Communications Blank Panther Movement Research Paper

Submit an annotated bibliography of scholarly sources that you may use in your final paper. It should adhere to a research paper format

FURTHER EXPLANATION ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT

An annotated bibliography identifies relevant scholarly research and helps you organize that research and structure your paper. The annotated bibliography serves as a mini-literature review in which you explain theories or concepts relevant to your artifact and arguments.

A literature review of a scholarly paper tells the reader: What we know about the topic, what we don’t know, and, given what we don’t know, what is worth knowing. In other words, it reviews what others in the field say and provides for the basis for what you say and why what you say is different than what we already know and is worth studying.

You integrate your research into your paper not in the format of this annotated bibliography, but as a separate section that explains to the reader why your scholarly research leads to your argument (which you present in the deep analysis section). THE FINAL PAPER IS ABOUT BLACK PANTHER SO PLEASE MAKE SURE ITS ABOUT BLACK PANTHER

Information to help you understand this sample and how to prepare an annotated
bibliography.
This bibliography was for an extensive paper on Wikipedia, which is why this student separated
the sources into different categories. Some of the annotations (summaries of the content of the
articles) are longer than you may do. For this student, those articles were more important to the
paper.
Here, the article citations are double spaced so that it will be easier for the student to cut and
paste those citations into their final Reference page.
The summaries of the articles are single spaced to save space.
Pay attention to the fact that the references in the summary of the articles are to the author or
authors, not the article. Most of the entries start with “The authors extended the research” or
“The author argued.”)
SAMPLE
Annotated Bibliography
Gender imbalance on Wikipedia
Antin, J., Yee, R., Cheshire, C., & Nov, O. (2011). Gender differences in Wikipedia editing.
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, 1114. doi: 10.1145/2038558.2038561.
The authors went beyond the 2010 UNU-MERIT study, which focused on the number of
contributors and led to The New York Times article bringing Wikipedia’s gender gap to the
public’s attention. They compared the number and length of revisions made new Wikipedians
with respect to gender. First, the authors confirmed the 2010 UNU-MERIT study finding that
women comprised 18% of editors. They found that among the bottom three-quarters of their
sample, men and women made similar numbers of revisions. However, in the top quarter of their
sample, which represented the people who made the most revisions, men outnumbered women
(who comprised only 27% of the sample). The results on the size of revisions showed a larger
gap. While women made larger revisions among the bottom 75% of the sample, that group
accounted for only 9% of the revisions. Among the most active Wikipedians (the top 25%),
women made far fewer revisions although the most active women made much larger revisions.
The authors also found that women made “significantly larger revisions [in editing work
involving] creative production, synthesis, and reorganization of text” (14). This article provides
evidence of other forms of gender imbalance in Wikipedia and of the complex nature of this
issue.
1
Lam, S., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2011). WP:
Clubhouse?: An exploration of Wikipedia’s gender imbalance. Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, 1-10. doi:
10.1145/2038558.2038560.
The authors extended the research on Wikipedia and gender through their examination of the
gender gap overall, the effect of the gender gap on Wikipedia, and identifying the gender
differences that exist in conflicts in Wikipedia and the impact of those differences on the gender
gap (2). In addition to confirming the reported gender gap, the authors also found that women
stop editing Wikipedia sooner than men and that the gender gap had not been decreasing. (The
data used for this research was before the 2010 UNU-MERIT study.) Their findings also
confirmed “measurable gender-associated imbalances in Wikipedia’s content coverage quality”
meaning content and length of topics that interest women are less than topics that interest men.
The gender gap did not appear to affect coverage of very significant topics. The authors found
that a higher percentage of women than men were active with social and community-oriented
activities, such as their user pages and the mentorship program, and that women who persisted in
contributing to Wikipedia were more likely to become administrators than their male
counterparts.
The findings regarding gender differences and conflict supported only one of the authors’ four
hypotheses, namely that as newcomers, women have a more difficult time than men having
contributions accepted by the community. However, the effect of having an edit reverted was the
same for men and women. Unexpected findings were that women were more concentrated in
more contentious topics and significantly more likely than males to have fellow editors issue a
block for violating Wikipedia policy (such as significant disruption, threats of disruption, or
vandalism). In discussing the implications of their research, the authors query: “How can it be
that the gender gap in Wikipedia is not closing, though overall Internet usage has become
gender-balanced” (9).
In addition to providing support for the Wikipedia gender gap, this research provides statistical
evidence of the effect of that gender gap and insight into gender differences regarding conflict in
Wikipedia. The authors’ discussion and research on gender and volunteering and social and
community-oriented activities could provide support for specific types of activities to encourage
women participation in Wikipedia.
