User talk:Rachelkramer/sandbox

The site has been accused of racial profiling on numerous accounts. On the site's about page it states "We're for neighborhood watch." However, people have complained that the neighborhood watch page has become a magnet for posts that read prejudice towards minority community members. The social media platform gives neighbors the chance to express their racism from behind a computer screen, without facing any real world repercussions. This also poses an ethical dilemma for police officers that don't know if responding to threats is a waste of resources and an alienation of specific community members. [1] (I think that this was very concise and well written, I do not see anything that needs to be changed).

The site is also ethically challenging because of possible privacy violations. The site makes it easy for neighborhood predators to contact and find information about other users. Although, the website does require that users show proof of their residence, it can still lead to privacy exploitation issues. This can lead to the access of private information and can threaten the safety and privacy of the community. (While Nextdoor has the capability to greatly benefit the neighborhood, it can also do a lot of harm.) (not sure this sentence is needed)

Evanmgold (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments

Rachel -- nice job! A few things: 1) Before our meeting, you should give some consideration to the content on both these topics already in the article and how you would combine your work with what's already there, and then we can strategize together about how to do this. 2) Make sure you include citations to all the good sources that I see you gathered! 3) I agree with Evan's assessment of the unnecessary sentence at the end of your contributions. 4) "The social media platform gives neighbors the chance to express their racism from behind a computer screen, without facing any real world repercussions." This sentence is much to bold and opinionated for an encyclopedic account -- are you getting this opinion from one of your sources? If so, you can rephrase it to reflect that, but it will need to be rephrased. ) I think the section title should just be "Controversy." --Jmstew2 (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

INCORPORATE WITH EXISTING ARTICLE

1) "Nextdoor displays members' names and information. Nick Wingfield of The New York Times worried that the site may "be used to publicly shame" neighbors or lead to "snarky messages" between residents. Nextdoor leadership said that the use of real names helps maintain civil behavior among users.[21]

Author Pendarvis Harashaw accused Nextdoor's members of engaging in racial profiling: "While Nextdoor's ability to assist in crime-spotting has been celebrated as its 'killer feature' by tech pundits, the app is also facilitating some of the same racial profiling we see playing out in cities across the country. Rather than bridging gaps between neighbors, Nextdoor can become a forum for paranoid racialism—the equivalent of the nosy Neighborhood Watch appointee in a gated community."[22] Sam Levin of the East Bay Express did a detailed story on the harm caused by racial profiling and problems with moderators on Nextdoor in Oakland, California.[23] Nextdoor has guidelines against postings that are discriminatory or engage in profiling, saying, "it's inappropriate to report suspicious activity in a way that focuses primarily on the appearance of those involved rather than their actions."[24]"

I think this section of the article that is currently under "Functions" should be incorporated into my "Controversy" section. I can take some of the information written here and combining with my additional information to create a comprehensive look at the controversy surrounding this site.

2) I will ensure that I include all appropriate citations.

3) I will omit the sentence you and Evan agreed was unnecessary.

4) I can either omit or reword that sentence, I think it was mostly my opinion based off of the information I was reading so may not be totally appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Rachelkramer (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)