Difference between revisions of "Talk:Doxxing"
From SI410
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
This is a good start. You use course concepts to frame your writing well, and your writing is clear. You could be a bit more specific in your lead paragraph (what ethical issues does doxxing bring up? You mention several later, but it's unclear in this paragraph). As far as NPOV and the ethical implications section are concerned, if you have evidence to support whatever claims you make (Doxxing raises X issue, which is bad for Y reason, according to SOME ACADEMIC SOURCE), it should be fine. Your POV won't be there, but the evidence should inform your conclusions. | This is a good start. You use course concepts to frame your writing well, and your writing is clear. You could be a bit more specific in your lead paragraph (what ethical issues does doxxing bring up? You mention several later, but it's unclear in this paragraph). As far as NPOV and the ethical implications section are concerned, if you have evidence to support whatever claims you make (Doxxing raises X issue, which is bad for Y reason, according to SOME ACADEMIC SOURCE), it should be fine. Your POV won't be there, but the evidence should inform your conclusions. | ||
Elizabeth Whittaker | Elizabeth Whittaker | ||
Latest revision as of 22:11, 27 March 2019
This is a good start. You use course concepts to frame your writing well, and your writing is clear. You could be a bit more specific in your lead paragraph (what ethical issues does doxxing bring up? You mention several later, but it's unclear in this paragraph). As far as NPOV and the ethical implications section are concerned, if you have evidence to support whatever claims you make (Doxxing raises X issue, which is bad for Y reason, according to SOME ACADEMIC SOURCE), it should be fine. Your POV won't be there, but the evidence should inform your conclusions.
Elizabeth Whittaker
