User:Geoplatka/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
 * Forensic Hypnosis


 * Article Evaluation
 * Wikipedia's article on hypnosis lacks information about the practice and historical use of forensic hypnosis despite sufficient information available from the historical controversies over the use of hypnotic evidence in court cases and research evaluating the reliability of memories recalled through hypnosis. There are multiple reasons that may have contributed to Wikipedia’s lack of information on forensic hypnosis. Controversy surrounding the practice of forensic hypnosis may make it more difficult to create an article which covers the topic while sharing a neutral point of view. This issue is exacerbated by the controversial intersections between hypnosis and psychology in the subcategory known as hypnotherapy. For example, hypnotherapy’s use and effectiveness in therapies such as smoking cessation and weight loss are disputable. Wikipedia holds psychology [GO1] related subjects to a higher standard for accuracy than some other topics because they are related to human health, making misinformation more serious of an issue. Forensic hypnosis is within the field of psychology which may have factored into Wikipedia’s lack of coverage. Regardless, an article on Wikipedia about forensic hypnosis would help increase the public’s knowledge of the role that evidence from forensic hypnosis has played in court, its acceptance by popular culture, and the latest scientific findings about its effectiveness


 * Sources
 * “The rise and fall of forensic hypnosis” by Alison Winter, a professor of history at The University of Chicago, for Elsevier, “Forensic Hypnosis and the Courts” by Dr. Brent A. Paterline, a professor of criminal justice at the University of North Georgia, for the Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, and Forensic hypnosis: psychological and legal aspects by Roy Udolf, a professor of psychology and teaching fellow at New College of Hofstra University

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Bioprospecting


 * Article Evaluation
 * On Wikipedia, Bioprospecting shares an article with Biopiracy which makes up about a third of the larger article and discusses the exploitative side of bioprospecting. The article features short summaries of biopiracy cases and a list of other biopiracy cases which have yet to be described. The summaries lack specific information about what indigenous knowledge of biodiversity was stolen and how they traditionally used plants, herbs, and other biodiversity. It is important to note that Wikipedia originally had two separate articles for bioprospecting and biopiracy and that they were merged under one title, “Bioprospecting and Biopiracy.” However, according to the talk page, people were concerned about the negative connotation of the word biopiracy having an impact on the point of view of the article, and it was renamed to “Bioprospecting” as it remains today. This point of view argument likely plays a role in the lack of information about biopiracy’s impact on indigenous peoples. There has been considerable debate in the talk page about whether including this kind information would be equivalent to pushing a political agenda, but if presented in a factual manner the article would still adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. More information about individual biopiracy cases and the knowledge that was unrightfully taken from indigenous peoples would enhance the article by further recognizing indigenous contributions and discoveries. Expanding the information on Wikipedia which covers biopiracy can help spread public awareness of what unethical patenting is and prevent it from continuing to happen, especially in developing countries which have been prone to biopiracy in the past.


 * Sources
 * Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge by Vandana Shiva, an Indian scholar, “Biopiracy and Beyond: A Consideration of Socio-Cultural Conflicts with Global Patent Policies” by Cynthia M. Ho, a Research Professor and Director of the Intellectual Property and Technology Program at Loyola Law School Chicago, for the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, “Biopiracy of natural products and good bioprospecting practice” by Thomas Effertha, Mita Banerjee, et al. for Elsevier, and “Bioprospection versus Biopiracy and the United States versus Brazil: Attempts at Creating an Intellectual Property System Applicable Worldwide When Differing Views are Worlds Apart - and Irreconcilable” by Megan Dunagan for the Law and Business Review of the Americas