Talk:Media literacy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allisonleblanc. Peer reviewers: Acaggiano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Niall.M23. Peer reviewers: Isadoraalpino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yueyiyang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryanjacobberger. Peer reviewers: Ryan.willis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding section for class

Hello, as a part of one of the course requirements within the University of Washington, two other students and I will be doing our best to navigate and add a section on the importance and distinguishing factors of Critical Media Literacy.

We are making these changes because we believe that it is important to explain further what the critical aspect of media literacy. We feel that this is an important skill for everyone to have, as well as a very important part of media literacy. A section specifically dedicated to explaining critical media literacy is needed to make a more complete page on the subject.

• Add more in depth definition of Critical Media Literacy provided from Kellner
• The difference between critical media literacy and media literacy and how they relate
• The benefit for people to critique power structures
• how to use this strategy to contribute to social change and activism

More ideas may come up along the editing process.

Jhb123 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)jhb123

To do list

• We need to copyedit this. "It's" is not encylopedic. Can someone please work on this. (unsigned comment)

--

• list of media literacy proponents needs editing: everyone who's critical of mainstream media thinks media literacy is important. the list needs to be narrowed down to people for whom ML advocay or research is a focus.
• separate list for researchers who have influenced ML (this would include Paulo Freire and the people above who have been removed from the proponents list )
• external links needs sorting in order of importance (or alphabet at least)
• needs links and mentions of media literacy in international conventions (e.g. UNESCO Gruenwald Declaration, Vienna Declaration, etc.)
• link to UNESCO survey on media eduction (edited by David Buckingham)- use search engine!

• clearer distinction between different national movements & approaches. US is very particular, and the 'protectionist stance' has been discredited since the early 90s. also, most approaches focus on critical reception, but there are also approaches that include critical production (though this is somewhat controversial also, Masterman warns of the "technology trap").
• the right wing media literacy (?) people should have their own section. they're more of an exception.
• more on ML movements in Asia: Japan, Taiwan, Korea.

Bine maya 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For Further Reading Section

(an older Bib)

• Teaching the Media, Len Masterman, London: Comedia, 1985 ／ Routledge, 1985／1990／1992 <-- the classic. should be listed first.
• Teaching About Television, Len Masterman, London: The MacMilian Press, 1980

• Mass media and Popular Culture, Barry Duncan et. al., Harcourt Brace & Co., Canada, 1996
• Media Action Project, Dirk Schouten and Rob Watling, School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 1997
• Reading Audiences, David Buckingham, ed. London: Manchester University Press, 1993
• New Directions: Media Education World Wide, Carry Bazalgette, Evelyne Devort, Jasiane Savino, ed. British Film Institute, 1992
• add research by Sonia Livingstone, Ulla Carlson (new book by Nordicom!)- use search engine!
• In japanese: Study Guide Media Literacy (3 editions)- see Midori Suzuki
• http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23714&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html

Bine maya 12:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

useful scraps

• UNESCO

“Media Education: A Kit for Teachers, Students, Parents and Professionals” has been published in English and French by UNESCO. The kit is partly a product of the MENTOR project initiated by UNESCO and supported by the European Commission.

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=23714&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO 03-01-2007 16:00

What should Media education be like? Who should provide it? How should it be included in a curriculum? Beyond schools, do families have a say in the matter? Can professionals be involved and how? What strategies can the public adopt to deal with the benefits and the limitations of media?

These are some of the questions addressed by the kit. It proposes a prototype of media education curriculum for the basic qualification of secondary school teachers, but it also extends its modular approach and key concepts (production, language, representation, public) to adults outside the school system, be they parent, media professional or decision-maker. In addition to a teachers’ manual and accompanying students’ handbook, the kit also contains a manual for parents as well as a handbook on ethical relations with professionals and one on internet literacy.

To extend the pedagogical process of questioning, a 'Frequently Asked Questions' section has been added as well as a glossary of media education terms. The responses provided are meant to introduce the debate and promote dialogue rather than being considered definitive answers. They are not recipes but suggestions for further explorations, both on- and off-line, with many references to documents, materials and websites offered in the final reference section.

