Talk:Digital goods
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Michigan/SI 110: Introduction to Information (Winter 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
We plan to make several subheadings. For example, we want to identify marketplaces for digital goods, types of digital goods (media, information, etc.), and even theft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.246.171 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]I think you did a great job editing this. I like how you added headings and subheadings and you clearly put a lot of time and effort into this assignment. In addition, there are a lot more resources now, which allows for people to further his or her search on digital goods. The one thing that I would change in this is to get rid of the quotations in the article and make them into sentences (just reword them). Also, you can probably expand on the individual digital goods described. There is a lot of information out there on this topic, so maybe a few more sentences would make this article stronger. Otherwise, I think you guys did a great job and added a lot of good information. Good job! Samlindz (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samlindz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The group did a really good job incorporating numerous edits to make their Wikipedia page “Digital goods” better and more complex. It was really beneficial that the group expanded on the definition of a digital good because before their edit it was unclear. The group also added the effect that digital goods have had on our way of living, which is really important, for they tied it into course related material. The group then broke their topic down into smaller topics, which made the Wikipedia page definitely more thorough and understandable. The group added topics such as types of goods, complications, taxes, and the marketplace. The group showed their ability to edit a Wikipedia page for they added topics and sub-topics to this specify stub. They also correctly cited their sources and added hyperlinks in numerous sections. Elements of high-quality articles, according to the Wikipedia brochure, are a lead section that gives an understanding overview, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources. The group definitely incorporated all these requirements for they used and added reliable Web sites such as CNN. The group definitely added a lot more information, which showed they put in effort, time, and work. I think the group could have added a couple pictures to enhance their descriptions. I also think they could have added a little more to the types of goods section. Perhaps they could have spoken about the effect of these goods on our society to make this section more relatable. Lkollend (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Before the group edited this stub, the first thing that I noticed was a vague definition with many examples and a lack of clarity. Thus, the first thing that I found very effective about the group's work was their ability to research and communicate the basic understanding of "digital goods." Next, I believed that they broke down the article in an effective manner that built off the lead section and was clear to whoever was reading. Not only are they well-organized, but also each section is equally represented. The only section that I believe was a bit long was the taxation section. The group did a really good job by offering a see more section but I felt that the last paragraph or so was a little unnecessary in reference to the overview of digital goods. When doing a short analysis of each section, I saw that each one was well-supported by a good number of resources. Going to the footnotes I found some very quality sources in relation to what information was being referenced but I was also very skeptical of the source "Webopedia". In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is neutral coverage and I felt that the group did a really good job addressing this in relation to digital goods. On the one side they addressed the issues of fraud, taxation, and copyright. Then on the other hand they mentioned how time could be saved, goods could be received instantly, and the environment could benefit. All in all, I believe this group did very well and understands how to use Wikipedia and do it in a respectful and effective manner. Josheric (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC
- This group made a huge improvement to this article. The sections they laid out were organized, practical, and creative too. I would have never thought to include the taxes on digital goods. I wish they had also included a small section describing the size of the industry or its future; how much generated revenue is created in this market? How large is it compared to the paper goods market? Is it predicted to one day surpass the paper good market? I also felt the introduction was a little too “listy.” There were a lot of serial lists, with many blue links, and I think that could have fit a little better under the Types of Goods section. I also liked how they included a “For more, see Taxation of Digital Goods” as well as a “See Also” section. This adds credibility to the article and makes it seem more professional and “like all the other ones.” I did have a few issues with the word choice. Under the e-books taxes section, “Take New Jersey,” sounds a little too informal, and the pronoun “it” in the sentence “It saves time and effort…” under the Types of Goods section is ambiguous and misleading. Overall, the article reads great and you could tell a lot of time and effort was put into it. Well done! Anlevi (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think this group did a really good job editing this article. The content is organized via sections, and the reader can quickly