User:ENorth3/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Red tape
 * Article Evaluation
 * (From previous assignment) The introductory sentence concisely describes the concept of red tape. However, the lead section does not provide detail on the major sections of the article. Because of the article's "start" status, substantial improvements are needed to add relevant content. Most of the article sections refer to the historical origins and development of the concept of red tape, with limited discussion about how "red tape" is understood in different contexts; current examples include only Spain, Mexico, and Canada (with some missing citations). Though the content is reasonably up-to-date, more examples could be added to the section "red tape reduction" and the section on administrative burden could be updated with more detail. The article also does not address equity issues, which are critical to understanding the impacts of red tape and administrative burden.
 * In terms of tone and balance, the viewpoint that red tape should be reduced could be somewhat overrepresented. While this might represent the majority view, minority perspectives are not considered in the article. The overall quality of the writing is fair and neutral. The article includes citations to several key articles in the academic literature on red tape, though more recent review articles could be added. The two images included in the article are helpful and well-captioned, but they align with the rest of the article in over-representing historical development. Another image could be added to illustrate current issues related to red tape.
 * This article is part of WikiProject Politics and is ranked mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is rated as start-class and the talk page includes some conversations about the unbalanced use of examples. None of the editors refer to equity issues, which indicates an important gap that could be filled based on our class discussions.
 * Overall, the article provides a decent introduction to the concept of red tape, but is underdeveloped. The article could be improved with more country-specific examples, a section on current debates, updated information on the relationship between red tape and government technologies, more detail in the section on administrative burden, and one or more sections on how red tape contributes to racial and gender inequality.
 * Sources
 * Barnes, C. Y. (2021). “It Takes a While to Get Used to”: The Costs of Redeeming Public Benefits. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(2), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa042
 * Bell, E., Ter-Mkrtchyan, A., Wehde, W., & Smith, K. (2021). Just or Unjust? How Ideological Beliefs Shape Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Perceptions of Administrative Burden. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13311
 * Campbell, J. W., Pandey, S. K., & Arnesen, L. (2022). The ontology, origin, and impact of divisive public sector rules: A meta-narrative review of the red tape and administrative burden literatures. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13527
 * Hattke, F., Hensel, D., & Kalucza, J. (2020). Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13116
 * Kaufmann, W., Ingrams, A., & Jacobs, D. (2021). Being Consistent Matters: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Rule Consistency on Citizen Red Tape. American Review of Public Administration, 51(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020954250
 * Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
 * Nisar, M. A. (2018). Children of a Lesser God: Administrative Burden and Social Equity in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux025
 * Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (n.d.). Are all Burdens Bad? Disentangling Illegitimate Administrative Burdens through Public Value Accounting. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2088581. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2088581
 * Hattke, F., Hensel, D., & Kalucza, J. (2020). Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13116
 * Kaufmann, W., Ingrams, A., & Jacobs, D. (2021). Being Consistent Matters: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Rule Consistency on Citizen Red Tape. American Review of Public Administration, 51(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020954250
 * Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2015). Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
 * Nisar, M. A. (2018). Children of a Lesser God: Administrative Burden and Social Equity in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux025
 * Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (n.d.). Are all Burdens Bad? Disentangling Illegitimate Administrative Burdens through Public Value Accounting. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2088581. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2088581
 * Nisar, M. A. (2018). Children of a Lesser God: Administrative Burden and Social Equity in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux025
 * Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (n.d.). Are all Burdens Bad? Disentangling Illegitimate Administrative Burdens through Public Value Accounting. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2088581. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2088581
 * Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (n.d.). Are all Burdens Bad? Disentangling Illegitimate Administrative Burdens through Public Value Accounting. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2088581. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2088581
 * Nisar, M. A., & Masood, A. (n.d.). Are all Burdens Bad? Disentangling Illegitimate Administrative Burdens through Public Value Accounting. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2088581. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2022.2088581

