User:LetOffSomeSteamBennett/sandbox

Assignment #2: Research Paper - Wikipedia Comparison

C. Gates

LIB2002

Nov. 10, 2013

-

Part 1: The Wikipedia Article

As I've previously mentioned, the write-up for Dutch Schultz is of rather dubious quality in regards to its sources, and no attempt has been made since to rectify its lack of in-line citations. Flegenheimer's criminal past has nonetheless been extensively catalogued, from "policy gambling" to alcohol bootlegging to contract killing - including his sudden and gruesome murder of Jules Modgilewsky, who he had suspected of skimming off the top of his restaurant union kick-backs. The court battles with U.S. Attorney Thomas Dewey have been recounted, as have his manipulative tactics to influence the jury and his subsequent relocation to Newark; finally, hopelessly in debt to 'Lucky'Luciano, he was assassinated by two Murder, Inc. hitmen for planning the murder of Dewey himself, an act that would've sparked an outright war with the federal government.

--

Part 2: The Encyclopedia Britannica.com Article

Arthur 'Dutch Schultz' Flegenheimer, taking his name "from an old-time Bronx gangster", ran a series of rackets in New York's Bronx and Manhattan districts in the 20's and 30's. While he was eventually acquitted on persistent charges of income tax fraud, his absence from town meant most of his empire had been co-opted by rival gangs. After requesting permission from Albert Anastasia to murder his tormentor Thomas Dewey, he was instead assassinated on October 23, 1935, for fear of "possible publicity".

--

Part 3: Comparison Between the Two

It hardly needs to be said - there's no favourably comparing one to the other. While I've attacked the Wikipedia entry for poorly attributing information, the Britannica article is a mere "stump", with little to no facts beyond its very limited one-paragraph bio. His restaurant protection schemes are not mentioned, nor are his connections with various underworld figures such as Luciano or his accountant Otto Berman. The circumstances of his death - and his bizarre, delusional last words - are not mentioned apart from "bullet-riddled in a Newark restaurant". The exact same information is indeed discussed in both articles (albeit in a very truncated format), but the latter's concise nature may give any unknowledgable readers an inaccurate impression of what transpired. Although the EB entry is capable of being edited to provide further context, nobody has stepped forward to do so - and so it sits, barely-finished.

-

Part 4: Sources, Headers and Links

The Wikipedia entry's weaker citations ("J-Grit: The Database of Tough Jews", in particular) still lopsidely adorn the page like a crude tin badge, but there exist at least enough credible quality sources to nullify any real criticism. The same can not be said of the EB's disgraceful reference page - no bibliography whatsoever is cited, and only two links to similarly bare-bones articles at "FactMonster.com" and an online school encyclopedia reference. Even the option to browse "related content" turns up only a handful of connected subjects on the site. Furthermore, while the Wikipedia article is lengthy enough to require multiple sub-headers detailing certain periods of his life, the EB's entire profile of Flegenheimer is only contained on one.

-

Part 5: My Opinions on Both

It's a curious thing indeed when an online resource so thoroughly detested by the academic community outshines, in every way, another which is not only held almost universally in high regard, but frequently recommended as a research tool for librarians-in-training. For a vaunted institution like the Encyclopedia Britannica, such succinct articles are perfectly acceptable and necessary in print, where space is at a minimum, but steps should be taken to keep the digital version up to the standards of its online competitors - otherwise they might find themselves losing customers to a second-rate reference guide. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but when researching a topic for serious academic studies and the like, as much information as possible is needed. Nothing short of major revisions and additions is acceptable in this case.

---

Part 6: Recommended Further Reading on the Subject of Dutch Schultz

Organized Crime and American Power: A History. Michael Woodiwiss. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2001. ISBN: 0802082785.

Five Families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America's Most Powerful Mafia Empires. Selwyn Raab. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. 2005. ISBN: 9780312361815.

Kill the Dutchman!: The Story of Dutch Schultz. Paul Sann; introduction by Pete Hamill. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. 1971.

"Dutch Schultz - Facts, Birthday, Life Story". http://www.biography.com/people/dutch-schultz-236042

Dutch Schultz: The Brazen Beer Baron of New York. Five Rivers Chapmanry: Neustadt, ON. 2011. ISBN: 978-0986542749.