and easily access the information they are looking for. I enjoyed the lead or general section at the top of the page that gave an effective overview of the content. This page has clearly used an appropriate amount of references, and that is important to readers in order to further review, and learn more about the subject. In the 'types of goods' section I believe that more information could be added here. There are a few more mediums of goods to add, and perhaps the editors could expand a little more on the ones already described. Additionally, the marketplace section could be added to a little more. For example, online stores such as iTunes, the Mac and iPhone app stores are just a few more examples of booming marketplaces to purchase goods. Also, perhaps a few images on the page would add a little more excitement to the content. The group did a good job of providing accurate information and neutral opinions in regards to the content. Good job! Chasemas (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- After peer reviewing, I think this group did a great job editing this article. Specifically, the way the article is formatted is helpful because the content is more easily accessible. When reading the article, you are able to get to the information you need without having to read the entire article. There are even bolded titles within each header, which makes it even easier to read. In regard to content, this group did an excellent job adding a significant amount of detail to the overall article. These details truly make the article much more helpful in understanding the topic. In addition, I liked how they included examples of the different types of digital goods. With that being said, I think the article could be improved if there was more information added to the general summary of digital goods. The introduction should do exactly that and introduce the content in the following paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatumpr (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- This group made many positive additions to the article. Their main summary is clear and informative. The examples listed for digital goods are also quite comprehensive (covering ebooks, music, and applications). It would have been helpful to expand on the listed goods, categorizing them in the Types of Goods section and providing more examples. I did like how legal concerns such as copyright and taxation were addressed. Digital Marketplaces was also very relevant to the subject, and Wikipedia currently does not have a page on it, so it was great that the team explained them. Overall, I appreciated the scope of content covered. However, I had some concerns with neutrality and informality in the language. As another peer review said, pronouns like "it" were used incorrectly to reference ideas -"it's important" rather than the actual objects. Other instances involve using "you", which is prevalent throughout the taxes section - "If you live in... you likely pay more." As an encyclopedia entry, these terms should be avoided. One must also must also be careful when stating generalizations such as "Digital goods has promoted greener living" or "people buy music very frequently and easily." It should be clear that those statements are not the author's opinion, but rather citations from other sources which can back up their statements with facts. The team did a really good job finding different information sources, and sharing the information in a way that is useful and interesting to the audience. A little more editing should be done to adjust to "Wikipedia language," but this is definitely fit to be a legitimate article, no longer a stub. [[User:Trinlin|Trinlin] (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reading this article after the edits gave me a much better understanding of digital goods. Specifically, I really liked the addition of "types of digital goods" because it provided me with specific examples that are common today, and it also mentioned how these goods are impacting our lives today. Building on this, I felt as if this article had a hidden "thesis" to convince the reader that digital goods are improving our lives. I may have more clearly separated facts on digital goods themselves vs. the pros/cons they are having on our lives today (perhaps another subheading) - especially because many of the digital goods mentioned (eBooks, smart phone apps, Bitcoin) are relatively new/emerging. Furthermore, I found the "Taxes" section a bit lengthy - the fact that it's towards the end and it's so lengthy/excessively detailed makes it the focus of the article. After "Types of Goods", I would have instead focused more on the complications, seeing as everyone uses digital goods and many of us obtain them illegally (Limewire, illegitimate torrents, etc). Although these complications were mentioned, they were outweighed by the lengthy "Taxes" section and general statements throughout the article such as "people buy music very frequently and easily". Overall, I am very happy with the edits made. However, I do think it can be improved with more formal/Wikipedia-appropriate language where information is better presented and I don't feel as if the writing is biased in any way. A little more editing wouldn't hurt, but nonetheless you guys did a great job! Asheshpr (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Overall I found this to be a very detailed and well done article. The organization/layout is done efficiently and there are plenty of links to other related wiki pages within the article. It helped expand my knowledge of what a digital good actually consisted of and gave plenty of examples of what falls under that category. I have a few critiques but they are minor. One of them is the size of the "complications" section. I feel like there are probably a fair amount of