User:Kevrice/sandbox

Practicing the Basics

 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
 * Although many of the claims and facts do include a reference, there are quite a few areas of the page that lack significant references. Even in the first couple of introduction paragraphs, I feel as if there are more claims made than references to back them up.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * It seems like most of the article stays on topic, however there are still sections that could be removed because they are unimportant or do not contribute to the article, such as: "Since the nineteen seventies the prefix word ‘community’ has also been adopted by several other occupations from the police and health workers to planners and architects, who have been influenced by community development approaches." I find this to be a very meaningless and pointless sentence.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article does not seem to be heavily biased in any way, however I have noticed that it lacks any description of current issues/problems in the field of community development. Because the article maintains a positive and supportive tone towards community development, this could be seen as a form of bias.
 * Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The information in this article is taken from mostly academic and historical papers. These sources appear to be neutral themselves, but I have noticed that they tend to be used in a less-neutral matter; a few of these sources discuss current issues with community development that might hinder its success, but throughout the article, these additional facts are ignored and only positive aspects are noted.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?
 * Certainly. As I was saying previously, this article seems to have a problem where it excludes information that might provide some of the negative aspects or other issues with community development.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * All of the citation links work, and overall, there does not appear to be any form of plagiarism. However, I will point out that there are word-for-word excerpts, but these are specifically indented and called out, so I believe it is O.K. according to Wikipedia's rules.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Yes, absolutely. This article needs to include more recent community development efforts from the U.S. and around the world; it seems as if this article cuts off around the 80s-90s, leaving out the community development projects that have been carried out since then. Another thing that should be added is the evolution of community development--how it is changing due to cutting-edge technology, alternative energy, etc.
 * Check the "talk" page of the article - what is the Wikipedia community saying about how to present this topic? How is the article rated in terms of Wikipedia's quality scale?
 * Many of the comments on the "talk" page are regarding the decentralization of community development (in terms of country). Multiple users suggested that parts of the article were becoming too focused on certain areas/countries of the world. Overall, the article is still rated as "start-class, high-importance".

Critiquing an Article
Overall, I believe that the Community Development page is well-rounded and, for the most part, backed up by reliable sources. However, there are certainly multiple areas of the article that need attention. For example: "Community developers must understand both how to work with individuals and how to affect communities' positions within the context of larger social institutions." This sentence, located at bottom of the third paragraph, caught my attention because I noticed the word "must". I am not disagreeing with this statement, but I feel as though placing a command or imperative into an encyclopedia article does not adhere to the Wikipedia code of objectivity.

Aside from that, I would say that the rest of the article is very fair and nonpartisan. I appreciate the fact that multiple definitions are listed from different sources; this gives the reader an opportunity to understand the complexity of community development and understand common terms used in the subject. Speaking of terms, there is one key factor of this article I would like to compliment: clearly defining terms and subtopics under the umbrella of community development. Defining terms, especially in scientific/educational literature, is absolutely necessary to give an article full credibility; it serves to teach the reader how to learn about the subject.

Discussion: What's a content gap?

 * Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * I believe a content gap occurs when there is too little information to properly connect two topics or subtopics together. For example: Sugar comes from a plant, so plants cause diabetes. This sentence has a major content gap in the middle; we jump from discussing the source of sugar to why that source causes disease without any information to fill that gap. A good way to fill this content gap: Sugar comes from a plant and sugar is known to cause diabetes, so sucrose-containing plants can be considered a source of diabetes.
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * The most common reason is simply leaving out information that may seem small or unimportant, but is actually necessary for a smooth transition. They can be remedied by finding the missing content and weaving it into the sentence so that there is a tangible "thread" that logically leads from one piece of information to another, without missing facts.
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * It shouldn't matter who "writes" Wikipedia; a more important question is what do they contribute? On Wikipedia, a defaced page could be the result of a grown adult's actions just as much as a young child's actions; and in the other direction, a very well-written page could've been written by a ten-year-old or a forty-year-old. What matters is the quality and factual consistency of the article.
 * What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
 * On Wikipedia, an unbiased or neutral view would explain the topic and provide sufficient information without specifically targeting certain issues or people over others. Wikipedia itself recognizes that systematic bias is extant throughout the whole website, and it makes sure to point out that "As a result of this systematic bias, some cultures, topics and perspectives tend to be underrepresented on Wikipedia." This very closely matches my definition of "bias", which is favoring one side of a topic or issue while ignoring others that deserve equal attention.

