User:LilBagOfBunnies/sandbox/Wikipedia Group Article

Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that is open for editing to anyone with an internet connection. This differs from traditional encyclopedias because alternatives such as the Encyclopedia Britannica only allow contributions of information or edits to those who have academic credentials or are approved partners of the platform. Due to the open nature of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia's credibility is often questioned because anyone can change the information listed in its various articles despite the possibility that they have no background in whatever subject they are contributing to. To combat this issue, Wikipedia has guidelines the community must adhere to for the platform to continue to be successful in providing quality information presented in proper language and avoiding bias. Many problematic articles on Wikipedia are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion due to the opinionated nature of these subjects. In an attempt to verify the credibility of the article, Wikipedia's article on Environmental Justice was analyzed and compared to other sources available on the internet.

Reference Text Compared to Article Text
In a comparison of original source material and derivative Wikipedia text a few issues were found. Looking at four main types of sources and a representative sample of 3 of those 4 showed some information that was not found in the original sources.

Main types of sources:

 * 1) Journal articles from sources like Human Ecology Review, Science, and Environmental Justice
 * 2) Books from publishers like Northeastern University Press, University of Minnesota Press, and the MIT Press
 * 3) News and magazine articles from publications like Orion Magazine, The Observer, The Guardian, and the Korea Times
 * 4) Websites like Entergy Nuclear and PAN North America.

Representative sample sources:

 * 1) (#92) Cornwall, Warren (September 28, 2016). "Hundreds of new dams could mean trouble for our climate". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aah7356.
 * 2) (#1) Schlosberg, David. (2007) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press.
 * 3) (#61)  "Pirate fishing causing eco disaster and killing communities, says report" The Guardian, June 8th 2009, retrieved 8th October 2009
 * 4) (#82) "Health Care Without Harm". noharm.org.

Comparison of Wikipedia article text to source material:
Comparing the original text in sources 1, 3, and 4 to the derivative text in the Wikipedia article shows that in all cases the article text is simplified and shorter than the original text. Sources 3 & 4 contain summarized information all contained in the quoted articles, however the Wikipedia text derivative from source #1 contains information that is not in the original article.

The Wikipedia article states that "These hydroelectric dams can cause methane to be released when the vegetation is flooded. This pollution can contaminate the water sources and the animals that live in the water, potentially harming those who drink this water and eat the fish from the contaminated water source." The original article does not use the unclear phrasing "...when the vegetation is flooded." This phrase could refer to the original text stating, "St. Louis adds that the new study also shows the potential cost of siting dams in dry landscapes, which can absorb and break down methane, but might become methane producers if drowned beneath a reservoir." However, one text refers to dry landscapes and the other to vegetation, so they are not talking about the same thing.

The article does not directly mention how the additional methane would affect the water sources, animals and those who drink the water or eat the fish, however, the Wikipedia states these consequences authoritatively.

Additional Research Compared to Article Text
Comparing additional research to the Environmental Justice Wikipedia page shows a variety of similarities. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article mentions that the movement began in the 1980s and that the phrase "environmental justice" has more than one meaning. This is consistent with additional sources.

Overall the tone of the Wikipedia article is neutral, similar to the additional research. An example of the language used in the article is "Environmental discrimination is one issue that environmental justice seeks to address." The writer does not state whether this is positive or negative in their opinion, they just state a fact. An example from additional research states "Most understandings of environmental justice refer to the issue of equity, or the distribution of environmental ills and benefits. But defining environmental justice as equity is incomplete, as activists, communities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) call for much more than just distribution." Instead of taking sides this author makes their point by summarizing the conclusions of others.

Language and Bias
Environmental Justice articles outside of Wikipedia used little biased language, articles could appear problematic by readers claiming that it is advocating for environmental justice rather than educating the audience on environmental justice. In a majority of the articles analyzed, there were a lot of articles about people rallying and marching for the subject of environmental justice. This differs from Wikipedia's article because the article is more about the concept itself and what it stands for rather than advocating for change in the world's Environmental Justice system. Wikipedia's article also gives a timeline of the development and changes in environmental justice over the years and the different barriers that were overcome to get to where these changes are today. Other articles that were available on the internet were very specific to the approach from an American perspective rather than the whole world. In the Wikipedia article it changes to a broad perspective and educates the audience about the different viewpoints on environmental justice world wide. The result is a lot less influential on the audience’s opinion than the language and bias given in the articles found on the internet about environmental justice. The way that Wikipedia includes the different diversity, equity, and inclusion groups is very broad and refers to them as “affected groups” rather than minorities which could potentially come off as demeaning to readers. The articles on the internet such as the one provided below uses more specific terms in relation to the background of the affected groups and the different cultures and areas that they come from.

Wikipedia's Environmental Justice article presents different countries and their progress in pursuing environmental justice in sections of their respective countries while many articles only speak of progress made in America. The Wikipedia article is also very factual and has fewer opinions; facts are cited with clickable links in order to validate their statements. A current events section that talks about what is going on in the environmental justice movement in the world right now and has been updated to recent events. Bias is not apparent in the Wikipedia article because of the language used to describe groups, making it inclusive for all and updating the audience on what is happening across the world right now.

