User:Annabarickman/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Article: "History of the race and intelligence controversy"
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' The article focuses heavily on the field of psychology in terms of the race and intelligence controversy. Since the article is based on a much broader topic within the category of science, I think that more fields should be mentioned, such as those earlier biologists/ geologists such as Charles Darwin who also had a profound impact on this debate. In fact, Darwin is not mentioned whatsoever during the article, even though his ideas seem to have shifted the debate.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? ''' Many "scientists" that we have discussed thus far in class are not mentioned. Those left out are primarily from the 18th century, as the article seems to focus on the more recent debate within the 19th and 20th centuries. There is only one paragraph that seems to focus on the impact of the likes of Carl Linnaeus and Immanuel Kant. I think that this is relatively important information that should be added, considering that the debate began long before the article cites.

'''What else could be improved? ''' Something else that I noticed is missing is the statement that race is actually a social construct rather than biological. Although the article did touch thoroughly upon the nature vs. nurture debate, it never explicitly states that there is no such thing as biological race.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? ''' The article seems to take a neutral stance. However, once again, it is heavily focused on psychology and leaves out many other key turning points within other fields of science, including pseudoscience.

'''Check citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? ''' The links that I checked did work, and the citations supported the logical flow of the article's claims.

'''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If they are biased, is that bias noted? ''' The entire first two paragraphs lack any citations at all, and though they provide simply an overview of the article to come, I found this slightly bothersome. The sources that I checked seemed reliable, some were scholarly journal articles, and many were other Wikipedia pages, which I am assuming for this assignment is acceptable?

'''What kinds of conversations are going on behind the scenes? ''' The majority of the conversation surrounds the modification of external links and updating citations. There is one comment, however, that claims that the article normalizes certain racist slurs, something that I did not notice throughout the article.

'''How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects? ''' The article is rated C-class and is a part of five WikiProjects.

'''How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? ''' Again, the article has a primary focus on the field of psychology, whereas in class we have been looking more at science as a whole. I think that this is something that should be changed in order to improve the article. Many of the "scientists" that we've discussed in class, especially the earlier ones, are not mentioned. The article seems to focus on only 19th century and beyond.

Discussion
'''Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?'''

These sources can be biased and sometimes unreliable. Blogs give their authors free reign to state their opinions, and they are not required to cite sources.

What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?

A company will obviously have a positive bias towards themselves. If you want objective information about how a company operates, it would be best to search for an unbiased, more reliable outside source.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?

Not everything is copyrighted. Copyright violation occurs when an author has clearly copyrighted their work; borrowing this material without a license to do so is a serious offense against the author. Plagiarism is simply copying someone else's work and claiming that it is your own. It is okay to use examples of someone else's work that is not copyrighted, but you must give proper credit to the author in order for it to not be considered plagiarism.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?

Always cite your sources!! Even if you don't use a quote exactly as it is presented in the article, make sure to cite the paraphrased material anyways so that it doesn't appear as if you are claiming the information as your own.

Adding a Citation and Copyediting
I decided to add a citation to/ copyedit the same article that I evaluated back in week 2: "History of the race and intelligence controversy"

I added a citation in the second paragraph, where I felt that there should have been at least one citation, since the article's claims are already beginning to take shape. I found the journal article that I cited on JSTOR, so I know that it is a reliable source. I read through/ skimmed a good bit of it, and it may even be a good source to use in the future. I'll cite it here in case I want to come back to it: "Fatalism: Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology and the IQ Controversy."

I also added a few brief copyedits, changed a couple sentences around for clarity, and added punctuation. I didn't do anything serious, just practiced making changes, and then made sure to make note of my edits.

Editing an Article/ Article Addition
Article: "Race and health in the United States"

The following are excerpts from the aforementioned article that I intend to edit:

(my edits are made in italics)

"Research on race and health in the United States shows many health disparities between the different racial/ethnic groups. The possible causes, such as genetics, socioeconomic factors, and racism, continue to be debated."


 * These two sentences serve as the introduction to the article. Given that it focuses on more specific factors than are mentioned here, I feel that this could be extended to provide a more thorough introduction.
 * I would modify the introduction to be the following: Research on race and health in the United States shows many health disparities between different racial and ethnic groups, as well as differences in treatment and access to proper healthcare. Possible causes, including genetics, socioeconomic status, and racism, continue to be debated. Two groups that historically exhibit dissimilarities in health and life span are white Americans and black Americans. The source of this inequality is potentially deeply rooted in American society.
 * I think that it's important to add in the part about differences in healthcare and treatment because this is a major point of discussion in the article, and also to go ahead and introduce a focus on African Americans, as a large part of the article focuses on differences between the health of blacks and whites.

