User:SRTHegemon/sandbox

Project Proposal Section 2

The Wikipedia Article titled “Incrementalism” is an overall poorly written article that lacks important substance and examples. In the first section of our proposal, teammate Nicholas Funari outlined on how the article doesn’t focus on political incrementalism, but doesn't focus on any particular subject matter of Incrementalism and is not reader-friendly in any particular way. What Team-Turtle will accomplish is to clean up the article in its entirety. However. we will revise several topics which include;

Origin Definition Usage Examples Pros & Cons
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item

As outlined in Section 1, we are revising these parts in particular to provide an organic readability and expand upon these topics due to lack of substance.

Origin: The topic “Origin” is basic in the original article. The original author provides Human lifestyle examples such as “Waking up and making coffee”. This is a inadequate and nonsensical answer. According to Encyclopedia-Britannica, the term Incrementalism was developed by Charles E. Lindblom in the 1950s as opposed to the then conception of policy making as a whole, and for public officials to build off or change policies of past decisions.

In this section it is important to highlight Lindbloms contributions and the context in which he developed incrementalism. It is also is important to mention his intentions during its conception. The tradeoffs between incremental policy changes and mass changes that Lindblom mentions can be highlighted in the “Pros and Cons” section.

·  	Definition : The topic in Wikipedia regarding “Definition” over incrementalism had major problems defining the content in a political view. Furthermore, the definition lack of understanding of the three types of government such as local, state and federal government. The definition from the article’s original writer had poorly incite towards the political meaning. yet, it seem as if the writer’s definition of Incrementalism was personally define, leaving out the broader view of politics. As a reader it was very difficult for the to understand and grasp the political concept about Incrementalism. Usage:Coming down to usage, i figured that the usage section was going to be badly written for the matter of fact that the definition was simply wrong and misused. Currently the original writer neglected important topics that could of helped the reader have a better understanding about incrementalism and we also came to a conclusion that original writer used incrementalism in a very ineffective manner. The problem started from the definition and it led to the usage section, where the definition was hard to understand because of the wrong view of incrementalism. Last section in the definition, I discussed about incrementalism and how it could be best understood by the readers by following the three sections of government which are local, state and federal. By following this system of government pattern it becomes easily for the reader understand and analyse on how incrementalism works plus its both relevant and informative information.

Examples: The original author fails to provide any substantial examples, and insteads provides an example that is only relatively relevant to the article. As mentioned in Section 1, collecting all the articles that each member has provided and culminating them will benefit the readers to provide an in-depth real-world example. A great example of incremental policy would be American Congressional Budgetary changes.

Pros and Cons: The original author provides brief examples over the benefits and shortcomings of incrementalism. This section will be perfect for Saul Levmores’ article Interest Groups and the Problem With Incrementalism. Levmore highlights how advocates of incrementalist public policies only look at the benefits, and not the costs of incrementalist policies. The original author mentions how Incrementalist policies create a “slippery-slope”, and unfortunately in the original article this subject was not expanded upon. I feel the creation of a subsection for the “slippery-slope” is necessary for the reader to understand in full what the problem is in its entirety. I would also add the example of gun control which is highlighted in Kristin Goss’ “Disarmed” which she discusses the lack of effective incremental policies and instead proposes a mass change to national policy.There are even those who argue for the restructuring or “Reframing” of Incrementalism such as “Reframing incrementalism: a constructive response to the critics” in which highlights how some supporters of incrementalism are really blocking progress with incrementalist policies. For the benefits section, pros, Charles Linblom defends his concept by arguing against opponents of incrementalist policy changes in his article “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through”. Lindblom argues how critics only focus on analyst synopsys as opposed to approximating the policies.