but at the moment I am at a loss as to how.
    • Is there a reason that the normal "See also" section is in this article called "Related articles"?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Ref #4 (Steve Johnson) is marked with a dead link tag. When I clicked on it, it doesn't deadlink, but it doesn't go to the article it's supposed to, either.
    • Ref #23 (Malcolm Ritter) deadlinks.
    • Ref #46 (Leonard Pitts) deadlinks.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • The Writing Ball image at the beginning of the Themes and motifs section is lacking source and author information.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • I've completed my review of images, references and stability, finding a couple of issues in the process. I will be completing the prose review later today, but am currently being called away from the computer. I'll try to have the rest of the review up by tomorrow morning at the absolute latest. Dana boomer (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for taking on the review, Dana. I look forward to your comments on the highlighted areas. Regards, Skomorokh 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed the rest of my review, finding just a couple more minor issues. Overall this is an extremely good article, and once the above issues are taken care of it should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thanks for that Dana. I'll address your concerns in turn:
    • The offending sentence about science informing has now been reworded
    • Per the layout guidelines for these sections, these sections are called "See also" or "Related topics"; a variation on the latter is preferred here because it describes the contents of the section and does not address the reader.
    • I've added alternate working URLs for each of the deadlinks, though the Ritter one is to a blog and while this lends credibility to the idea that the reference supports the claims it is being used for, it might best be left out from the actual article.
    • It's unfortunate that some of the source information is missing from the writing ball image, but it's labeled as public domain, is relevant to the topic at hand, and has an appropriate caption, which would seem to me to satisfy the Good Article criteria for images.
    • Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. The blog reference is good for now, because it quotes the entire text, but it should be changed if you can get access to the real ref again. I suppose the image is fine for now, it is tagged PD, so I'm not going to fight over it. Good work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fantastic, thank you very much for your time and efficient reviewing. Ciao, Skomorokh 15:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Is_Google_Making_Us_Stupid%3F/GA1&oldid=1136826231"