"In biomedical research conducted in the U.S., the 2000 US census definition of race is often applied. This grouping recognizes five races: black or African American, White (European American), Asian, native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska native. However, this definition is inconsistently applied across the range of studies that address race as a medical factor, making assessment of the utility of racial categorization in medicine more difficult."


 * This is the "background" portion of the article. I think it's good that they mention the 2000 U.S. census, since the other articles and sources I researched also used this definition of race. I think that this paragraph needs a citation, so I'm going to add a source.
 * I would modify this paragraph to be the following: In biomedical research conducted in the United States, the 2000 US census definition of race is often applied. According to the Census Bureau in 2000, race refers to one's self-identification with a certain racial group. The Bureau also specifies that race is a social concept, and has no relation to science or anthropology. This grouping recognizes five races: black or African American, White (European American), Asian, native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska native. According to the Journal of Behavioral Medicine, America continues to become more diverse. Although the population is increasingly less homogeneous, healthcare is unequally distributed among these five racial groups.The 2000 US census further specifies the amount of Americans who identified with each racial group; in 2000, 34.6 million identified as African American, 10.2 million as Asian American, and 35.3 million as Hispanic or Latino. However, it is important to consider that the 2000 US census' definition is inconsistently applied across the range of studies that address race as a medical factor, making assessment of the utility of racial categorization in medicine more difficult.

"Institutional racism leads to limited opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, differential access to goods and resources, and poor living conditions."


 * I would definitely add a subsection on institutionalized racism and how the underfunding of African American scientists and discrimination within the medical field affects the health of the black community. I think this is something that is lacking from the article at the moment.


 * I would add the following subsection under "African Americans," under the section about Cardiovascular Disease:

Institutionalized Racism
''A major downfall of the U.S. healthcare system is the unconscious racial biases held by many white American doctors, often resulting in decreased quality of care for African American patients. One such example is the discrepancy in cardiovascular surgical procedures between white and black patients. Compared to their white counterparts, black patients are less likely to receive necessary coronary bypass surgeries and lipid-lowering medications upon discharge from the hospital. This means that black patients leave treatment centers with a significantly different health outcome.''

''One potential cause of this discrepancy in treatment is the systematic racism present in the medical field that targets the work of African American scientists. Research shows that doctors and scientists of color are significantly underfunded in the medical community, and are less likely than their white colleagues to win research awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since patients of color are often treated by white doctors, miscommunication is common; research shows that many Americans feel their doctors do not listen to their questions or concerns, or are too uncomfortable to ask certain medical questions.''

"Environmental racism is a form of racial discrimination where race-based differential enforcement of environmental rules and regulations; the intentional or unintentional targeting of minority communities for the siting of polluting industries such as toxic waste disposal; and the exclusion of people of color or lack thereof from public and private boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies results in greater exposure to pollution. RD Bullard writes that a growing body of evidence reveals that people of color and low-income persons have borne greater environmental and health risks than the society at large in their neighbourhoods, workplaces and playgrounds."


 * I don't like the topic sentence of this paragraph, I think that the semicolon has been misused.
 * I would rewrite the topic sentence as: Environmental racism is the intentional or unintentional targeting of minority communities for the siting of polluting industries such as toxic waste disposal, through the race-based differential enforcement of environmental rules and regulations and exclusion of people of color from public and private boards and regulatory bodies, resulting in greater exposure of the community to pollution.
 * I would also add the following to the end of the paragraph: Environmental racism stems from the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which focused on environmental reform and wildlife preservation and protection, and was led primarily by the white middle class. The early environmental movement largely ignored the plight of poor people and people of color who, even in the mid-20th century, were increasingly exposed to environmental hazards.
 * I think this is worded just a little bit better. After the other two paragraphs on the increased health risks that come with living in impoverished or underdeveloped communities, I would like to include a paragraph about how environmental racism also decreases access to decent healthcare services.
 * I would add the following paragraph: Although impoverished or underdeveloped communities are at greater risk of contracting illnesses from public areas and disposal sites, they are also less likely to be located near a distinguished hospital or treatment center. Hospitals relocate to wealthier areas where the majority of patients are privately insured, thus reducing the number of low-income patients. Whereas hospitals were previously established in the areas with the greatest need, most are now focused on economic gain from private insurance companies, and are threatened by Medicare funding cuts.