Debate Reflection Topic: (Affirmative position) YouTube should be required to add disclaimers to "deepfake" videos. References are already given to guide/help!

Overview Policy position papers are used in a number of organizations such as political offices, lobbying organizations, think tanks, nonprofit organizations, and major for-profit companies. A policy position paper helps decision-makers respond to a problem by providing relevant background information, discussion of possible solutions to the problem, and ultimately a recommended solution and rationale for that solution. In this final assignment for COM 218, you will your goal in this assignment is to write a brief (1500 word) policy paper that makes a final recommendation for policy in support of the topic statement and position (either affirmative or negative) that you signed up for. It’s possible that you may get stuck with a position you do not personally agree with, but that’s okay – it will be a good exercise in critically examining and weighing multiple perspectives! Let’s look at the following example policy statement: Wikipedia should only allow verified experts to edit pages. If I signed up for the affirmative position, my job is to do some research and come up with recommendations to put that policy in place. If I signed up for the negative position, it’s my job to do some research and come up with recommendations to keep that policy from being implemented. Recommended Outline Here is the recommended outline for your policy position paper: 1. Introduction of the Problem (400 – 600 words) A. Statement of the problem underlying the topic Clearly define the problem using relevant data. B. Identification of the actors involved Describe the major stakeholders involved, their values, and their priorities C. Importance and impact of the problem Explain what might happen if the problem goes unsolved 2. Alternative Solutions or Policies (400 – 600 words) A. List alternative solutions that might be considered Given your position, describe possible solutions B. Compare the alternatives Describe the potential benefits and costs of the alternatives C. Discuss constraints of alternatives Describe why the alternatives won’t work 3. Recommendations (400 – 600 words) A. Describe your policy recommendations Describe what you think should be done to solve the problem. B. Provide a rationale for your recommendations Explain why your recommendation should work C. Provide a brief plan for implementing your recommendations Describe how stakeholders might put your plan into action 4. References (already given) Use APA format! Ideally, you will want to paraphrase or use in-text citations for 3-4 sources in each section above (10-12 sources total) to help you support your position and recommendations. An Example of Thinking Through This Paper Here’s an example of how you might think through this paper if you were on the negative position for the topic “Wikipedia should only allow verified experts to edit pages.” Having the negative position means that I am going to end up arguing that Wikipedia is fine the way it is and I will recommend that Wikipedia should NOT restrict editing to only those who are verified experts. To start my paper, I would define first define what I think is the problem underlying the policy issue. In this case, I might consider the misinformation and edit wars that frequently happen on Wikipedia that might lead people to thinking that we need to restrict who can edit. I might think about and identify the different stakeholders as not only Wikipedia users, but also the people who edit articles, and I would want to describe what I think their values and priorities are. Of course, I would want to do some research to provide some supporting evidence: how much misinformation is on Wikipedia? How many people edit Wikipedia? I will also talk about this as an ongoing problem that could get much worse, especially following a contentious election. In the next section, I would then list the alternative solutions that people may have already thought of. The most obvious is the policy position that I am arguing against: that Wikipedia should restrict editing to experts. I might think of another alternative: that Wikipedia might create a stronger system to flag problematic articles for experts to weigh in on. I’ll need to weight the benefits, costs, and limitations of each of these: they might help make Wikipedia more accurate, but they will slow everything down while we wait for experts to verify. Of course, I’ll want to do some research to see if anyone else has made arguments about improving Wikipedia, or how well certain fixes have worked over time. In the last section, I would talk about my own recommendations. Again, I’m arguing against the idea that Wikipedia should only allow verified experts to edit pages, so my recommendation is going to be to leave Wikipedia alone for the time being. Maybe I’ll offer some small concessions, like making sure only users who create accounts are allowed to edit. Of course, I’ll want to support my recommendations with research, such as the idea of “the wisdom of the crowds.” Finally, I’ll want to describe how I plan to implement my idea. This is pretty easy in this case: I might say that there’s nothing more to do other than to highlight how well Wikipedia works despite some of the small problems. … oh, and I wouldn’t want to forget to include a references page, cited in APA style!