Whatever the mode of entry and the viewpoint adopted, the kit takes into account the necessary skills needed to decipher the various types of messages as well as the various stakes relating to citizenship and sustainability, beyond school and family. What matters most is establishing connections between the different actors involved in the process of socializing children and young people. In a development perspective, solid and durable foundations for a large and systematic media education are fundamental to the current needs of shared knowledge societies and cultural diversity."

Bine maya 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup preamble

Gawd. What a mess. "But it's so much more!" Sounds like a bad advert. OK, major rewrite. Any issues? I also added a references, and converted some links into refs. I agree with others; this article still needs a lot of work. --Bhuston 11:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever rewrites this, please explain what, conceptually, distinguishes "media literacy education" from indoctrination. It sounds awfully like the government telling kids what is good and what is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.45.27 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Offer to cleanup

I'll have a go at a general copy edit to tidy this up if no-one else is planning to. I'm not a subject expert, just a hack, so if someone better qualified wants to pitch in please do. Note to self - include ref to OFCOM in UK Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I dive in - any comments on this question - is media literacy a 'process' as currently defined, or is it more accurate to say that it is a competence? Hugh Mason (talk • contribs 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation Class Project

We are currently working on THE TRANSLATION into Spanish of this article. Translation work will be ready by the end of June 2014. For more information see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Universitat_Jaume_I_-_E-translating PLEASE, DO NOT TRANSLATE THIS PAGE. IF YOU DO SO, PLEASE INFORM US AT [[User:Mcptrad|Mcptrad]--Mcptrad (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

bibliography

Hobbs, R. (1998), The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48: 16–32. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02734.x

Kellner, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education Vol. 26, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 369�/386

Considine, D., Horton, J. and Moorman, G. (2009), Teaching and Reaching the Millennial Generation Through Media Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52: 471–481. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2

Lewis, J. and Jhally, S. (1998), The struggle over media literacy. Journal of Communication, 48: 109–120. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02741.x

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3-23). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Livingstone, Sonia (2004) What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32 (3). pp. 18-20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanjacobberger (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

• Throughout the article there seems to be a bias when writing about what media literacy does:

examples:

• "Media literate people should be able to skillfully create and produce media messages."
• "More confident students in media education should be able to debate the implications of these developments in terms of national and cultural identities"

Sentences like these are throughout the article, and just simply need to be modified a little to make them appear less bias and more driven by information.

• I also encountered a few references that have broken links or lead to sites with no information as to what they are supposed to be referencing.

-examples:

• reference 41: link goes to a parenting home page that reviews movies that are safe for children. Unsure of how this link relates to the sentence the reference is on.
• reference 30: link is broken error 404
• reference 35: link cannot be found
• reference 31: link is cannot load, either doesn't exist or this link is not the public link to the article
• reference 28: link does not load
• reference 38: cannot load

• I also believe that there should be a section that discusses the Leadership Conference on Media Literacy.

Ryanjacobberger (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy

This is a section I am planning on adding to the article.

The National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy was a group of 25 representative leaders in the Media Literacy movement. This conference took place in December 1992 at Aspen's Institute Wye Woods campus. This conference was made to help create a definition of media literacy with prominent figures within the media literacy movement. The 25 representative leaders also discussed their vision and their ideas for the media literacy movement. After two days after discussing the leaders agreed on a definition and ideas of where to go with media literacy. They would develop three task forces, the first dealing with building a curriculum and training teachers on how to properly teach media literacy. The second task force, was to establish communications and create reliable databases with correct information on the subject. The third task force, was to promote the reasons behind teaching and learning media literacy while understanding that it should be taken as a serious subject in classrooms and in ever day life.

bibliography:

Hobbs, R. (1998), The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48: 16–32. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02734.x

Kellner, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education Vol. 26, No. 3, September 2005, pp. 369�/386

Considine, D., Horton, J. and Moorman, G. (2009), Teaching and Reaching the Millennial Generation Through Media Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52: 471–481. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.2

Lewis, J. and Jhally, S. (1998), The struggle over media literacy. Journal of Communication, 48: 109–120. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02741.x

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of education. In D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3-23). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Livingstone, Sonia (2004) What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32 (3). pp. 18-20 Ryanjacobberger (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media literacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910000111/http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=4441&4441_0=4987 to http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=4441&4441_0=4987

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media literacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ccsonline.org.uk/mediacentre/Research_Projects/unesco_survey.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D27056%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328090918/http://cscym.zerolab.info/ to http://www.cscym.zerolab.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media literacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207011654/http://www.imlrf.org/united-states to http://www.imlrf.org/united-states

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor adjustments

As apart of my Media Literacy college class I will be providing some minor suggestions for this article.

