User:Maiemram/sandbox

= Article evaluation = '''Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

My first impression of this article is that it is rather short and not very descriptive. This seems strange, since the topic is so vast and complex and of high relevance today. The overall listed content of the article is relevant to the topic. Both statistics and theories regarding human migration are relevant. However, there are many other topics that could have been added to cover the topic in a more comprehensive fashion. For instance, it would be interesting to also cover the historical aspects of migration, and the contemporary concerns and issues regarding human migration. This is especially with regards to the immigration crises that have been ongoing these past years. A list similar to the web page we looked at before the first class, which talked about the major immigration issues of 2017, would in my opinion be valuable for this article, in order to discuss more specific cases of migration.

What distracted me is mostly the general lack of references and updated data regarding human migration. This is especially with regards to the statistics part of the article. Even the figures are missing citations.

'''• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position?'''

The sections on theories of human migration does not seem very neutral, as the section seems to favor a particular theory, namely the Osmosis theory. The theories are presented in such a way that the different theories we have gone through in class are presented first, and the last theory presented is the Osmosis theory. The Osmosis theory is presented in such a way that it seems as if it is the new theory that is explaining all migration, and that the theories above are "the old theories". This seems rather strange, as the article regarding the Osmosis theory was only published in 2017, and the only citation used is that of the author himself. In summary, the article seems rather biased towards this theory as the new theory, which "explains the whole phenomenon of human migration" (as it says in the text).

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

As written above, it seems as though the theories section is influenced by some viewpoints. This is both with regards to the focus on the Osmosis theory, but also with regards to how the presentation of other theories are based on one particular reference. The viewpoint on these different theories, like the neoclassical economic theory or the world systems theory, are thus maily presented based on one authors view. This also affects how the wikipedia article discusses the application of the different theories, which might be limited to one authors view. Another viewpoint that seems a little skewed is how the article deals with the increasing number of female migrants. The article states that the women mostly migrate as a result of associations with others, and states that there are many reasons for this. However, as we have learned in class, there is a larger proportion of women today migrating for work opportunities, and not only as result of an association with others. This seems underrepresented in the article.

'''• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

In the introduction, a citation is used to support that "people may migrate as individuals, in family units or in large groups. However, the citation refers to "migrationsmap.net", which is shows the number of immigrants to the United States. This map does not seem to be a reliable source, as it is created by what seems to be a personal user, and was last updated in March 2007. This map does not support the claim it is attached to.

Exept for this citation, the sources used seem to be supporting the claims they are used for, and most are easily accesible through links. Some of them are, however, journal articles, and they do not have a link that makes them easy to reach. One example of this is reference 17 which is used to support a majority of the theories regarding migration. The article is not easily accessible, as it does not have a link. However, when using google to find the resource, the abstract presents an article trying to create a new framework for human migration. This indicates that the article probably discusses different theories, but in light of the authors own wish to create a new framework.

'''• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

The introduction is in my opinion lacking many references, as there are many claims are stated in this part. For instance, it says that most migration is internal, rather than external, without referring to any sources. Further, the page says that temporary movement is not regarded as migration, again without citing any sources. Both of these claims could easily have been referenced.

Overall, there is not enough referencing in the article especially missing references in the entire section on statistics of immigration. However, the references employed in this section, seems to be reliable sources. They are mostly scientific papers, and some newspaper articles, with exeption of the map used in reference 1, discussed above. The central problem in the article seems to be the tendency to use the same article to support many claims, making the total number of independent references scarce. For instance, the theories regarding human migration are mostly cited using one reference (number 17). The "discussions" of the application of the different theories in the end of each theory, are thus mostly based on one authors opinion about their applicability.

'''• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

The entire section on statistics of immigration seems out of date, and is not cited in a reliable fashion. Firstly, the list of top countries of immigration and emigration is not cited. The top immigration country listed is the United States, which is wrong based on what we learned in class. Moreover, the data reported in the section is from 2010-2015, which, in this current climate, seems out of date. One thing that in my opinion is missing, is the distinction between flow and stock statistics, which are not talked about in the article at all. This makes it hard to assess and use the statistics reported.

'''• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?'''

There are many conversations on the Talk page. Some are regarding the content on the page, like the lack of references to some of the topics, and duplicated paragraph. Further, many of the discussions seems to be covering the historical aspect of migration. This is interesting, as the topic does not seem to be covered in the current article. It seems as though some of the contributors on the talk page are concerned with the scope of the article, and what it should cover. However, most of the conversations are rather short.

'''• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

On the talk page, the article is rated as C-class, which means that it is substantial but "missing important content ..." and "… may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.". Further, it has been part of a Wiki Education Foundation course assignment, and is part of seven WikiProjects on Archaeology, Anthropology, Genetic History, History, Ethnic groups, Economics and Human rights. Although human migration could be seen as vital for all these topics, it is not directly associated with any of them. • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

On the surface, the article discusses the topic in a similar fashion of how we discussed it in class - by talking about the definitions, the statistics and the theories of migration. However, the wikipedia article presents the topic in a quite superficial and descriptive manner. It does not really "discuss" the topic, with regards to how or why people migrate, but rather present some theories and facts about the topic. This is, however, to some extent also due to the difference between a wikipedia article and a course. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, which restricts the possibility of discussion on a topic. However, there are possibilities of presenting the topic in a more comprehensive fashion, presenting the different viewpoints and mechanisms of migraton