User:Abysa/sandbox

The Feminism Wikipedia page was examined to evaluate Wikipedia's reliability as a source in itself. The criteria for evaluation included consideration of the quality of information on the page, observations of any apparent biased language in the article, and how the writing and editing process impacts what information is presented in the published version of the article that is viewable to readers.

Reliable citing
Three citations were randomly selected from Wikipedia’s Feminism article to check if they were appropriately cited from their respective sources for accuracy, bias, and credibility. According to Five pillars, articles should be written neutrally and cite “reliable, authoritative sources”. The three citations selected are references 2, 75, and 183.

The first reference is from The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. Specifically mentioned in the reference is the line “[Feminism is the] principle that women are human beings equal to men”. It is one of five sources used in the article’s lead. The lead is “Feminism is a range of social movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economical, personal, and social equality of the sexes.” Wikipedia’s sentence represents this reference accurately without putting feminism in a positive or negative light. No charged words are used to give bias towards what feminism is about. Multiple sources are used by the reference, including social theorist Patricia Hill Collins, that explains its definition of feminism. Furthermore, the book as a whole was created with the help of a massive number of contributors from various universities, colleges, and scholars.

The second reference is from a blog post titled The Riot Grrrl Movement by Stevie Feliciano. According to Signal Hire, the author works at The New York Public Library as a Senior Librarian. It is one of two sources used in a section about Third-wave feminism origin’s back to Riot grrrl. The article points out the paragraph used for reference is:

"The emergence of the Riot Grrrl movement began in the early 1990s, when a group of women in Olympia, Washington, held a meeting to discuss how to address sexism in the punk scene. The women decided they wanted to start a 'girl riot' against a society they felt offered no validation of women's experiences. And thus the Riot Grrrl movement was born."

While Wikipedia’s statement accurately describes where Riot grrl came from, the mention that it is the origin of Third-wave feminism is not present in this reference. One can conclude that it comes from the other reference. No positive or negative words are used in the article’s statement. In the reference the author shows bias towards being a feminist but does not explicitly call themselves one. Several books, CDs, and films are suggested by the author for further reading but they do not explicitly cite any as sources for their blog.

The last reference is a PDF reproduction of the article Feminism in Psychology: Revolution or Evolution? by Judith Worell. She is an active contributor in feminist psychology and has held various president positions in groups such as the American Psychological Association. It is the only source used to describe Feminist psychology in its respective section in Wikipedia’s Feminist article. Furthermore, the whole article from Worell is used as the reference. Wikipedia uses this reference to explain how feminism interacts with the field of psychology. Wikipedia’s summary of Feminist Psychology draws from multiple pages of the reference, such as pages 184, 185, 189, and 190, to give an accurate translation of what Feminist Psychology is about. While words such as “critique” are used to criticize male orientated psychology, they are used in the context of being feminism’s perspective on psychology and not Wikipedia’s perspective. While the author sometimes references herself in her article, she uses other sources and is a notable figure in feminist psychology.

Overall, Wikipedia shows that it accurately translates all three selected references. For the most part, the references are reliable. While some of the sources may be biased towards feminism, the talk page mentions that WP:5P2 applies to articles and not the subject in the article.

Comparison to authoritative sources
WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and nothing else despite General disclaimer states that “WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY." However, WP:NOT mentions that most of the time that information is accurate. To test this, two outside authoritative sources were selected to compare information in Wikipedia’s Feminism article for accuracy, bias, and credibility: Britannica and History.com.

To start off, Wikipedia defines feminism as the following: "a range of social movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes. Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unjustly within those societies. Efforts to change that include fighting against gender stereotypes and establishing educational, professional, and interpersonal opportunities and outcomes for women that are equal to those for men."

Next, Britannica defines feminism as the following: "the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests."

Lastly, History.com defines feminism as the following: "a belief in the political, economic and cultural equality of women, has roots in the earliest eras of human civilization. It is typically separated into three waves: first wave feminism, dealing with property rights and the right to vote; second wave feminism, focusing on equality and anti-discrimination, and third wave feminism, which started in the 1990s as a backlash to the second wave’s perceived privileging of white, straight women."

Wikipedia mentions feminism as a range of social movements and ideologies while the other two mention it as a belief. According to the Merriam-Webster, the two have similar but different definitions. Furthermore, all three mention political and economical as part of what feminism is while each have more tacked onto their own definition. While Wikipedia's definition does not align exactly to each of the sources, they are similar.

Next, the content of each were compared. All three mainly discuss the history of feminism in terms of waves. While History.com talks about feminism in three waves, both Britannica and Wikipedia talks about feminism in four waves. For the first three waves, Wikipedia's material generally aligns with what is discussed in the other two and the content in the fourth wave is similar to Britannica's content. Ironically, one of the sources linked by History.com mention that there are four, not three waves of feminism. However, Wikipedia has some content that is not present in the other two sources. This includes sections that feminism is involved in such as psychology and variations of feminist movements. With little to no representation in the other two sources, select information in Wikipedia's Feminist article can only be vetted through its cited sources or other authoritative sources.

Overall, in what could be compared to Britannica and History.com, the information found in Wikipedia's Feminism article is similar and accurate to information found in other major authorities sources.

Neutral Point of View
In addition to citing reliable sources, Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" (NPOV) pillar states that content on Wikipedia must strive to represent topics "...fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias ." The purpose of this is to ensure that information is not swayed by factors such as opinions that readers may confuse for hard facts. Instances of bias are not exclusive to balancing being in favor or against a given subject; biased language may include representing a topic from a point of view that centers around a subject from the context of a particular country where the editor resides, or if an editor inserts their own first-hand experience of primary research that inflicts a particular stance on a subject rather than a holistic approach.