In the introduction of the article, the link for the National Association for Media Literacy Education does not exist when clicked on (along with a few people mentioned in the paragraph about Australia in the "History" section). A more in depth explanation of what this association is, what it did, and why it is relevant would be beneficial. The article is not completely neutral and shows signs of a bias as the word "should" is often used when explaining media literacy and what exactly it does. I found there to be a lot of repetition of the skills acquired through media literacy. For example, phrases about being able to analyze, evaluate and create media is mentioned in the introduction, "Overview", "Education", and "Critical media literacy" sections. There should be more information regarding South American and Asian education/curriculum in the history section.

Allisonleblanc (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Allison, I would provide examples of what you are suggesting. I would also include the information that you would like to provide for this article. 71.174.22.53 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)ThomasA456

Article contribution (draft)

Media Literacy as an intervention method

Sexual health promotion

Media literacy programs can be used as a sexual health promotion. These programs allow people to be actively involved as they use media and technology as a source of information. A Journal of Media Literacy Education study found that using MLE, adolescents could gather and learn information regarding sexual health as well as media literacy (e.g., how to make safe-sex decisions and improving media skills). Media literacy programs apply to HIV prevention. MLE allows people to learn valuable skills to understand and detect the falsity of information found in the media, decreasing the risks and spread of HIV.

Allisonleblanc (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Article Critique

Hello, I am providing suggestions for how this article may be improved for

In this article, the facts reliable references that are reliable sources from textbooks and trusted publications. However, there were certain links for references that did not work. There are certain facts in the article where I cannot find the information that is being cited in the provided link. There was also bias under the media literacy education section when starting to talk about the benefits that come from media literacy. Each section was relevant to the topic and the information within them was up to date. Niall.M23 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential Contribution

Media education in the region of the Middle East and North Africa has the goal of critical media use with young people and included at universities in 2013. In Morocco, media literacy education was brought to action through the implementation of new courses and programs to push schools to have a better understanding of media but UNESCO found it was not common in their education system.

The media literacy movement in Hong Kong was started in 2000 by the Hong Kong Association of Media Education (HKAME) in 2000 in order to show young people how to consume media and produce it. Media education is a more common part of the Hong Kong curriculum due to reform in education and it has gained more significance.

Feedback would be appreciated.Niall.M23 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources: https://search.proquest.com/openview/45d0dc637522573501b7a278b25ab64b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2029168 https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol11/iss3/7/ https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ966655.pdf https://elib.umkendari.ac.id/eb_el/(Education_in_a_Competitive_and_Globalizing_World_)Limon_E._Kattington-Handbook_of_Curriculum_Dev.pdf#page=504

Peer Review: I believe this contribution is organized well and in sensible order, but I would delete the second “in 2000” in the second paragraph. I would also include what “UNESCO” stands for. I don’t think there’s anything unnecessary, I believe it is relevant to one of the sections. Also there are no perspectives missing, this is a great addition to the section. I also think the contribution is neutral to Wikipedia’s terms. I don’t spot any persuasion. The information is well-balanced, there is nothing too positive or negative. All the sources are academic journals/articles and they do seem like reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. The one source that would not open up for me was the last one. Isadoraalpino (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Information and media literacy

Please comment at Talk:Information_and_media_literacy#Merge_from_information_literacy,_information_literacies,_and_media_literacy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eamerrill (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Brandon Figaro.

— Assignment last updated by Mmonday17 (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Media Literacy in the Real World

Despite being well laid out - with fine words - the article seems to have few living examples of the way media impacts our lives. To address this, might not a section on the way media outlets cover wars be useful? For, as with the Ukrainian conflict, is there not a need to understand the way disinformation and the lack of balance (from both Moscow and Washington) give a false account of events on the ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.196 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SPC 1017 Honors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 11 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harleykervens.2025 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Tomeijam (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Editing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 30 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katiedotmaddox (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dr.ozkul (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

My Editing Plan

Hello! As a part of a Technical and Professional Editing class here at Texas A&M, I will be working for the next couple weeks on editing this article. I wanted to take a quick moment to share what I am looking forward to working on before I make any extensive edits. Any edits not mentioned in my initial plan will be added throughout the editing process.

