User:Rbrink1/sandbox

This is a user sandbox of Rbrink1. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Get Help

Article to edit -> Information Technology -> Non profit tech -> tech for developing areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_technology_for_developing_areas

Article Critique

First of all this topic seems to broad to be just in the "Non profit tech" subcategory, but perhaps that is allowed as multiple categories are allowed to branch down into one topic. It even says as much in the first paragraph of the article, talking about how "Many institutions, government, charitable, and for-profit organizations" require tech development. This point doesn't really get linked to anything else, it's just sort of out there.

Then things get really weird. "KRISH KIRSFXDXDDTJXYJCTHFaythdfrbying" is how the second paragraph starts, and makes little more sense when it actually transitions to real English. Not only this, but the same paragraph is transcribed yet again directly below, as if someone copied and pasted this already horrendous paragraph from somewhere else and still managed to screw up by pasting it twice. It's so obviously awful that it almost feels as if this is how the Illuminati really gets messages to its members, through encoded, awful Wikipedia messages.

After the Illuminati's edit of the page, things appear to return to normalcy. The page follows a reasonable structure, with most facts seeming to be linked to respectable sources. Also, to credit this page, most of the references seem to be reasonably neutral sources, and thus it conveys a fairly neutral tone, with the exception of the ridiculous intro which just doesn't make any sense.

Part of this neutrality, I think comes inherently from the topic at hand. This is a factual topic in nature, and can be discussed directly in terms of quantifiable actions and initiatives that have been performed. Opinions have no place in this article, and are seemingly lacking, which is a good thing.

I also believe this article does a reasonable job representing several viewpoints of the debate, even mentioning Bill Gate's well established opinion that tech is not the be all end all for impoverished areas, as things such as running water and sanitation services are much more critical to development of these areas than a computer center and internet connectivity.