complications with digital goods and this section is very small. For example, the idea that digital goods can be obtained illegally (pirating music and movies etc). Online fraud is obviously a huge deal but I don't think they expound upon it enough. Another critique I have is the fact that the introduction section of this article is a big list of items which could probably be an entire section itself or even go in the "see also" section. In the "Taxes" section they use the term "if you live in" which makes the sentence very casual instead of professional. Instead they should say "Citizens of [these states]" to make it feel more like an article and less like a conversation. The rest of the "Taxes" section is done very well and clearly lays out examples, explanations and problems of taxation of digital goods. In the "Marketplace" section the term 'bitcoin' should be linked to the main wiki page on the topic so that interested readers can get a full explanation of what a bitcoin is instead of the abbreviated version which is in this article. Despite these minor critiques, I feel like this article is well written and easy to navigate and the users did a good job on it. Imaniwil (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reading this article after the edits gave me a much better understanding of digital goods. Specifically, I really liked the addition of "types of digital goods" because it provided me with specific examples that are common today, and it also mentioned how these goods are impacting our lives today. Building on this, I felt as if this article had a hidden "thesis" to convince the reader that digital goods are improving our lives. I may have more clearly separated facts on digital goods themselves vs. the pros/cons they are having on our lives today (perhaps another subheading) - especially because many of the digital goods mentioned (eBooks, smart phone apps, Bitcoin) are relatively new/emerging. Furthermore, I found the "Taxes" section a bit lengthy - the fact that it's towards the end and it's so lengthy/excessively detailed makes it the focus of the article. After "Types of Goods", I would have instead focused more on the complications, seeing as everyone uses digital goods and many of us obtain them illegally (Limewire, illegitimate torrents, etc). Although these complications were mentioned, they were outweighed by the lengthy "Taxes" section and general statements throughout the article such as "people buy music very frequently and easily". Overall, I am very happy with the edits made. However, I do think it can be improved with more formal/Wikipedia-appropriate language where information is better presented and I don't feel as if the writing is biased in any way. A little more editing wouldn't hurt, but nonetheless you guys did a great job! Asheshpr (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- This group made many positive additions to the article. Their main summary is clear and informative. The examples listed for digital goods are also quite comprehensive (covering ebooks, music, and applications). It would have been helpful to expand on the listed goods, categorizing them in the Types of Goods section and providing more examples. I did like how legal concerns such as copyright and taxation were addressed. Digital Marketplaces was also very relevant to the subject, and Wikipedia currently does not have a page on it, so it was great that the team explained them. Overall, I appreciated the scope of content covered. However, I had some concerns with neutrality and informality in the language. As another peer review said, pronouns like "it" were used incorrectly to reference ideas -"it's important" rather than the actual objects. Other instances involve using "you", which is prevalent throughout the taxes section - "If you live in... you likely pay more." As an encyclopedia entry, these terms should be avoided. One must also must also be careful when stating generalizations such as "Digital goods has promoted greener living" or "people buy music very frequently and easily." It should be clear that those statements are not the author's opinion, but rather citations from other sources which can back up their statements with facts. The team did a really good job finding different information sources, and sharing the information in a way that is useful and interesting to the audience. A little more editing should be done to adjust to "Wikipedia language," but this is definitely fit to be a legitimate article, no longer a stub. [[User:Trinlin|Trinlin] (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- After peer reviewing, I think this group did a great job editing this article. Specifically, the way the article is formatted is helpful because the content is more easily accessible. When reading the article, you are able to get to the information you need without having to read the entire article. There are even bolded titles within each header, which makes it even easier to read. In regard to content, this group did an excellent job adding a significant amount of detail to the overall article. These details truly make the article much more helpful in understanding the topic. In addition, I liked how they included examples of the different types of digital goods. With that being said, I think the article could be improved if there was more information added to the general summary of digital goods. The introduction should do exactly that and introduce the content in the following paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatumpr (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think this group did a really good job editing this article. The content is organized via sections, and the reader can quickly and easily access the information they are looking for. I enjoyed the lead or general section at the top of the page that gave an