User:Judkins267/sandbox

“When looking at correlations in the data, education seems to generate economic growth; however, it could be that we have this causality relationship backwards. For example, if education is seen as a luxury good, it may be that richer households are seeking out educational attainment as a symbol of status, rather than the relationship of education leading to wealth.”

# 1

This quote is in the Wikipedia page I read, Education Economics. Which is stating a possibility of something happening, but there is no citation at all to back up the claim that the relationship could be backwards. It is a great idea but the writer is contradicting popular belief without using any resources.

I think that it was set up in a good way in which has a good flow to it. The table of contents was set up well. For the most part the page had a lot of different viewpoints, but I think that it could’ve focused more on the different view points. For example it had Marxist critique of the theory, but yet they don’t have other people’s opinions either praising or talking negatively about the topic.

For the most part this page seems to be well put together, it is cited well. It does not have any major glaring errors. But I only had a quick look over at it so there was a chance I missed an error or two. This is why I was unable to find the definite answer if every single source in the wikipage was credible and worked. But each source that I did check went to a link that worked and seemed legit to me. Going back to what I mentioned before, I also think that they should’ve added sources from different perspectives or opinions. This is due to the fact that without adding different thoughts on the matter they are saying that the only facts they acknowledge are ones supporting this idea. It is illegitimating the other ways of thought.

'''Solid reflections. (DB) 5/5'''

# 2

For the Wikipedia Project we are doing in our English class, I choose to update the wikipedia page on Education Economics. I choose this topic because even when I read it for the first time I could tell that the article focuses mostly on certain aspects of economics within education. For example they only used the Marxist Critique, I haven't done the research yet but I am almost certain there are other critiques behind such a broad topic like the economics within education. Most of the article is relevant to the topic, but there was one part of the article I found with no citations to it. This part was “When looking at correlations in the data, education seems to generate economic growth; however, it could be that we have this causality relationship backwards. For example, if education is seen as a luxury good, it may be that richer households are seeking out educational attainment as a symbol of status, rather than the relationship of education leading to wealth.”. This is a statement that should definitely be backed up by factual information. Backing up claims is a core theory behind wikipedia. I also found that they rank this wiki page as a page that needs a good amount of work, they called it a start class.

Other than the claims I made previously I do think that this article was generally written in a neutral tone. But it seems slightly biased due to the claims made without sources and only showing one critical perspective

The next option I chose was very similar sounding to the last but different in theory, it is Economics Education. When I was searching through Wikipedia pages that needed work this one was right up there at the top. Even Wikipedia noticed how underdeveloped the article was, they said that this article needs more information and sources. When I read this for the first time I noticed how short it was, I could literally see all of the information at once on my computer screen because it was that short. I think what is on the page is a great start, but I think this page has far to go. But this would be far more challenging than the last page I mentioned. This is because finding new information for a page that is underdeveloped can take up much more time. This requires a lot of research into other people’s research to make sure you find reliable sources that won’t violate any copyright issues. So far ever each of the claims that were made has citations. They all look very reliable, this article would be one that I wouldn’t have to edit but more or less find more information about the topic to add to the page.

Lastly I chose Early Childhood Education wiki page. This was also stated as a start class which needs “plenty of room for improvement”. Even though this page has a lot of content on it, the topic is so broad that it probably doesn’t even fully cover all of the ideas about this topic. But just because it has a lot of content does not mean that the content is perfect, I saw a lot of point in the article where there would be very little citation. This isn’t the same for the entire page though, there are some parts of it that are very informational an there is a citation for every single claim that is made. I think that an article of this size has been worked on by so many people that there is a chance that certain parts of it are written better than others, for example the citations that are not as frequent in certain areas. The problem with this article is that there is so much information, that to go fully through it might take so much time unlike the other articles I was able to read through them much faster and could quickly pick out a few flaws in each one.

'''Solid reflections. (DB) 5/5'''