Reagle, J. and Rhue, L. (2011). Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. International Journal
of Communication, 5, 1138-1158. doi: 10.1145/2038558.2038561.
The authors examined an aspect of gender bias in online encyclopedias by comparing the English
language Wikipedia and online Encyclopedia Britannica by comparing their respective coverage
of biographical subjects which were selected from six sources, The National Women’s History
2
Project (NWHP), The Atlantic’s 100 most influential figures in American history, Time
Magazine’s list of 2008’s most influential people, Chambers Biographical Dictionary, American
National Biography Online, and Wikipedia. Their method used computer programs to find and
compare Webpages related to the biographical subjects in Wikipedia and Britannica although in
some instances, they had to manually confirm or clarify their data. The authors’ explanation for
determining the “normal female representation” in the reference works are to identify which
female biographies were missing and provided a great example of how this bias makes it difficult
to establish foundations for research.
They found that Wikipedia dedicated only 14% of its coverage to women as compared to
Britannica’s 19%. Wikipedia had almost two times more female biographies than did Britannica
(113 to 60). But Wikipedia had over two and a half times the number of male biographies than
female biographies (673 to 254).
In that both works followed the bias of existing works, the authors extended their analysis to
examining the gender balance of missing articles. They found that while both sources cover
women less comprehensively than men, women had greater odds of being omitted from
Wikipedia than from Britannica. Interestingly, the authors found that article lengths were not
affected by gender “suggesting gender bias may not be a strong factor for article length.”
Although they noted that Wikipedia’s extensive coverage results in being more likely to find a
biography about women, the authors concluded that evidence of gender bias in Wikipedia’s
coverage of biographies surfaced “from [their] deeper analysis of those articles each reference
work misses” (1155) because Wikipedia’s missing articles are disproportionate female compared
to those of Britannica.
The authors’ research provides quantitative research about Wikipedia and gender bias relating to
its content as opposed to a numerical count of contributors. The authors’ review of the history of
Wikipedia and gender bias in “reference work production” also adds to my general discussion of
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia’s significance
Donlan, R. (2010). From the Editor: Wikipedia and the Digital Divide. Journal of Interlibrary
Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 20, 281-282. doi:
10.1080/1072303X.2010.523669.
This short editor’s note from the Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic
Reserve was included because the editor explained how Wikipedia could help librarians increase
their role in education and in getting information to those whose access to knowledge is limited.
She described Wikipedia as an “eight-lane bridge across the global digital divide.” She points out
that free, open access resources, such as Wikipedia, are all that may be available in many parts of
the world. Wikipedia’s lack of physical restraints fulfills resources sharing initiatives. Observing
3
that academics and librarians contributed to Wikipedia, she encouraged the journal readers to
contribute as well.
Danlon’s perspective about the value of Wikipedia in reducing global inequities to knowledge is
an argument that may resonate with some participants and motivate them to contribute to
Wikipedia.
Halavais, A. & Lackaff, D. (2008). An Analysis of Topic Coverage in Wikipedia. Journal of
Mediated Communication, 13(2), 429-440. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00403.x.
The authors examine the diversity of Wikipedia’s content, specifically its topical scope and
coverage, explaining that Wikipedia’s usefulness requires not only accuracy in its content, “but
on the degree to which it is, indeed, encyclopedic in its breadth” (430). A randomly-selected
sample of 3,000 articles from the English-language Wikipedia was classified by the Library of
Congress category at its broadest level. The distribution of topics on Wikipedia was compared to
that in Books in Print as a percentage of the total in each category (i.e., music, general history,
political science, technology, law, fine art). The authors selected Books in Print because in
identifying the universe of available books, it indicates topics of general interest and knowledge.
The length of each article and the number of edits by contributors were compared across the
categories.
The authors attributed some variation in topical coverage to Wikipedia’s technical
characteristics. Some articles fall within more than one category (naval and the military) and the
number of articles in other categories are increased because Wikipedia automatically imports
data from public sources. Music was a large category on Wikipedia although most of the articles
were about groups and not music theory or performance. The hard sciences were well
represented on Wikipedia, but not in all areas, namely, medicine and technology. The social
sciences were not as well covered on Wikipedia as Books in Print.
The longest articles on Wikipedia were in medicine, law, and the social sciences, although these
were the categories that Wikipedia had less coverage than did Books in Print. The authors noted
the article length may militate against the lack of coverage in these areas. They observed that law
and medicine, two areas that Wikipedia coverage was lacking, were the purview of licensed
experts who had demonstrated online competence.