Add to an Article
I decided to add a sentence with corresponding reference to the article "Central Business District".

My contribution was: At the end of the sentence, I added this citation to back up my claim:
 * "No two CBDs look alike in terms of their spatial shape, however certain geometric patterns in these areas are recurring throughout many cities due to the nature of centralized commercial and industrial activities."
 * Hartman, G. (1950). The Central Business District--A Study in Urban Geography. Economic Geography, 26(4), 237-244. doi:10.2307/141260

Discussion: Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism

 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information because they usually don't cite any sources/references to back up their claims. It is often difficult to verify information that is only available from one source.
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * There is a major risk of bias in this case; self-promotion is clearly in the interest of all companies, so their websites tend to be stuffed with information praising and recommending the company and its products.
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * A copyright violation is using copyrighted material without permission, and plagiarism is copying somebody word-for-word and passing off that copy as your original work.
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
 * One of the best ways is completely rethink the sentence; extract the main theme/topic, and rewrite the sentence in your own words, with all the information still in-tact, but just reorganized. Another excellent way to avoid close paraphrasing or plagiarism is to look up synonyms for words that are necessary to the integrity of the sentence.

Choose your topic / Find your sources
Article Chosen: Urban Consolidation

I do not know much about urban consolidation, but after a few minutes of basic research I learned that the information currently in this Wikipedia article is insufficient and editorialized. In addition to this, there are no academic sources cited. I have already found multiple peer reviewed documents which discuss urban consolidation, and I plan to swap out much of this information lacking citations.

 Here is what I proposed on the talk page of Urban Consolidation: 

I would like to update this entire page by inserting cited and more complete information, starting with the definition. The source I would like to use is a peer-reviewed academic paper:
 * Jean Hillier, Oren Yiftachel & Michael Betham (1991) Urban Consolidation- An Introduction to the Debate, Urban Policy and Research, 9:2, 78-81, DOI:10.1080/08111149108551461

I believe this article provides a much better overview of urban consolidation, and even explains why finding an exact definition remains difficult.

After the definition, I would like to add a few lines with a source which explains why urban consolidation is becoming more widespread and well known (by looking at a city in Australia):
 * Kristian J. Ruming, Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposition in Sydney, Australia: Unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions, Land Use Policy, Volume 39, July 2014, Pages 254-265, ISSN 0264-8377.

These are the two changes that I would like to begin with. I will continue to research and look for sources that provide unbiased information, however I have noticed that almost all case studies are done in Australia due to its potential to benefit from urban consolidation; but, this article is not about Australia, so I would like to avoid referring specifically to the country too many times.

Further Potential Sources:
 * B J Shaw, D S Houghton. (1991) Urban Consolidation: Beyond the Rhetoric. Urban Policy and Research 9:2, pages 85-91.


 * Rachael Fitzpatrick, David Wadley. (2013) The Relation of Dwelling Structure and Dwelling Density in Australian Cities. Urban Policy and Research 31:3, pages 343-366.


 * Neil Dunse, Sotirios Thanos, Glen Bramley. (2013) Planning policy, housing density and consumer preferences. Journal of Property Research 30:3, pages 221-238.

Lead Paragraph
Urban consolidation describes the policy of constraining further development and population growth to within the boundaries of preexisting urban areas rather than expanding outward into suburban areas. Urban consolidation seeks to increase the population density of a given urban area by expanding upward, redeveloping preexisting buildings and lots, and constructing new facilities in available spaces. It is theorized that encouraging further development in preexisting urban areas and discouraging urban sprawl will lead to a net gain in social and economic prosperity (e.g. more accessible public transportation, more efficient use of public utilities, and increased affordability of housing).

Planned Contributions/Improvements

 * 1) Thinking back to articles I've critiqued, the most common issues encountered were a lack of citations, contradictory information, and a failure to define relevant terms. In its current state, the 'Urban Consolidation' article has all of these issues. Most importantly, the language used is very confusing and, in my opinion, far too complicated to be in an encyclopedia that is supposedly for everybody.
 * 2) As of right now, my sources have not changed from those previously posted. I am having trouble finding published articles that discuss the general characteristics and implications of urban consolidation; almost all of them seem to focus on cities in Australia. I am actually completely baffled about why Australia seems to be synonymous urban consolidation, at least in existing literature. This is something that I want to highlight in my article, but I do not have enough information to do so yet.

Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia

 * I very much agree with Wikipedia's definition of neutrality, and I find it unique because of how it encompasses both objectivity, originality, and proper sources. Their emphasis on plagiarism is interesting, because they promote learning, transcribing from learned ideas, and then citing where those ideas came from.
 * Wikipedia, I would say, is a very good place to start as a source of information. Researching a topic on Wikipedia can only take you so far due to the limits of community knowledge/input and the potential for nonfactual claims.
 * I believe that the exclusion of sources which are not "reliable, published sources" creates a problem wherein people in impoverished, disadvantaged, and ethnic communities without the means to publish or conduct research are excluded from voicing their concerns to scientists and politicians with the power to create change.
 * If it was written 100 years ago, I think it would have very strong racist, sexist, and generally discriminatory entries compared to what we have today. Many scientific standards for equality and neutrality in published research had not been developed, so I'm sure that most of the sources would be cherry picked based not on merit, but on who they're written by.

Lead Paragraph
Urban consolidation describes the policy of constraining further development and population growth to within the boundaries of preexisting urban areas rather than expanding outward into suburban areas. Urban consolidation seeks to increase the population density of a given urban area by expanding upward, redeveloping preexisting buildings and lots, and constructing new facilities in available spaces. It is theorized that encouraging further development in preexisting urban areas and discouraging urban sprawl will lead to a net gain in social and economic prosperity (e.g. more accessible public transportation, more efficient use of public utilities, and increased affordability of housing).

Common Terminology

 * Brownfield Site- land suspected or known to be contaminated by pollutants from previous industrial and commercial businesses. Urban consolidation policies seek to restore these abandoned spaces into parks and wildlife habitats, sometimes in an effort to make green spaces more accessible to inner city residents.
 * Greenfield Site- undeveloped and unpolluted land located in a rural or urban area. Urban consolidation aims to develop these areas for retail business, manufacturing, public services, and housing.
 * Housing Affordability- the price level at which people can purchase or lease houses and apartments while maintaining a sufficient income flow to fulfill basic needs. Urban consolidation policies have been successful at increasing population density through more generally affordable housing.
 * Transit-oriented Development- the development of public transportation with a core goal of maximizing the number of urban business, residential, and recreational spaces. Replacing car-oriented infrastructure with public transportation and making pedestrian activity a priority is key to increasing and optimizing urban density.

Peer Review and Copy Edit
I reviewed Kyra's article, "Governance Frameworks". Unfortunately, when I came to class for the peer review I discovered that her work on the article had been accidentally erased (which is the reason why nothing has shown up under my peer-review status), so I decided to help her out by pointing out some good general/broad starting points and a solid peer-reviewed source for her topic. This is what I wrote on Kyra's talk page:
 * Hey Kyra, Even though your draft got deleted [I'm so sorry :'( ], I think the topic you chose, Governance Frameworks, is very cool and worth pursuing There seems to be lots of information about what governance frameworks are, but I would try to find some more specific definitions or maybe even the history/why the concept exists. Here's a source that I found with an awesome definition and general overview of governance frameworks: https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/22/1/1/944908/An-Integrative-Framework-for-Collaborative.  Good luck and be sure to save often! Let me know if there's anything that you want reviewed as you write, I'm happy to assist :)  -Kevin R.

Lead Paragraph

 * 1) [Urban consolidation describes the policy of constraining further development and population growth to within the boundaries of preexisting urban areas rather than expanding outward into suburban areas. Urban consolidation seeks to increase the population density of a given urban area by expanding upward, redeveloping preexisting buildings and lots, and constructing new facilities in available spaces.]
 * 2) [It is theorized that discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging further development of housing units in preexisting urban areas will lead to a net gain in social and economic prosperity (e.g. more accessible public transportation, more efficient use of public utilities, and increased affordability of housing). ]

History

 * 1) [The term "urban consolidation" first appears in social science and urban planning literature around the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Much of the existing literature on urban consolidation comes from Australia; some of the world's first government-official urban consolidation policies were enacted in Sydney and Melbourne to increase construction of higher-density terrace housing in the late 19th century. ]
 * 2) [Throughout the 20th century, implementation of urban consolidation policies appears to come in 'waves', separated by population surges stemming from major events like World War I and II.]
 * 3) [Urban consolidation policies began to appear in the United States around the same time, with one of the earliest examples being a proposal for the consolidation of railroad lines in Iowa and Minnesota to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing passenger and freight traffic. ]

