User:MartysGospel/sandbox

Evaluation
This is the article I will be evaluating: Objectivism (Ayn Rand) From what I could tell, the article appears very relevant to the topic, referencing Ayn Rand's philosophy, her disciples, her legaacy and of course, what Objectivism is. I didn't see much missing, that being said it would be difficult to be out of date when Ayn Rand passed away back in 1982. That being said I feel the article could have included information about how her work has influenced the current Libertarian Party and its views as well as the disagreements she had with Libertarians. Despite including multiple statements about why she is rejected by scholars and few which backed it, I don't feel it was biased. In order to speak on why the philosophy is great, one would have to show bias, but when explaining against the philosophy, the article cited multiple scholars who did in fact reject it, and since few scholars backed her work this one-sided appearance does not seem to actually be biased. I would say there was the correct representation about of her life, being short and sweet since the article is mostly about her philosophy itself. In terms of the representation of her philosophy, I think fair representation to the different components of the philosophy, such as its metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and political views. The citation links I clicked on all seemed to work and be relevant to the point they were meant to back up. Additionally, every time a fact is presented, as far as I could tell, there was a citation attached to it. In the talk session, a lot of the conversations going on seem to be Objectivists upset with a bias they seem to see or a misuse if proper nomenclature. Despite being an Objectivist myself, I don't agree with their issues. As Objectivists are meant to look at the world Objectively, I feel they've failed to do so and instead are using their emotions. For example, the first discussion takes issue with the statement that academics largely rejected Rand and seeing it as bias. Objectively speaking, most academics do reject her work, regardless of one's feelings toward her work, that is a truthful statement. The article itself is given a B-rating and is part of multiple WikiProjects all rated B-class and one at C-class. The article seems to follow the guidelines we discussed in class with the exeption that it is certainly on thin-ice to being considered bias, but it is not yet bias in my opinion.