The authors conclude that Wikipedia’s coverage of topics is strong as compared to print
encyclopedias because of Wikipedia’s size. They acknowledge, however, that it remains
important to identify and address the areas in which Wikipedia is weakest because it is meant to
represent general knowledge. To some extent, the authors’ conclusion falls to address their
research question because they imply that the volume of Wikipedia entries mitigates against the
disparity in topic coverage. This conclusion ignores the effect of emphasizing one topic over
another—topics that are emphasized because they are covered more extensively are naturally
given more importance.
4
The authors’ conclusion describes some of the difficulties that apply to my project: “By
understanding why and how people contribute to Wikipedia, particularly within various
knowledge sub-domains, we may be able to encourage work in areas that are, relatively
speaking, in need of more contributions” (438). Understanding what motives people to contribute
to Wikipedia could inform the curriculum for the workshop.
Messner, M. & DiStaso, M. (2013) Wikipedia versus Encyclopedia Britannica: A Longitudinal
Analysis to Identify the Impact of Social Media on the Standards of Knowledge. Mass
Communication and Society, 16(4), 465-486. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2012.732649
The authors examined how social media affects knowledge-generation by comparing how
Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica framed entries about nine major international
corporations from 2006 to 2010 (467). The authors selected these two encyclopedias because
their differences in the contribution and editing processes represent two forms of knowledgegeneration: Encyclopedia Britannica is the traditional model that uses an “elitist gatekeeping
process” relying on scholars, professionals, and experts to create its content while Wikipedia
uses a “bottom-up process” in which users collaboratively create content.
The authors analyzed the tonality in the content by coding the tonality of each sentence as
positive, negative, neutral, or ambiguous (containing both negative and positive comments)
(472). They also analyzed topics contained in the content by coding each sentence for the
presence or absence of pre-determined topics, such as historical, financial, employees. Twentyseven entries from each encyclopedia were coded and compared. (Entries on the nine
corporations from three different years, 2006, 2008, and 2010, were examined.)
The authors found that while both encyclopedias have remained predominately neutral in
sentence over the years compared, Wikipedia included more positive and negative content and
current developments. They also observed that encyclopedias have become more flexible
through online formats because the dominant topics for both encyclopedias have shifted over
time.
This research is useful in its description of how content is created and edited in Wikipedia and in
differentiating that from the traditional gatekeeping model. The authors’ argument that social
media, specifically Wikipedia, is generating a fundamental shift in knowledge-generation
processes supports the significance of this project.
5
Messner, M. & South, J. (2011) Legitimizing Wikipedia: How US national newspapers frame
and use the online encyclopedia in their coverage. Journalism Practice, 5(2), 145-160.
doi: 10.1080/17512786.2010.506060.
Seeking to determine the extent to which traditional newspapers were relying on Wikipedia, the
authors examined references to Wikipedia in newspaper articles published from January 15,
2001 (the day Wikipedia was founded) through December 31, 2007, from five national
newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today,
and The Christian Science Monitor). In addition to collecting basic information about each
Wikipedia reference (newspaper name and date, article position, story type, and position of
reference to Wikipedia), each reference was also coded for the use of the reference (as a source,
simple mention or phenomenon), framing in the reference (positive, negative, or neutral) and
portrayed accuracy of Wikipedia (accurate, inaccurate, or neutral).
The research findings of the coding were as follows: (1) Although the majority of references in
all the newspapers were framed neutral, the newspapers differed in their positive and negative
frames with CSM and NYT having a greater percentage of positive references than did The
Washington Post and USA Today. (2) Again, the newspapers’ framing of the accuracy of
Wikipedia was for the most part neutral (72.5%) with 15.5% as inaccurate and 11.9% as
accurate. (3) The framing of accuracy changed over time with the inaccuracy increasing in 2005
(when the story of the fake biography of John Seignethaler broke) and then decreasing in 2006
and 2007. (4) The newspapers differed in their framing of the accuracy of Wikipedia with NYT
and CSM framing it as more accurate than inaccurate while the other three newspapers framed it
as more inaccurate than accurate. (5) The use of Wikipedia as a source changed over the years of
the study and the total numbers increased. Most of the references to Wikipedia concerned the
Wikipedia phenomenon.
The authors provided examples of how these newspapers started to use Wikipedia as a source
such as to define a word or phrase or to provide facts based on census data or a historical
timeline.
This research provides another way that Wikipedia’s significance in society is increasing. As the
authors stated: “By treating Wikipedia as a positive phenomenon and an accurate source of
information, the five US newspapers have helped legitimize the online encyclopedia” (156). The
authors suggest a variety of future research in this area, including broadening the analysis to
television news and online news sources. Ideally, updated research on newspapers would have
been helpful given that 2007 was the last year examined in this article.
