User:Cmcdowell3/sandbox

Article Evaluation * I think that everything mentioned what relevant but it was a little distracting reading about all the different philosophers because it seemed to be more about them, than about scientific racism, at some points. * I think it could add more information about what people today are thinking, and less about philosophers from many many years ago. * I think it could be improved by updating information from the past few decades because it briefly talks about scientific racism today, but it does not go into much detail.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?

* I believe that the article is neutral, meaning it doesn’t lean towards believing that science is or isn’t racist. No, i would not say that there are any claims that seem to be heavily biased. * I think that philosophers’ viewpoints are overrepresented. I understand why they are all there but I think there should be more information about what the “common” person believed at each time about scientific racism.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

* Yes the links work and i think that each source supports the facts and claims made in the article. * Yes I believe that each fact has a reliable reference. The information comes from various articles, books, and citations. I think that all the sources are pretty neutral.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

* Not a lot of conversations are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. Most people have cited it as a reference, but only a few people are talking about this. * This article is rated C-class and either mid, low, or high importance. It is a part of 12 wikiprojects. * Wikipedia is more straight forward and get to the point but in class we are able to talk about the issues surrounding the topics, and how this even became an issue.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Article Selection 1. The article on Pseudoscience is very relevant to the topic of scientific racism. It is written neutrally and has many reputable citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

2. The article on Race and Genetics is very relevant to my chosen topic. It is written neutrally and has many reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

3. The article on Biological Determinism is very relevant to my chosen topic. It is written neutrally and has many reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Bibliography: Adding a citation https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/biology-general/biological-determinism https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330882?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Biological Determinism dates back to the 1800s, but Stephen Jay Gould has spent his career tracing the roots of this “western” thought. Gould suggests that the main theories of biological determinism is based off of bad biology and bad use of the scientific method. He presents three key ideas that have influenced biological determinism. The first is that measurement and quantification has changed science over the past century and without context, these measurements are useless. The second is that reinfication is valid because we put a name on it. The third problem is that the main thought behind biological determinism is that traits are inherited. Gould points out that various theories of biological determinism have no evidence or science to back them up, and even though these ideas are very flawed, people still widely accept them. I added 3 commas to the biological determinism page because it was incorrect to not have commas in those places.


 * First draft of Wikipedia additions

Biological Determinism is the belief that a human’s behavior is controlled by an person’s genes and inherited traits. It dates back to the 1800s. Stephen Jay Gould has spent his career tracing the roots of this “western” thought because it is more involved than anyone could have assumed. Gould suggests that the main theories of biological determinism is based off of bad biology and bad use of the scientific method. When a scientist says they used the scientific method to gather their data, the readers automatically assume that the information given must be correct. Gould presents three key ideas that have influenced biological determinism. The first is that measurement and quantification have changed science over the past century and without context, these measurements are useless. If something is assigned a number, then it must be real, true, and scientific. If these numbers and measurements are given without context, then the data can be given many different meanings. The second is that reinfication, the idea that certain qualities (intelligence, race) are valid because we put a name on it. One could separate a group into different components and give a name to these divided groups and have it be true, but actually, there is nothing scientific about intelligence being used as a unitary quality. The third problem is that the main thought behind biological determinism is that traits are inherited. Scientists have traced certain traits through families lines and found that some are inherited. Gould suggests that these studies merely restate the original assumption. Gould points out that various theories of biological determinism have no evidence or science to back them up, and even though these ideas are very flawed, people still widely accept them. However, Gould is thought to be flawed in his own way because readers believe he is simply disregarding certain aspects of science. Gould questions that since the scientific aspects of the works themselves are so flawed that why is it so widespread accepted. Gould suggests that there could be some social, political, and economic forces which could explain why these biological determinism theories are so widely accepted, but he fails to go further deep into the topic. Gould shows that these biological determinism theories have many consequences for human life and scientists in the future can see these and use his book to continue trying to show the people that biological determinism, is in fact, false. In this review of Gould’s essay by Garland E. Allen, Allen writes that Gould has helped future scientists examine social, economic, and political values of this time regarding biological determinism. Biological determinism is still prominent in scientific works, past and present, that have been regarded by the public as true and believable. Gould wants his readers to understand that biological determinism has roots all throughout science, even though it has been proven false. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330882?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Peer Review by Lester Maupoy

Great neutral writing and I think you can improve it more by adding more references since you only have one. I noticed that you keep repeating Gould and I suggest lessening your sentences that starts with Gould. There are parts that you seem biased but most of it are neutral. Also, I suggest proofreading it and cite citations. Overall, you did a great job in writing your first draft and having neutral writing.

Peer review by Sophia Frontale I detected no bias in your work, great job overall!! Source looks credible from Jstor, maybe add another? Check some grammar issues, for some sentences could be stitched together instead of being so short. Also, possible acknowledge in the first sentence that biologal determinism is a western thought. You kind of jump right into the information on Steven Jay Gould. Nice work!