User:MikeSomers/sandbox

Wikipedia evaluations:

Wikipedia article: Advocacy

- Article starts off by stating it lacks inline citations, and the sources are unclear. References seem reliable, but more are needed.

- The conversations on the talk page include making it less U.S. centric and expand it to include advocacy around the world, further clarification on the difference between advocacy and lobbying, and one person seemed to think that the wording was off and it seemed like it might be copy and paste.

- This article is part of two Wikiprojects, Politics and Sanitation. On both of those projects it is rated as start class and mid importance.

Wikipedia Essay: How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women

- The main thing that I did not know, or had never thought about, that I learned from this article is the bias that you might find in an article depending on who it was written by. I especially liked the quote, "When white men have been editing history since day one, the don't see this as a problem." The article talks about how a large majority of the editors are male, and mostly white educated males, and how that bias is popping up in the content of wikipedia as well as making a hostile environment for women editors.

Wikipedia guideline or policy: No Original Research

- While it makes sense, I never knew that anything that is on Wikipedia has to come from a reliable, published source. Without knowing this I would assume that a subject matter expert, or even someone who knows about a topic, would be able to add from their own knowledge on a subject. However, this does make Wikipedia a more reliable source for information.

- Summed up in one sentence, I would say, everything must be verifiable through a reliable, published source.