Inclusive language guidelines
In a set of guidelines set forth by the University of South Carolina Aiken, the general rules for describing and writing about race, ethnicity, and nationality are laid out. Rules such as not using umbrella terms such as 'minority' when referring to a person from an ethnic or diverse background, not using the term 'illegal immigrant,' the terms 'African American' and 'black' are not always interchangeable, and to always leave black not capitalized are some of the few things the guide sheds light on. This guide is essential for any piece of writing that deals with race or ethnicity, and the topic of Environmental justice heavily discusses the impact of placing environmental burdens such as landfills in disadvantaged communities that are often predominantly populated with people from ethnic backgrounds. In including them in the writing, the editors should have consulted the USC Aiken guide or one similar to learn about the inclusive language that it requires.

Wikipedia Language Guidelines
In Wikipedia's Manual of Style it is made clear that all Wikipedia articles should use plain English. All editors should not use overly complicated terms and phrases to describe subjects covered in Wikipedia articles. This brings about a certain level of consistency between each article and makes the information easy to understand. There is no requirement for the use of inclusive language. While requiring the use of plain English throughout Wikipedia could be seen as a step towards an attempt at inclusion because more people can access and understand information, the lack of a requirement to use inclusive language shows that there is a lapse in Wikipedia's ability to be entirely inclusive in its use of language.

Language Used in the Environmental Justice Wikipedia Article
For the most part, the article does a great job of using inclusive language and plain English. When looking over the article, especially the sections that deal the most with ethnic groups like 'Environmental discrimination,' and 'Affected groups,' there are no major issues with non-inclusive language. The one issue that was apparent was that the article repeatedly refers to groups as minorities. This term has been accepted and used for a long time, but there have been movements against its use recently. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists made a press release in August 2020 that asked newsrooms across the United States to stop using the term when writing about people of color.

Language Used in External Sources
'The Environmental Justice Movement,' an article released by the Natural Resources Defense Council, lays out the history behind the environmental justice movement in great detail. The language used in the work is highly inclusive and appropriate. The authors do not refer to the groups impacted by environmental burdens as minorities, but rather label them appropriately as to their backgrounds. The article also goes into much more detail about the history and progress of the environmental justice movement, where as the Wikipedia article only gives the section six paragraphs.

Wikipedia
Wikipedia has a unique writing and editing process when compared to similar services. Anyone regardless of knowledge or background is able to instantly contribute to articles on the platform. There is no formal peer review process for contributions to Wikipedia, instead relying on casual peer review through volunteer contributors and visitors to the website. Contributors are not given credit for their additions, resulting in it being impossible for readers to background check where the information came from if a citation is not provided.

Crowdsourced Contributions
Editing and contributing to Wikipedia is available to anyone who has an internet connection. Users are not required to have an account to contribute, and credit is not given to any user regardless of account or status. Contributions are allowed on the platform as long as they adhere to Wikipedia’s Five Pillars.

Wikipedia provides tools for editors to utilize to encourage collaboration and discuss potential edits or contributions through article-specific Talk pages. This allows editors to have conversations about how articles could be improved, why an editor may have removed a contribution, or various other changes on pages. Every article also has a page to view the history of edits made for that specific article, giving visitors the tools to see if questionable information was added recently, or if pages are up-to-date with any recent events that have transpired. By having Talk pages and giving users the ability to see a page's history, Wikipedia is giving users tools to inspect pages themselves and make their decisions on the credibility of the information provided.

As Wikipedia is an open platform that allows anyone to edit, the platform employs a verifiability policy which requires inline citations for contributions that may be challenged or quotations, or when paraphrasing a source. Citations are considered desirable for other information in general, particularly when it involves living persons. Citations are typically not included in article leads, as the information is likely provided later in the article.

Encyclopedia Britannica
A major alternative to Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica acquires their contributions through partnerships with vetted contributors and organizations. Some examples of these partners include (but are not limited to) Madeline Albright, President Jimmy Carter, Tony Hawk, Nobel laureate Jody Williams, Pulitzer Prize winner Joseph Ellis, the American Chemical Society, University of California Berkeley, and even Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Credit is given to authors on their contributions, allowing visitors to know where the information originated from.

Editors
Britannica provides a list of names of all editors employed with background information of their qualifications, biographies, and lists of their contributions. The editorial staff creates and approves the content that appears in Britannica. Other partners assist with the process as well, as they utilize advice and suggestions provided by advisers, contributors, and their audience.

Britannica Beyond
As a companion to Encyclopedia Britannica, Britannica Beyond was recently launched as a tool to attract collaborative knowledge contributions. Beyond is a forum where users are able to post questions with answers coming from both other users on the platform and Britannica Editors themselves. Additionally, Beyond added a new feature called Narratives which invites users to write their own original personal essays or letters to the editors with specific requirements that match their publishing standards. Accepted contributions will identify the author, which will include a summary of who they are and where they obtained their knowledge.

Objectivity
In a study conducted by researchers from Harvard’s Business School, the results suggested that collective intelligence does not create an issue of ideological bias when articles are substantially revised. However, bias in Wikipedia was found to be higher than the content in Britannica. This is likely due to the breadth of knowledge contained in Wikipedia, which does not receive enough editorial contribution across the entire website to combat it everywhere. It was also found that in nearly all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning on the American political spectrum than Britannica. This research did not indicate if the left-leaning slant meant the information was correct or did not reflect reality, only that the code words detected in articles appealed more to left-leaning ideals.