Talk:Public sector ethics

Untitled
The existing article does talk about the origins of ethics in government, it also lists the different forms of beliefs. I feel like as a group we could work on this section and add some specific examples of important events when a public official had to make an ethical decision. Also in what circumstances do ethics play an important role in decision making? It could use some more information on how ethics is used in government, and how long it's been used in government. A question we might ask is how is it related to public administration or how do public officials use ethics in their day to day practices. On the different forms of ethics we could add more information to those making it clear on how they came about and we could add what kind of people practice this form. The ethical standard portion is pretty well set. We do see where we could work on cleaning it up a bit. We could add more sources to this section, and add some examples that we have gotten from our sources. Reading further down the section levels of ethical decision making could be combined with the ethical standard portion. The section on Cooper's decision making model is very detailed already, the only thing I would suggest adding is an example of a time when this model was used in a decision. Politics and ethics is another section we feel like could use some work. Adding examples to this section could help readers understand the role of it. We need to find a way to relate it to public administration also. A question we can aim to answer might be how are the different sectors obligated to make decisions when it comes to politics? The last part of this page is ethics and the personal life of administrators. This section we feel is important to the page because it focuses mainly on the administrator. It talks about health, finances, and, sexual misconduct. Which all are important I feel like they aren't relevant to public administration. We can leave them on the page, but add more about the administrators influences such as peers or coworkers. Our main goal is to improve the quality of the page and make it more relevant to public administration. Overall we feel that is Wikipedia page has a great start to it. Adding more examples and topics too it can make it more understandable to readers. We will work on adding more sources so the page is more credible and factual. MorganMoore14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 13 November 2015 (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): Bjr70, J r186, Blitzs20, MorganMoore14, Denalikervella. Peer reviewers: New15txstate, Blm113, ERamos57, KCGrimes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
The following is as peer review for content/contributions at the time of the F15 POSI 3316 course.

Comprehensiveness:

The lead paragraph effectively introduces the topic and provides somewhat of an overview of the article.

I interpret this article to say that ethics in the public sector discusses the ethical quality of public sector decisions, which can be made based on numerous models from multiple scholars, which may be better fitted for specific situations.

The contributions are sufficient in their sections.

Most points are cited, but there are a few that lack any cited sourcing.

The article conforms to a clear topic of ethics in the public sector.

Large details/paragraphs are supported by reliable sources.

The article includes references from numerous sources, including scholars in the field.

Contributions are appropriate and balanced with the rest of the article.

Distinctions between the various models and types of governments are noted, though some without citation.

Sourcing:

Not all claims are referenced, mostly where terms are defined.

The references that are made are reliable sources.

Sources cited are done so in the appropriate format.

Language is precise to that which is sourced, with no extraneous discussion/opinion.

The only unsourced parts are probably sourced, just not cited.

Neutrality:

The article is neutral and well balanced, being strictly informative.

The article avoids stating opinions as facts, though difficult to determine with missing citations.

No massive assertions were made to cause conflict with facts.

The key points of the article are addressed sufficiently, but the section with the various models is very heavy.

Readability:

The article is well written with no visible errors.

Sentences are crafted well with no significant errors, just perhaps better wording.

The entry is accessible by all, but becomes a more difficult read when discussing the models.

Complex language is avoided for the most part, but is sometimes otherwise difficult to word differently.

The structure of the article is made clear.

The paragraphs are well organized.

The lead section is under a heading, not a true "introduction" part of the article.

No images are used.

I like the extensive elaboration of the various pertinent models to decision making, and the relation of ethics to decisions.

More consistent wording throughout (as if one person wrote this article) would make it more seamless, in addition to more consistent formatting of the sections with wikipedia norms.

Good job guys, really not much to point out.

KCGrimes (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The following is a review of the Public Sector Ethics Wikipedia article:

The lead section of this article describes some main points but, is quite vague.

The key points as I understand them are : Public Sector ethics and where the idea originated from and why ethics are important.

The points are very well supported with scholarly articles.

The points could use clarification due the the lack of cohesiveness in the article.

Public sector ethics is a very non-biased and informative article and uses scholarly views when necessary, while including a very clear and informative tone. I would like to see a few more scholarly sources to add credibility to the article. The articles that are used are very reliable and used appropriately.

Neutrality is not an issue with this article. I believe it promotes independent thinking and provides enough accurate information to make a non-biased decision. What I enjoy most about this article is the simplicity of the discussion of Public Sector Ethics. The tone of the article doesn't force the reader to think of believe one thing. The article could improve cohesiveness of the article and after that, other minor issues will be erased.

The article could use more proofreading to eliminate some grammatical errors and provide cohesiveness to the article. Although I believe there are a few grammatical errors, it is very easy to read and the lack of complex language allows people from all backgrounds to understand Public Sector ethics. Blm113 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review: Lead section feels more like a student writing and essay rather than an informative document. I feel there is vagueness and extra content that doesn't require to be in the lead section. Simple defining ethics and public sector individually and then explaining how they tie together can be a simple but concrete lead section. Also making "public sector" a link is an option as an article on the public sector exist on wikipedia.

The rest of the article does have the look an informative article, it is more concrete and informative, it narrows down on key points and explains them. Great sources and references using people as primary sources to support some of the main key points. I did not trace any bias on the article regarding ethics in the public sector, the behaviors listed is what I would expect from any educated public worker regardless of race. However, minor edits are required regarding grammatical errors and deleting extra information that makes the article bulky and less cohesive.--ERamos57 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
First of all – great job guys, this was a pretty expansive topic.

I think the article needs a bit of polishing in sentence structure/flow – but otherwise the sourcing looks great.

There’s some noticeable spelling errors. I think the first few sentences could be revised. The wording is almost too academic in some places for the average Wikipedia reader. A few times, people are named without context given.

I think the overview paragraph could be clearer in outlining the aspects covered. I also noticed that there are many phrases or names that could be hyperlinked. When I read Wikipedia and I come across a term that I don’t know much about – I expect it to be hyperlinked. Also adding hyperlinks helps connect this article to other articles on Wikipedia. The more connections there are, the more people will come across this article.

I also think that each important figure featured should have their own subsection that describes them and then their contributions. I think it helps create credibility if you explain first why someone’s philosophy is important and then tell me about their views. In this article the order was somewhat reversed and I think playing with the order of ideas would help its readability. More bullet points or numbered items could be utilized. New15txstate (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)