When observing the Feminism page on Wikipedia, it can be noted that the article acknowledges some of the problematic and controversial views that some feminists have, such as how feminists are divided on whether trans women should be considered equal to women or equally oppressed to women. Many types of feminism are defined and briefly introduced in the article, including radical feminism. Despite some potential controversy over this type of feminism, this Wikipedia page adheres to the NPOV guideline by giving an overview of how radical feminism seeks to tangibly restructure society to the point where male supremacy is entirely eliminated, without offering any language that suggests that this is a positive or a negative form of activism.

Criticism
Where this Wikipedia page could improve is by having a more substantial section on the criticism of Feminism. Although the brief section could be a result of the many variations of feminism present in this article, each with their own criticisms against them woven into the respective sections, the lack of elaboration on why feminism as a whole may not be seen as an effective method of achieving gender equality makes the article less balanced. Only one example of explicit criticism of feminism is mentioned, and it is "...that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women." There is mention of what the differing waves of feminism hoped to accomplish that previous waves failed to achieve, but if a reader of this article was trying to understand criticism of feminism in general, they would have to do further research beyond this Wikipedia page.

Both Anti-feminism and Pro-feminism appear on this Wiki page. Anti-feminism is actually grouped into the criticism subsection, and is defined as advocating for traditional gender roles where women are seen inferior to men. Anti-feminism also argues that women's societal responsibilities and rights should reflect their inferiority. Pro-Feminism also appears in a subsection before the criticism section, but rather than being a direct counter to the criticism of feminism, pro-feminism is a term used to convey support for the feminist movement "without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement." The appearance of these ideologies and the links to their respective Wikipedia pages appear to be an attempt at maintaining the NPOV pillar in a way that compensates for the lack of detailed criticism on feminism as a broad category.

The Encyclopedia Britannica Feminism article takes a chronological look at the history of feminism, and similarly to the Wikipedia page, it explains what each wave specifically seeks to attain that previous waves did not in the subsection titled "Dissension and debate." The holistic criticism of feminism found in this article claims that "Any attempt to create a coherent, all-encompassing feminist ideology was doomed. While most could agree on the questions that needed to be asked about the origins of gender distinctions, the nature of power, or the roots of sexual violence, the answers... were bogged down by ideological hairsplitting, name-calling, and mutual recrimination." Although this offers more explicit examples of the shortcomings of feminism, the language appears to have more biased by using terminology like "doomed," which seems very definite and cynical, and terms like "hairsplitting" and "name-calling" that belittle the debate and discourse within feminism and make them seem juvenile. In the context of the article, this quote is used to justify the divergence into different variations of feminism, but it still employs a less neutral tone than the Wikipedia article.

Language
A debate that often arises among editors of the Feminist Wikipedia page is what language to employ that is best suited for an International audience. This often includes using simple jargon and diction to increase accessibility, but because there are variations of English across English-speaking countries, a frequent topic on the Talk Page for this Wikipedia page is which spellings or terminology to adopt. While recent instances are between U.K. spellings and U.S. spellings, there are times when this has been resolved by deferring to alternative English styles, such as Canadian English, so that one side is not given favor over another. This speaks to the global nature of Wikipedia, since encyclopedias, dictionaries, and scholarly journals may employ the English that matches their country of publication without as much consideration. Wikipedia rhetorically targets a broader audience, through the consideration of how to convey information in a way that can mitigate potential language barriers.

Writing and Editing Process
There is large doubt and many questions when most people think of Wikipedia as a source. Looking at Wikipedia's processes within the writing and editing field, alongside credible and those of higher regard, shows just how the platform and information within it, compares to that of other informative sources. A study, done by Jim Giles from the platform of Nature examined and compared Wikipedia to that of Brittanica. When looking at the overall difference of accuracy, they found that out of 42 articles examined, Wikipedia had about 4 inaccuracies, while Brittanica had about 3, showing that there is not a large difference here. This article also discusses the variety and lack of education requirements that Wikipedia users have. The writing and editing process is resolved and communicated through the talk page, where users collaborate, discuss, and sometimes argue the accuracy, quality, and overall stance, bias, and success of the topic in discussion.

In comparing the accuracy of articles on Wikipedia and Britannica, while there weren’t too many differences there is a lack of expertise on the subject and about editing techniques that have contributed to poorly structured articles. Wikipedia is freely accessible, but there is still a limited number of contributors which brings up a question about the demographics of Wikipedia editors and how many different perspectives are able to be shared.

Education
While the studies findings are showing the similarity between the two encyclopedias, they also bring up the difference of paid professionals that are trained in their fields, versus Wikipedia editors that aren’t paid and may not even be educated in the world of editing and writing. The worry is… “Opening up the editing process to all, regardless of expertise, means that reliability can never be ensured, he concluded.” This brings to question whether Wikipedia, who allows anyone to participate in the creation of these sites, will ever be able to hold it's value and credibility to those writers and editors who are educated and high regarded professionals within the field.

Diversity, Collaboration, and Inclusiveness
Wikipedia is quite inclusive and as stated previously, is open to the entire community. “Findings suggest that typical Wikipedia articles are not rigorous, in a collaborative sense, and do not reflect much diversity in the construction of content and macro–structural writing, leading to the conclusion that most articles in Wikipedia are not reflective of the collaborative efforts of the community but, rather, represent the work of relatively few contributors.” This brings question the overall quality and value of writing, questioning the lack of diversity from the limited amount of Wikipedia participators, thus showing through in the writing and information. With the few participants involved in the curation of many pages, readers must be aware of possible bias, errors, and lack of variety within users. One study suggested two metrics to determine the validity of Wikipedia articles: rigor and diversity, where rigor would be the number of revisions to the article and diversity would be the number of unique contributors to the article.