Articles / Biographies / Criminals / Schultz, Dutch. http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=205

Jerseyana: The Underside of New Jersey History. Marc Mappen. Rutgers, NY: Rutgers University Press. 1994.

"Dutch Schultz: Beer Baron of the Bronx". Allan May. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/schultz/index_1.html

-

Assignment #1: Wikipedia Articles I Have Chosen

LIB2002

C. Gates

Decried though Wikipedia has been by countless librarians and professors, who have accused it of subsequently producing an entire generation of lazier students (and, based on the sometimes-fraudulent information given, poor critical thinkers), the "Free Encyclopedia" still has an iota of academic merit - it can be used as a intermediary tool, a springboard with which one might find more reputable academic sources. Therefore, based on the quality of the works cited and the amount of useful information given, I will now critique the following cherry-picked articles:

1. "Dutch Schultz". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Schultz. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 20 Sept. 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.

Perhaps best known for the frantic and delirious monologue he babbled off while under investigation, New York gangster and Prohibition racketeer Arthur "Dutch" Flegenheimer is given a most detailed history in his Wikipedia article - yet one that is still in need of clean-up and embellishment, based largely as it is off information from only one comprehensive primary source (Selwyn Raab's The Five Families), and scattershot factoids from other, less academic texts. Furthermore, the external links, apart from Schultz's FBI file, are decidedly lacking; a shock website named "Feast of Hate and Fear" is the only place wherein a full transcript of his dying testimony can be found, and the author also cites a written profile on "J-Grit, The Internet Index of Tough Jews". (Neither would be suitable for citation in any formal essay or journal.) Further edits must still be made if the article is to be held up to Wikipedia's exacting standards.

2. "Scooby-Doo". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooby-Doo. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 23 Sept. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

Absurd though it may seem, a cartoon franchise starring a cowardly Great Dane not only has a longer, more in-depth article than a real-life violent criminal, but it's much better sourced, with over 55 in-text citations, multiple external links, and a bibliography of 8 books devoted to the subject. (One of the authors mentioned is no less a scientific authority than Carl Sagan himself.) As one might expect for an article for an animated TV program made for children, not all the information sources cited are of the highest quality (several different "classic television" blogs make an appearance, as does MTV News), but given that the New York Times or Scientific American is unlikely to run a cover story devoted to Scooby-Doo, such concessions must be made. In any event, the sheer amount of quality research material is enough to placate any Hanna-Barbera fan, be they a novice or an expert.

3. "Frank Frazetta". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Frazetta. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

Prolific science-fiction and fantasy artist though he was, the early years of Frank Frazetta's career remain largely undocumented, to the detriment of his article - not only do the first few paragraphs fail to reach Wikipedia's standards of formal writing, but they also employ a very "fast and loose" approach to the known facts, which has earned the page multiple notices for failure to provide proper citations. (The only paragraph out of them all which has been properly sourced is the one detailing the Frazetta family's recent struggles to retain their personal copyright after Frank's retirement and death.) The full chronological glossary of his commercial artwork that follows, however, is an invaluable resource.

4. "Livermorium". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermorium. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

Formerly known as "ununhexium", this superheavy, inorganic atomic substance (so absurdly radioactive, in fact, that only a couple of isotopes can be safely synthesized at a rime) is still a very recent scientific discovery compared to its neighboring elements, but both the article's citations and bibliography have kept up-to-date with the latest research on its chemical properties. As one might expect from such a niche subject, the sources given are also in-depth and of good quality - all either come from either notable scientific journals or written transcripts of researchers' clinical trials. It's undoubtedly a short entry, but also the most well-written.

5. "The Mayor of Casterbridge". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayor_of_Casterbridge. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 10 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

Once again, a good subject gets a poor article. While the entry for Thomas Hardy's 19th-century tragic masterpiece may indeed be extensive, it is also abysmally short on references or citations of any kind (not even including the book itself), and the fumbling original psychoanalysis of the characters and their motives makes it appear to be the dry run for a college English paper. The text proper has been flagged by other users, for both not providing context to those unfamiliar with the book and for making too many original inferences for what is intended to be an impartial wiki, but time will tell if it is ever corrected.