effective overview of the content. This page has clearly used an appropriate amount of references, and that is important to readers in order to further review, and learn more about the subject. In the 'types of goods' section I believe that more information could be added here. There are a few more mediums of goods to add, and perhaps the editors could expand a little more on the ones already described. Additionally, the marketplace section could be added to a little more. For example, online stores such as iTunes, the Mac and iPhone app stores are just a few more examples of booming marketplaces to purchase goods. Also, perhaps a few images on the page would add a little more excitement to the content. The group did a good job of providing accurate information and neutral opinions in regards to the content. Good job! Chasemas (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- This group made a huge improvement to this article. The sections they laid out were organized, practical, and creative too. I would have never thought to include the taxes on digital goods. I wish they had also included a small section describing the size of the industry or its future; how much generated revenue is created in this market? How large is it compared to the paper goods market? Is it predicted to one day surpass the paper good market? I also felt the introduction was a little too “listy.” There were a lot of serial lists, with many blue links, and I think that could have fit a little better under the Types of Goods section. I also liked how they included a “For more, see Taxation of Digital Goods” as well as a “See Also” section. This adds credibility to the article and makes it seem more professional and “like all the other ones.” I did have a few issues with the word choice. Under the e-books taxes section, “Take New Jersey,” sounds a little too informal, and the pronoun “it” in the sentence “It saves time and effort…” under the Types of Goods section is ambiguous and misleading. Overall, the article reads great and you could tell a lot of time and effort was put into it. Well done! Anlevi (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Before the group edited this stub, the first thing that I noticed was a vague definition with many examples and a lack of clarity. Thus, the first thing that I found very effective about the group's work was their ability to research and communicate the basic understanding of "digital goods." Next, I believed that they broke down the article in an effective manner that built off the lead section and was clear to whoever was reading. Not only are they well-organized, but also each section is equally represented. The only section that I believe was a bit long was the taxation section. The group did a really good job by offering a see more section but I felt that the last paragraph or so was a little unnecessary in reference to the overview of digital goods. When doing a short analysis of each section, I saw that each one was well-supported by a good number of resources. Going to the footnotes I found some very quality sources in relation to what information was being referenced but I was also very skeptical of the source "Webopedia". In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is neutral coverage and I felt that the group did a really good job addressing this in relation to digital goods. On the one side they addressed the issues of fraud, taxation, and copyright. Then on the other hand they mentioned how time could be saved, goods could be received instantly, and the environment could benefit. All in all, I believe this group did very well and understands how to use Wikipedia and do it in a respectful and effective manner. Josheric (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC
- The group did a really good job incorporating numerous edits to make their Wikipedia page “Digital goods” better and more complex. It was really beneficial that the group expanded on the definition of a digital good because before their edit it was unclear. The group also added the effect that digital goods have had on our way of living, which is really important, for they tied it into course related material. The group then broke their topic down into smaller topics, which made the Wikipedia page definitely more thorough and understandable. The group added topics such as types of goods, complications, taxes, and the marketplace. The group showed their ability to edit a Wikipedia page for they added topics and sub-topics to this specify stub. They also correctly cited their sources and added hyperlinks in numerous sections. Elements of high-quality articles, according to the Wikipedia brochure, are a lead section that gives an understanding overview, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and reliable sources. The group definitely incorporated all these requirements for they used and added reliable Web sites such as CNN. The group definitely added a lot more information, which showed they put in effort, time, and work. I think the group could have added a couple pictures to enhance their descriptions. I also think they could have added a little more to the types of goods section. Perhaps they could have spoken about the effect of these goods on our society to make this section more relatable. Lkollend (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Garbage in, garbage out
[edit]In March 2014 a student group expanded this article to five times its length. And got all these accolades in Talk (above). And then, in September 2014, a person knowledgeable in the field shrank the article by almost 90%, with descriptions of what was so very wrong with the students' content. This appears to be an example of what happens when a teacher who is not skilled in Wikipedia sets students loose on an article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)