Terminology

 * 1) Brownfield Site- land suspected or known to be contaminated by pollutants from previous industrial and commercial businesses.]
 * 2) [Urban consolidation policies seek to restore these abandoned spaces into parks and wildlife habitats, sometimes in an effort to make green spaces more accessible to inner city residents. ]
 * 3) [Greenfield Site- undeveloped and unpolluted land located in a rural or urban area. Urban consolidation aims to develop these areas for retail business, manufacturing, public services, and housing. ]
 * 4) Housing Affordability- the price level at which people can purchase or lease houses and apartments while maintaining a sufficient income flow to fulfill basic needs.]
 * 5) [Urban consolidation policies have been successful at increasing population density through more generally affordable housing. ]
 * 6) Transit-oriented Development- the development of public transportation with a core goal of maximizing the number of urban business, residential, and recreational spaces.]
 * 7) [Replacing car-oriented infrastructure with public transportation and making pedestrian activity a priority is key to increasing and optimizing urban density. ]

Lead Paragraph
Urban consolidation describes the policy of constraining further development and population growth to within the boundaries of preexisting urban areas rather than expanding outward into suburban areas. Urban consolidation seeks to increase the population density of a given urban area by expanding upward, redeveloping preexisting buildings and lots, and constructing new facilities in available spaces. It is theorized that discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging further development of housing units in preexisting urban areas will lead to a net gain in social and economic prosperity (e.g. more accessible public transportation, more efficient use of public utilities, and increased affordability of housing).

''A major feature of modern urban consolidation practices is the incorporation of urban green space and open space areas. In higher density environments, incorporating natural settings into the landscape design can have positive impacts, such as increased happiness, decreased stress, and a reduction in maintenance costs. ''

History
The term "urban consolidation" first appears in social science and urban planning literature around the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Much of the existing literature on urban consolidation comes from Australia; some of the world's first government-official urban consolidation policies were enacted in Sydney and Melbourne to increase construction of higher-density terrace housing in the late 19th century. Throughout the 20th century, implementation of urban consolidation policies appears to come in 'waves', separated by population surges stemming from major events like World War I and II. Urban consolidation policies began to appear in the United States around the same time, with one of the earliest examples being a proposal for the consolidation of railroad lines in Iowa and Minnesota to increase the capacity and efficiency of existing passenger and freight traffic.

Limits of Urban Consolidation
''Although urban consolidation policies may have many positive social, economic, and environmental effects, there are limits to the extent of its benefits. Efficiency is a key feature of urban consolidation, but the aspect of infrastructure capacity is often overlooked. As a city's infrastructure is used by an increasing number of people, the systems must be upgraded and retrofitted, a process which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Falling under this category of 'capacity' are common features of civilization, such as roads, drainage systems, and open spaces. Roads in areas with urban consolidation policies are often overburdened with increased intercity traffic in addition to the preexisting suburban commuter traffic, and this problem is not always easily solved with transit-oriented development. Drainage systems are severely impacted by higher populations, potentially leading to increased flooding and pollutant runoff. Open spaces in high-density urban areas often conflict with urban consolidation policies; residents of high-density areas require a significantly higher amount of open space, but this would limit development of consolidation-oriented housing and transportation. ''

Terminology

 * Brownfield Site- land suspected or known to be contaminated by pollutants from previous industrial and commercial businesses. Urban consolidation policies seek to restore these abandoned spaces into parks and wildlife habitats, sometimes in an effort to make green spaces more accessible to inner city residents.
 * Greenfield Site- undeveloped and unpolluted land located in a rural or urban area. Urban consolidation aims to develop these areas for retail business, manufacturing, public services, and housing.
 * Housing Affordability- the price level at which people can purchase or lease houses and apartments while maintaining a sufficient income flow to fulfill basic needs. Urban consolidation policies have been successful at increasing population density through more generally affordable housing.
 * Transit-oriented Development- the development of public transportation with a core goal of maximizing the number of urban business, residential, and recreational spaces. Replacing car-oriented infrastructure with public transportation and making pedestrian activity a priority is key to increasing and optimizing urban density.

