User:Simarc24/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Public health article: This article is a non biased article which explains public health in a very organized and effective way. All hyperlinks that I checked appeared to work and there were numerous sources of references. I did not find the article to be opinionated in any area, it seemed very neutral and fact based. The articles covers a wide variety of topics in public health ranging from career paths, to public health applications, to various global public health organizations. I never felt it to be emphasizing one topic too often. The way the article is paragraphed helps create an even, factual tone throughout. When we discuss public health in class, we analyze the pros and cons. We try to figure out what in public health is effective and what seems to not work. Meanwhile, this article only lays out the explanation for what public health is and what areas it expands to. The article itself is part of many high level wiki projects, however the talk page seems very quiet. The article is a vital article and C-class rated. It appears we have to do this evaluation for a separate article of our own finding.

Human Genome Project

Reading this article on the human genome project which pertains to what we just learned in this class was an interesting take. Much of the article was familiar, however, Wikipedia is great because multiple editors allows the article to go in depth and explore many more topics in the section than other sites. For instance, it explains the history, along with techniques use, and social and ethical issues surrounding the Human Genome project. The article itself is part of 4 different wikiprojects. While reading this article, I felt the tone to be factual and unbiased similar to the public health article. It is organized and effective. The hyperlinks appear to be effective and nearly all of the information is well cited. There were almost 50 sources cited, while not all being perfectly neutral or ideal citations, there were no egregious citation errors or completely biased sources used to format this article. Similar to public health, the classroom analysis is much more analytical while a Wikipedia article is more towards the explanatory spectrum. In class we learn more than the history, but also the future and personal anecdotes where the Human Genome Project has faltered society. In this aspect I really found the guest speaker to be interesting and provide a captivating perspective. In the talk article, many other editiors appear to double check references and dates as well as add updates and further insights to certain headlines in the article. I feel that there definitely could be more written on this vast subject than what is currently portrayed. Part of this article was featured on Wikipedia main page. Overall the article is a well polished, effective piece of information.

Content gaps are missing pieces of information in a certain subject. They can range from small facts to larger subtopics. The best way, I believe, to identify a content gap is to be well read on the topic before reading the Wikipedia article to full understand the scope of the headline. Upon reading an article, if a question pops up in your head that the article doe not answer, that would be another way of identifying a content gap. While I don't believe it matters who edits/writes an article, if one does not adhere to the basic guidelines laid out by wikipedia, then the article will not be an effective reference and will turn opinionated and disjointed. Bias in Wikipedia means any sort of opinion. It is an encyclopedia by nature, so opinions will only ruin Wikipedia credibility. My idea of bias is an opinion that is strongly skewed to push an agenda. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it becomes biased when there are strong external forces acting upon that opinion.

Ideas for Wikipedia article. Tanvi and I came up with these topics ideas.

Our first article pitch is the media portrayal of natural disasters and communications with affected areas in relation to emergency response, or how natural disasters are treated by various organizations.

To summarize this article we need to find out the evolution of disaster response policy over time. The ASPR will be a good source for this. How Disaster response has changed from Katrina to now. We need to know how the emergency response plans worked on Puerto Rico, and how they were translated to the public. White House response vs Media response. How did the prior infrastructure of Puerto Rico effect the response, and how much should we help them. Should aid improve their previous status of life and how does budget affect the response. How does this affect the overall scope of public health. There are many mainstream articles on this showing various perspectives. Government websites and other credible sources will supply the budget information and official policies towards disaster reactions.

This is a broad subject, so we could narrow it down to different parts of disaster response: Emergency and disaster response, Government response, private organizations response, public response, media response. President vs media response.

Summarize the stark contrast of Trump's outlook vs Puerto Rico Mayors outlook. This can get political so it is important to remain unbiased.

1. Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke “I know it is a really good news story in terms of our ability to reach people and the limited number of deaths that have taken place in such a devastating hurricane”

a. Simple the language used in this statement is alarming… rather than focusing on the outcomes of help and the need that is still there the administration continues to focus on the public image that it has, the media output from the white house, and “news stories” that are coming out of this. This entire situation seems as though it is a political stunt for the administration rather than the humanitarian effort that it should be, needs to be, and is not right now.