6
SAMPLE #2
Annotated Bibliography
Fulda, J. (2009). Perfectly Marked, Fair Tests with Unfair Marks. The Mathematical Gazette, 93
(527), 256–260. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/40378728
Fulda begins by setting the standard of what a fair test is. The two main requirements are that the
questions be a representative sample of the material covered and its level of difficulty. However, the
author begins to acknowledge that more than one fair test can exist and that fair tests may be an
inaccurate representation for some students. Fulda explains that even though the test may be perfectly
designed, it is also dependent on the student to see how accurate the test design was. There is also
further explanation on how the teacher grading the test shouldn’t skew the test scores for that will
cause unfairness, but that there must still be an adjust for the reality that not every student is the
same.
The author tackles issues that pertain to the way tests are formatted and how that may affect the
scores of a student. This is relevant to my research in education and how people are treated unfairly
because of where they come from. Even though Fulda’s article doesn’t address the social class
portion of the issue, it does address the bias and ineffective measurements of tests. This is an
important talking point because in most school systems, tests are what distinguish between the
“smart” and “not smart” students.
Gross, C., Gottburgsen, A., & Phoenix, A. (2016). Education systems and intersectionality. In
Gross C. & Hadjar A. (Eds.), Education systems and inequalities: International
comparisons (pp. 51-72). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t892m0.9
In the beginning of the chapter “Education Systems and Intersectionality,” the authors define
intersectionality and other relevant terms, such as intersectional analysis, multidimensionality, and
contextuality, to explain how inequalities people may experiences aren’t limited to one category.
Gross, et al. acknowledge that intersectionality comes into play in education. They provide the
example differentiating the student success rate in a classroom depending on the level of migrant
status. The research is based on research done in Europe, but it does delve into the outcomes of the
different student backgrounds and their test scores. Comparisons are made with similar research done
in the US and Mexico. Gross also dives into how the environment affects a student’s performance;
environments such as if the student plays sports.
This research will come in handy for my paper since it focuses on the idea that one of the reasons
students underperform in school is because of their kind of background. It relates to the artifact in the
way that most students represented in the show are from various backgrounds and have multiple
layers of intersectionality. The research will help support my argument that sometimes a background
is what makes a student appear less valuable on paper.
1
Howe, L., Lawlor, D., & Propper, C. (2013). Trajectories of socioeconomic inequalities in
health, behaviours and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence. Journal
of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), 67(4), 358-364. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/43281528
The authors provide insight on the changes humans go through depending on their socio-economic
background. Initially, the authors focus more on the health changes that occur from childhood to
adolescence. They also track changes through education. Since the authors focus on health, they also
mention on how health in lower income communities can affect educational outcomes. The article is
broken down by sections including explicit descriptions, the results, how credible they are, and how
they were obtained. Their conclusion is that “low socioeconomic status is associated with worse child
health, behavior, and educational attainment” (364).
This research is helpful because it biologically provides some insight to how low socioeconomic
statuses can create an obstacle for students to success in higher education and later in life. Despite
much of the argument focusing on the social stigmas and assumptions made by adults towards nonhonors students, this kind of research gives insight into the kinds of struggles that students in the
show could be facing in real life and how that would affect their scholastic performance.
Hughes, R., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1996). Social Class Issues in Family Life Education. Family
Relations, 45(2), 175-182. doi:10.2307/585288
The authors argue that a power dynamic occurs when social class comes into play. They mention
how external forces tends to place families in a form of hierarchy. The authors mention how
economics play a part on patterns that tend to establish “norms” about a group. The combination of
the economics and the power dynamics between groups will support the arguments I am making in
the paper. This research will relate to the power dynamics that happen within the school
administrators and Mr. Iglesias’s kids. The authors also mention a cultural approach, which they
contend also influences different meanings into what each social class should be doing.
Zweig, M. (2012). Looking at values—family and otherwise. In The Working Class Majority:
America’s Best Kept Secret (pp. 97-115). Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.csun.edu/stable/10.7591/j.ctt7v7g0.10
This chapter focuses specifically on the working class in the US. Zweig first examines current
working-class conditions. She points out how those in working class come from a place of selfinterest, and then transitions into the influences that keep those in the working class. One of the first
examples is about a computer technician who states that it was his family that influenced his decision
to choose the career path that he did. From there the author analyzes that despite a person wanting to
make a name for themselves, they still want to find a heavy influence from those around them
2
because it is those kinds of relationships that shape a person. The author also tries to contract this
idea about heavy family influences with the idea of individualistic thinking the US.
This chapter is effective in my argument because it provides information from both sides of the
argument. The idea that family and external forces influence a person into what they will be as an
adult pertains to my artifact. The students are all in high school, and that is synonymous with the
time in a person’s life where they are trying to figure out what they want to be post-graduation.
Around this time, specifically seniors in high school, will begin to choose career choices and join the
working force. It is the influence from the adults on the show that make this kind of article relevant
and useful.
3