Reflective Essay
Working with Wikipedia has been a very interesting and engaging learning experience. I feel more confident in my ability to spot errors and bias in articles, whether scholarly or user-written. While critiquing the ‘Community Development’ article, I learned that Wikipedia really cannot be used as a source due to the nature of its anonymous contribution system; facts are often made-up or stated without citing a reliable source. I have a very scientifically-oriented mind, so I believe that providing evidence and sources to support claims and facts is very important to an informative, factual article. During the critique, I noticed that even when facts are supported by reliable sources, as was the case with the ‘Community Development’ article, they are often presented in a biased or un-neutral way. I found multiple cases where the contributors had inserted their own imperatives and opinions into the paper, and I believe this sharply contrasts with Wikipedia’s ‘code of neutrality’.

I applied much of what I learned from the critique and training modules to my own article, ‘Urban Consolidation’. Right away, I tried to find sources to back up claims that previous contributors to the article had made; those which I found to be editorialized or unreliable were edited and reworded to reflect accurate information from reliable sources that I had gathered. Some sections were entirely unsalvageable due to the fact that they were extremely editorialized, overcomplicated, or unfactual. One of the most difficult parts about writing this article was not only maintaining a voice of neutrality, but also maintaining a sense of “broadness” for a very detail-oriented and relatively new topic. Deciding what to add to my article was challenging at times, especially since my topic has limited information, and the information that does exist is often limited to Australia, which made it hard to keep a global perspective throughout the page.

Overall, I completely rewrote the page and edited almost everything that had been there. My most significant contributions include the lead paragraph, the ‘History’ section, the ‘Limits of Urban Consolidation’ section, the ‘Terminology’ section, and all of the references. When I began, the article had very little coverage of the topic and completely skipped over the history of urban consolidation. The lead paragraph was originally very specific and undescriptive towards the topic as a whole, indicating that this was not encyclopedic material. I replaced this with a paragraph that provides a broad overview of what urban consolidation is and why it is pursued as a policy. Next, I added in an entirely new section describing the (very) limited historical record of urban consolidation. This was a difficult section to write because tracking down the origins of the topic proved to be a complicated task, especially since almost all historical, scientific, and scholarly documents concerning urban consolidation were published in Australia. However, I managed to find records and documents from other parts of the world, including the United States.

One of my more recent additions is the “Limits of Urban Consolidation” section, which I decided to add after noticing that many articles on Wikipedia, especially those regarding urban and community development, appear to list the benefits of certain development strategies without explaining potential drawbacks and issues. Comprehensively providing all sides of a topic is important to Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy, so I believe that adding this section was valuable to the structural integrity of my article. The next section, ‘Terminology’, lists a few words that appear in almost all literature that is cited; I thought it was important to include this section so that those navigating the sources have a basic understanding of terms which are extremely common but quite often undefined. Finally, I created a ‘References’ section because there were originally no citations; however, I added a total of nine stable and reliable references which link to each claim or section for which they are cited.

In terms of feedback, I asked two of my peers to review my article but did not receive any messages from Wikipedia editors. The peer review process was rocky for me, simply because my partner, Kyra, had problems with saving work on Wikipedia which led to the deletion of her article. Since I did not have anything to review, I helped her find starting points and scholarly articles for her topic, “Governance Frameworks”. She reviewed what I had written for my article, and was very helpful in pointing out where my use of citations could be improved. I also had Eric review my mostly-complete article outside of class, and he helped me find some alternative sources and information. I also reviewed Eric’s article and explained where some additional information and sources could be used. Overall, peer reviews were certainly helpful in the early stages of developing my article and also when I was close to publishing on Wikipedia.

Overall, contributing to Wikipedia has been a very cool learning experience. I have learned about the constructive and destructive power of community edits, which can both correct misinformation, or spread it. This assignment has also reinforced in my mind the importance of citing factual statements and, also, maintaining a broad and worldly perspective. Wikipedia certainly has the ability to improve the understanding of many topics including my own, ‘Urban Consolidation’. Before starting, the page certainly had an alarming amount of misinformation and I can say, with certainty, that reading it for the first time did not leave me with a basic understanding of urban consolidation.

Editors, such as myself, my peers, and Wikipedia contributors/staff, improve public knowledge of these topics by simply making their corresponding articles more informative and accurate. This is important because tens of millions of people use Wikipedia, billions of people use the internet, and knowledge is often (and rightly) regarded as the most elementary form of power; the ability to spread knowledge instantly to potentially billions of people is something that can empower or misinform, depending on how it is used. The more accurate knowledge that is out there, the more likely it is that people will become aware of the importance of accuracy and factuality.