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Gender digital divide
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is listed as C-class and low-importance. The article is written neutrally and most of the content is relevant. However, many of the claims rely on a single source from UNESCO and the selection of examples seems random. A section could be added about how the gender digital divide reduces women's access to public benefits.
 * Sources
 * Asrani, C. (2021). Spanning the digital divide in India: Barriers to ICT adoption and usage. Journal of Public Affairs, e2598. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2598
 * Niehaves, B., Gorbacheva, E., & Plattfaut, R. (2013). The Digital Divide vs. the E-Government Divide: Do Socio-Demographic Variables (Still) Impact E-Government Use among Onliners? In E-Government Success Factors and Measures: Theories, Concepts, and Methodologies (pp. 52–65). Igi Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4058-0.ch004
 * Robles, J. M., Torres-Albero, C., & Villarino, G. (2022). Inequalities in digital welfare take-up: Lessons from e-government in Spain. Policy Studies, 43(5), 1096–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2021.1929916
 * Schiller, A., & McMahon, J. (2019). Alexa, Alert Me When the Revolution Comes: Gender, Affect, and Labor in the Age of Home-Based Artificial Intelligence. New Political Science, 41(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2019.1595288
 * Zolde, A. (2018). The Digital Divide in the Context of Electronic Public Services. In C. M. Hintea, B. A. Moldovan, B. V. Radu, & R. M. Suciu (Eds.), Transylvanian International Conference in Public Administration (pp. 564–578). Accent. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000442554700041
 * Robles, J. M., Torres-Albero, C., & Villarino, G. (2022). Inequalities in digital welfare take-up: Lessons from e-government in Spain. Policy Studies, 43(5), 1096–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2021.1929916
 * Schiller, A., & McMahon, J. (2019). Alexa, Alert Me When the Revolution Comes: Gender, Affect, and Labor in the Age of Home-Based Artificial Intelligence. New Political Science, 41(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2019.1595288
 * Zolde, A. (2018). The Digital Divide in the Context of Electronic Public Services. In C. M. Hintea, B. A. Moldovan, B. V. Radu, & R. M. Suciu (Eds.), Transylvanian International Conference in Public Administration (pp. 564–578). Accent. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000442554700041
 * Schiller, A., & McMahon, J. (2019). Alexa, Alert Me When the Revolution Comes: Gender, Affect, and Labor in the Age of Home-Based Artificial Intelligence. New Political Science, 41(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2019.1595288
 * Zolde, A. (2018). The Digital Divide in the Context of Electronic Public Services. In C. M. Hintea, B. A. Moldovan, B. V. Radu, & R. M. Suciu (Eds.), Transylvanian International Conference in Public Administration (pp. 564–578). Accent. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000442554700041
 * Zolde, A. (2018). The Digital Divide in the Context of Electronic Public Services. In C. M. Hintea, B. A. Moldovan, B. V. Radu, & R. M. Suciu (Eds.), Transylvanian International Conference in Public Administration (pp. 564–578). Accent. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000442554700041

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Government by algorithm
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is listed as start-class and mid-importance. It is written somewhat neutrally, though the section on criticism is much longer than the section on benefits. Sections could be added on digital eligibility, algorithms in the welfare state, how digital systems affect bureaucratic discretion, and disparate impact by gender, race, age, etc.
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2022). Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: ‘Automation Bias’ and ‘Selective Adherence’ to Algorithmic Advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muac007. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007

Bullock, J. B. (2019). Artificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856123

Compton, M. E., Young, M., Bullock, J., & Greer, R. (2022). Administrative Errors and Race: Can technology mitigate inequitable administrative outcomes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac036

Considine, M., Mcgann, M., Ball, S., & Nguyen, P. (2022). Can Robots Understand Welfare? Exploring Machine Bureaucracies in Welfare-to-Work. Journal of Social Policy, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000174

Eubanks, V. (2017). Automating Inequality: How High-End Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press.

Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268