2. Trump’s response: praising his own work as a 10/10, can appear “tone-deaf”  at time. continues to hurt the people that are involved in the disaster and even those responding to it who know how much there is left to do

iii. “Trump gives Puerto Rico response a grade of 10 out of 10” – The Washington Post October 19th

1. Governor of Puerto Rico backhandedly answered questions of is the White House doing a good job of responding by saying it happened immediately

2. Also mentioned the need for more resources and equal treatment

iiii. Trump Rates Administration Response in Puerto Rico a ‘10’ – The Wall Street Journal

Other ideas to explore are, the social media presence effect, digital communication and how it has improved disaster response. News outlets, and how they affect funding. The differential of portrayals, communications between U.S and Puerto Rico. We can also explore how the U.S responds to international disasters and the differences between presidents and disaster responses. What emergency response systems do we have in place, the politics and budget behind the response systems. Public health implications of action and inaction.

Our second article pitch is to evaluate the continuing parallels between the “Tobacco Strategy” and the current administration’s environmental policies. Relating to the tobacco strategy, sources that are being used are Mukherjee’s The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (introduction and chapter 1), excerpts from Merchants of Doubt, and Brandt’s The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America (introduction). Relating to the current administration these New York Times articles will be used: https://www.nytimes.com/series/trump-rules-regulations?emc=edit_nn_20171023&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=82270877&te=1. This collection of articles covers all of the recent policy and administrative changes in the E.P.A and other environmental groups that the White House has made. Some quotes that will be analyzed and compared are: Scott Pruitt’s schedule will also be analyzed and compared to those of people in charge of tobacco policy. From the NYT article published October 3, 2017 - “EPA Chiefs calendar: a stream of industry meetings and trips home,” his schedule includes: Southern Company – April 26, Alliance Resource Partners – April 26, GM – April 26. Notes about the schedule: Meetings almost entirely with top executives and lobbyists… relatively no meetings with public health officials or environmental groups. Statement from the agency: “As EPA has been the poster child for regulatory overreach, the agency is now meeting with those ignored by the Obama administration.”
 * 1) “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”  --Donald J. Trump Twitter 1 Jan 2014
 * 2) “Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day” (8 Aug 2015) – Steve Bannon
 * 3) “Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer” (28 Mar 2016) – Steve Bannon
 * 4) “There is serious scientific debate about the magnitude, rate, and potential impacts of global warming...Where we disagree with global warming alarmists is whether this amounts to a crisis requiring drastic action.” (22 Nov 2016 blog) – Myron Ebell
 * 5) “Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time.  That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.” (17 May 2016 National Review) – Scott Pruitt
 * 1) Continuing parallels between the “Tobacco Strategy,” global warming and the current administration’s environmental policies
 * 2) Tobacco Strategy
 * 3) Rose Cipollone
 * 4) Global Warming
 * 5) Current administration:
 * 6) New York Times: “Trump Rules”
 * 7) https://www.nytimes.com/series/trump-rules-regulations?emc=edit_nn_20171023&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=82270877&te=1
 * 8) “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”  --Donald J. Trump Twitter 1 Jan 2014
 * 9) Steve Bannon
 * 10) “Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day” (8 Aug 2015)
 * 11) “Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer” (28 Mar 2016)
 * 12) Myron Ebell
 * 13) “There is serious scientific debate about the magnitude, rate, and potential impacts of global warming...Where we disagree with global warming alarmists is whether this amounts to a crisis requiring drastic action.” (22 Nov 2016 blog)
 * 14) Scott Pruitt
 * 15) “Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time.  That debate is far from settled.  Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.” (17 May 2016 National Review)
 * 16) Schedule:
 * 17) NYT article published October 3, 2017 - “EPA Chiefs calendar: a stream of industry meetings and trips home”
 * 18) Southern Company – April 26
 * 19) Alliance Resource Partners – April 26
 * 20) GM – April 26
 * 21) Meetings almost entirely with top executives and lobbyists… relatively no meetings with public health officials or environmental groups
 * 22) Statement from the agency: As EPA has been the poster child for regulatory overreach, the agency is now meeting with those ignored by the Obama administration”
 * 23) Further (tangential) parallels
 * 24) More glory in finding a cure than bringing clean water to people
 * 25) Does not win awards
 * 26) Not glorified
 * 27) Does not win you a lot of money