User:Kvanderveur/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Women and the Environment
Many features go into making a successful Wikipedia page, such as reliable references, unbiased presentation of information, an equal presentation of viewpoints, and the relativity and organization of information. One of the most important aspects of successful Wikipedia pages are the academic sources that back up the included information and statements. Without these citations, Wikipedia loses it’s credibility in providing sound, unbiased, and academic information.

The article on Women and the Environment does a thorough job of including reliable sources when relaying quotes or information. The majority of the links provide sources that are directly correlated to the information stated, and there are multiple sources in each paragraph, which WikiTutorials encourages. When investigating some of the links in terms of the information taken from then, most all of them provide insightful core information from the source.

One of the first citations, [2], was confusing because it seemed to bring up the correct source but not the direct page of the re-stated information. As Wikipedia has strict rules on plagiarism, it makes sense not to find word-for-word or close-paraphrased information in the linked sources, but this link seemed to simply go to the website and not the page or direct place of the information. The information was sourced from The Global Development Research Center (para 1), and the general fact used from this source as stated in the text reads: “Starting in the 1980s, policy makers and governments became more mindful of the connection between the environment and gender issues” (Srinivas, 2012,). The citation’s link, when clicked on, takes the reader to the general introduction page of all of the Global Development Research Center’s information. On this page, there are five different subjects and 15 different subsections, two of which are gender and the environment. Under the environment tab, there is no reference to gender. Under the gender subsection, there is an entire page on Gender and the Environment, which seems more reasonable of a source to site for this information.

The next sentence in the paragraph, which includes direct information and a quote from that Gender and Environment page under the Global Development Research Center’s website, is sited with the Gender and Environment page. If one is to assume “double-sourcing” information is reasonable, and in this case might make more sense, the former fact referenced should include the latter’s citation as well.

Some editors on the talk page even noted the sources seemed “too broad and not adequately supported” (Doyle, 2010, ), but it seemed a trivial problem compared to the controversies expressed by most. Many editors seemed to find the article incredibly bias and of a general poor academic quality, which seemed surprising. The main problems expressed by other editors were bias presentations of information, logical fallacies, contradictions, and blanket statements (Talk:Women and Environment, 2018).

An interesting example of some flaws found in this article, such as a lack of established credibility and  blanket-statements—meaning a claim made very generally to make a point with little evidence given to back it up—are seen in the section titled “Criticism” under “Environmental or ecological feminism” in the “Theoretical Theory” segment of the article.

The first flaw in this section is a lack of credibility or even identity given to the women who claims to critique ecological feminism, Bina Agaarwal. The section begins with, “Bina Agaarwal has critiqued the ideas of environmental feminism”(Women and the Environment, 2018,) and provides no other overview of this women and why she may have credibility in her viewpoints. When searching for her name elsewhere in the article, it is mentioned two other times. First, under “Land Ownership and property management”, stating “Bina Agarwal, has written a great deal about gender and land rights in Third World,”(Women and the Environment, 2018). One could strongly argue the vague information that is included on Bina under “Women’s connection with the environment”: “Land ownership and property management” is not enough to establish credibility. Her name appears again in another statement of her opposing Ecofeminism in the “Theoretical Theory” segment. Although a source is given to Bina’s name in her second mention, the link is directed to an article extrapolating on the criticisms of ecological feminism, and still does not give any background to Bina Agarwal.

The second fault in this section is seen in the bulleted list given to state Bina Agarwal’s criticisms. In this list, the reasons in opposing ecofeminism appear to be brushed over, provide no backing or further explanation to the claims, and only four out of the eight statements made are sourced. For example, the text notes that Bina “proposed problems with welfare, efficiency, and source of land” (Women and the Environment, 2018,). The section stating her criticisms with efficiency includes the lines: “Many women have specific and often greater knowledge about certain crops and planting patterns,” “Studies have shown the possibility that women use resources more efficiently than men,” and “Many women have specific and often greater knowledge about certain crops and planting patterns” (Women and the Environment, 2018,). These statements are very bold and deserve further explanation but they are not cited and they are not backed up with Bina’s research or explanations. A tactful elaboration on the information to strengthen the content of this section seems to be needed. Perhaps bias can be seen in this lack of development in the alternate opinions and arguments posed against ecofeminism.

Although this wikipedia page, Women and the Environment, is successful in presenting a lot of relevant and interesting information, it may not be sourced or allocated correctly. The somewhat incorrect allocation and backup of this information seemed to hint as a few biases that are in the text. Overall, the page has a strong core and arguably needs some detail refinement.

Adding a citation to an article
I added a citation to Women and the environment. I also connected a source and rephrased a sentence that was plagiarized. Under the section titled: Gender and perception of the environment, I found a section that noted a citation was needed for the following statement:

"Throughout history men have looked at natural resources as commercial entities or income generating tools, while women have tended to see the environment as a resource support their basic needs."

It makes sense to ask for a citation of this statement, as it is saying a great deal. Assuming the information was paraphrased, I didn't know where to find a source that could work. I decided to google the entire sentence—and unfortunately, the entire statement appeared in an academic research journal written by so it was copy and pasted.

I took the liberty to rephrase the sentence as such:

"Historically, the perception of the natural environment between men and women differs: women tend to perceive natural resources in means of necessity, while men perceive it in means of men of "commercial entities or income generating tools."

I'm not sure if this is enough paraphrasing and wonder if it is considered too close to the original statement given the similar sentence structure. I also added the citation of the academic journal to this quotation. I read a bit of the academic journal and it seems the next sentence in the wikipedia article is the same, and needs to be re-pharsed in order to not plagiarize.

Following Wikipedia's plagiarizing rules, I attempted to rephrase the sentence and provided it with it's proper citation.

Topic Choice
I am hoping to contribute to the article titled “Socioeconomic impact of female education.” The article is a rather short eleven paragraphs, which definitely doesn’t seem like enough for this topic. The page brushes over some broad research, the measurement of that research, the impact of education on economic and social development, and the limits of women’s education as well. I think it would be very influential to add some examples of the impact women’s education has had on third-world countries, like some countries in Africa and some cities in India. It may also be interesting to add the historical implications more education has had for women in first world countries. Just by searching “impact of education economic women studies” tons of peer-reviewed academic works have come up that have case and country studies that would be perfect for backing up examples of the socioeconomic impact of female education.