- I will be mass restructuring/reorganizing article information to better improve navigation. Due to the sheer breadth of information here, I believe a reorganization pass will streamline the reference value. This may include creating separate subheadings to organize collections of information not yet represented with its own heading or removing existing headings/incorporating them into an existing section.

- On that note, I will be creating a separate 'Benefits of Media Literacy' section and position it closer to the top. I noticed many of the article sections mentioned this aspect to a certain degree. I believe a section like this is extremely relevant and self advocates for why this article exists/why this subject is important, engaging readers learning about this topic.

-I will be fixing any NOR/V and irrelevance issues. This may include minor copywriting/editing or reorganizing/linking information into the Reading List. I believe this will create more encyclopedic value and realign this article with the Wiki's Manual of Style.

-I would like to add more visual aids alongside the text of the article. There are some pictures already, but especially considering the technical policy and educational methodology concepts here, more pictures/graphs/etc. etc. will increase accessibility.

-Furthermore, I will definitely be engaging in copyediting as needed for clarity, tone, grammar, and conciseness.

Due to my capacity as a student, I wanted to post this editing plan for more experienced Wikipedians to review. Hopefully we can create a conversation around these choices. Please feel free to engage with any thoughts, questions, or critiques of this plan- I would appreciate any feedback you can give me! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiedotmaddox (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Katiedotmaddox: Good luck!

1. Be careful not to commit to more than you actually have time to complete ;-) [voice of experience ;-]
2. Plan your edits in several stages to make it easier to stop at any point.
3. Plan to make first the changed you think are most important and valuable.
4. For a vaguely related project, see "Wikiveristy:Media Literacy and You": This is a book project being written with the hope that it can help counter the trend toward increasing political polarization and violence. The current draft table of contents envisions 13 chapters of which the first three are already officially part of the book. Eight of the remaining 10 are somewhere between advanced lit search and complete drafts elsewhere that need to be rewritten to officially integrate them into the book. It is on Wikiversity to invite others to contribute and revise it later so it becomes a living document after I'm gone.

Hope this helps. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to give me these tips! I appreciate the warning about not biting off more than you can chew; I will be periodically reassessing this plan across my editing timeline to make sure I'm not overpromising and/or underdelivering. I'll keep you/any interested Wikipedians posted in this talk page. I especially agree that editing in stages - especially with a project like this - will be invaluable to the longevity of these edits.

I will definitely check out the Wikiversity project you linked, it seems extremely relevant to the development of this page. If you have any other resources or tips, please continue to reach out. Thank you again for engaging with my plan, I really appreciate the mentorship! Katiedotmaddox (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Katiedotmaddox, and pinging Brianda (Wiki Ed) for attention. I'm sorry I did nice see this earlier discussion. I was about to revert your massive rewrite but thought I should check here first. You were given good advice above but I'm not sure you understood it in a Wikipedia context. In particular, DavidMCEddy's advice to Plan your edits in several stages to make it easier to stop at any point is critically important in a collaborative environment such as this. It's for the benefit of your fellow editors, not just yourself. If you introduce small changes, section by section, and pause for a bit between each edit, then other editors can examine your work and identify issues before you risk continuing in the wrong direction.

I haven't yet had time to examine your single edit that substantially rewrote the article while removing 32kb of text, but from what I have seen, I am extremely concerned that your edit summary is misleading, you did not cut just "extraneous details" but huge chunks of content with valid sources, and you introduced Manual of Style violations, improperly formatted citations, and broad generalisations. Please do not edit this article further until experienced Wikipedia editors have had time to review the changes you have already made. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 06:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Katiedotmaddox: Please confirm if you have or have not used a large language model (such as ChatGPT) to assist you in making your edit. I have reverted your edit in the meantime. Fermiboson (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello there! ChatGPT was not used in any capacity to edit his article. Feel free to review any changes/run any part of my edits through AI checkers to confirm. I totally understand what you're saying and would love to create a dialogue around my changes, including any NOR/V violations you may see.

