User:Pczarn/sandbox

Meritocracy on Wikipedia

The meritocracy page on Wikipedia is written from a historical perspective where the author analyzes the spread of the idea from early Muslim theory through Darwinism to the modern day.1 However, the article seems to have many issues according to cross-referenced articles and the discussion page. The meritocracy page does not meet the ideals of Wikipedia because it does not include proper citations, present ideas from different angles, and omit the author’s own opinion.

According to the Wikipedia flag of the article, the first paragraph of the article does not adequately summarize the whole paper, which is an important factor of Wikipedia articles. Further problems include a lack of citation and the personal opinions of the author expressed on the page. One example of this flaw is in the Online Computing section of the article. The author states that anonymity online removes the qualifiers of meritocracy by equalizing users.1 However, they do not back this up with research or citation, meaning this statement is their own idea. This violates Wikipedia’s pillar of neutrality and original research; everything the author posts should be verified by true facts and cited, not conjectured by the author.

The Talk page of the Wikipedia article provides further insight into the reliability of the author. One user accuses the author of creating new research, a practice banned by the tenants of the database. In the original article, the author states that meritocracy can be described as ranking by talent plus effort1. The user on the Talk page not only refutes the idea, claiming that meritocracy could be better described as talent times effort, they also pot out that this is not an idea supported by articles and research but rather “original research.”2 This is banned by Wikipedia and further invalidates the article. [1]

As stated previously, the article provides the author’s point of view from a biased standpoint rather than neutrally presenting the facts. Overall, the article describes meritocracy as a political system; however, there are counterclaims that describe it as an idea. Pravin Prakash says in Singapore Today, “IT’S A PRINCIPLE, NOT A SYSTEM.”3 He cites author Donald Low and Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore as sources.[2] This directly contradicts the Wikipedia author’s representation of meritocracy. The whole article is revolved around meritocracy throughout history, including governments and political agendas, which are systems. In fact, in their summary they refer to meritocracy as a system, and later, as a form of government.1

In conclusion, the article on Meritocracy on Wikipedia violates several of Wikipedia’s pillars. It is not impartial because the author presents only one point of view where, as a philosophical concept, meritocracy has many. The lack of consensus is showcased in the Talk page and proven by external sociological articles, such as Singapore Today’s “Understanding Meritocracy.” The article presents a casual tone and an improper angle to studying meritocracy, lacks citations of original ideas, and presents the author’s own ideas as fact.

Bibliography

"Meritocracy." Wikipedia. Accessed September 20, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy.

"Talk:Meritocracy." Wikipedia. Accessed September 20, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meritocracy.

Prakash, Pravin. "Understanding Meritocracy." Singapore Today, June 25, 2014. [1] "Meritocracy," Wikipedia, accessed September 20, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy.

[2] "Talk:Meritocracy." Wikipedia. Accessed September 20, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meritocracy.

[3] Pravin Prakash, "Understanding Meritocracy," Singapore Today, June 25, 2014.