My edits were focused on removing content marked to be without citations. I found a lot of content here as I worked to be extremely compelling but either A) not encyclopedically relevant to this specific topic B) Written with in an essay/opinion stylization inconsistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (particularly the guidelines around opinion/essay led writing) C) Proposed as fact without a citation or corroboration attached. I specifically did not add any information to the article and only worked with the existing citations/information, which is why I am definitely surprised/interested and open to learn where the violations you mentioned are coming from.

There are definitely so many things to be learned from this process, and I definitely did not edit this perfectly. Furthermore, I think some of the content I removed can and should be worked back into the article in a future draft under a more encyclopedic, focused lens. However, in my opinion I found their lack of organization and relevance issues to be the main component detracting from the efficacy of the article; I am confident that my version adds more ease of reference value. But I completely yield to the expertise of seasoned editors, and am looking forward to learning from the conversation created around my choices following a review of my edits! Katiedotmaddox (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi again Katiedotmaddox, and I should probably have alerted your instructor Dr.ozkul as well. I am not going to identify every issue in your mega-edit, because I think that's something your instructor should be doing. You've also made it difficult and time-consuming for others to review and critique your work because you made one massive edit instead of the recommended approach of smaller incremental changes. I will just pick out a small number of instances where your changes contradict your edit summary and what you said you intended to do in your editing plan. It's possible that you have misunderstood the Wikipedia policies that you mentioned and I'd suggest checking your understanding of these with your instructor.

Remember that anyone can see a side-by-side comparison of the article before and after your (now-reverted) changes. There are different colours to show what text you removed or added.

In your edit summary, you said you removed NOR/V violations [and] information not backed with citations. Can you point out some of the specific examples of original research that you identified? When I look at the substantial chunks of text that you removed, I see a few passages that warrant further examination, but a much larger number of passages that cited reliable sources and summarised without editorialising. Likewise, can you point out some examples of the extraneous details that you thought should be removed?

You mentioned compliance with the Manual of Style but you introduced a MoS violation on the very first line. Can you spot it? You can find the answer in WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility. While you're reviewing the MoS, also have a look at WP:Manual of Style § Punctuation and footnotes. You have also introduced various typos and grammatical errors (though that happens to the best of us).

Finally, while it may be technically true that you did not add any information, you did, by your admission, substantially reorganise the whole article, which leads to different emphases. You created a new section, "Benefits of media literacy", which looks like editorialising; for the same reason, while the heading "Geography" isn't great, "Notable contemporary achievements in media literacy" is not really an improvement and is less encyclopaedic in tone.

The existing version of this article is far from perfect; everything on Wikipedia can be improved. However, your massive edit was disruptive and I agree with Fermiboson's decision to revert it. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for looping me in! I’ll take a closer look at what happened here when I start grading my student’s work. At first glance, though, I can see that one big edit was made, despite my suggestions (and obviously Wikipedia’s recommendation). However, I can vouch for my student here and say no AI was used here. Wiki Education is very strict on this. Students completed trainings and Wikipedia’s/Wiki Edu’a AI policy, and we also had discussions in class on this. I also get automated reports from Wiki Edu if something gets flagged as possibly AI-generated, which did not happen. Thank you, though, for your insightful discussion here. It’ll be helpful for me and my student. Dr.ozkul (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Upon further review of the edit, I can agree that no AI was used and apologise to @Katiedotmaddox for the aspersion. However, as mentioned above, the way the edit was done made it very difficult to verify this. Style issues (e.g. the use of bullet points - I understand this might have been a college writing style thing? But it's also a very common AI hallmark) combined with issues in the original text of the article, copy-pasted and moved across multiple sections with things like changes to whitespace and <ref> templates that broke the diff comparator and made it look like the errors were introduced by the editor. Combined with the MOS violation in the first line, also a common LLM mistake, this made the entire thing trip a few of my (both human and automated) red flags. Having now had the time to check through the whole edit and the sources, I do stand by the judgement that regardless of the AI misfire this was a bad edit, though the original article as it stands is not that much better. (I must contradict in the strongest possible terms the article's original advice to refer to Wikipedia for the reliability of a source, unless you are willing to trawl through megabytes of the relevant WP:RSN discussion!) However, I do not have the energy or expertise to assist in a detailed rewrite of the article, and so I'll leave the rest of the discussion to more experienced content editors and with apologies/well-wishes retreat to my corner of slop-gnoming. Fermiboson (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)