User:Sopamika

Marx's theory of alienation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation)

• The page has a detailed and clear explanation of Marx's theory of alienation. The author covers from the types of alienation that Marx writes of to the theory's relationship with Marx's other theories and the potential influences the theory received. I believe there could be an expansion and further development in regards to the part: Influence from Hegel and Feuerbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation#Influence_from_Hegel_and_Feuerbach). While a detailed explanation of Hegel and Feuerbach's theories on the spirit (geist) and the stages of human progression in a teleological sense may not be necessary, it may be imperative for the author to provide a link that may correspond to the subjects he/she writes of. I think it'd be interesting to write more of how Marx would have interpreted Hegel's theory on the spirit or the mind as written in The Phenomenology of the Spirit The page provides accurate sources and cites that are academically reliable. The organization especially, regarding the types of alienation a worker can encounter, is done in a way one can observe and comprehend the contents within a short amount of time. The one aspect which I see is absent from this page is the opinions and scholarly debates surrounding Marx's theory of alienation. Other than this, the page seems to be quite useful and accurate.

==Notes==

Li Zehou (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Zehou)

• The page has a brief description of Li Zehou. There is no detail regarding his work or even in the school of philosophy he mainly works with. Despite stating that he is a prominent figure in the modern Chinese intellectual society, there is no detail in his actual role other than his response to the Tiananmen Sqaure Protests of 1989. The page lacks in sources and information that could easily be accessed. There is not even an information as to where he taught within the United States despite the author's claims on the third line of the page. The page is lacking in material, accuracy, and lacks in balance of information.

Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong_Thought)

• The page has significant details and varying views. It is clear that there are various editors working on this page. While many subpages are coherent in and of itself, the context of the general page is poorly organized. Rather than a cohesive flowing page, it seems like an amalgam of broken parts and sections. Subjects such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong_Thought#Departure_from_Leninism lack in sources and details regarding the statement and can be controversial to be considered a component of Maoism, the section it is subtexted in. While many general factors of the texts are accurate, there are minor grammatical and typing errors as can be seen in the section on Contradiction under Components of Maoism. A definite expansion on the views of contradictions and Mao's view on history and will and how that is applied in his political theories Zedong, Mao. "On Practice" can be written about. The section Components of Maoism can definitely be reorganized as the basic components it initially lists and the subtexts that follow do not completely match one another. The page's scope is vast, from the origins of Mao's thoughts to the modern interpretations and analysis of Maoism. Because of the amount of information that is given within the page, some texts can be confusing and unclear, especially as the page progresses into the more contemporary appliance of Maoism and the political relations of the countries under Maoist influence. While the page is highly useful in gathering information, accuracy and clarity can definitely be improved.

==Notes==

Challenges in writing a wikipedia entry in comparison to an essay on modern chinese philosophy

• The difficulties in creating a wikipedia entry on Modern Chinese philosophy is quite visible in viewing the pages within Wikipedia. It differs in various ways from writing an academic essay in that it has to provide a clear information in the most objective method possible with academic sources that are as objective. Unlike an essay in which an author can exert his or her own views and interpretations on the subject and justify and argue for his or her views, the wikipedia entries require a form of writing that can be universally accepted and read. As can be seen with the Maoism entry, modern Chinese philosophy have many controversial topics that can differ per reader. Unlike Descartes or Plato, or even more contemporary philosophers such as Nussbaum, the analysis of their work within the encyclopedia seem to be almost universally accepted. One can argue that an academic essay should also be able to convince the general readers, one cannot deny that there lies more flexibility in writing an academic essay in expressing one's views.The fact that there is also a definite limit of resources one can gain access to, outside of China, also comes into factor in that many of the original writings or scripts could have been easily censored or banned by the Chinese government, which could explain the lack of content on Li Zehou. Another challenge rests in the language boundary in which many of the works that could potentially be substantial to the contributions are not yet translated in English. However, there are opportunities for a philosophy student who have some access, or knowledge of these writings, to provide more context for the wikipedia entries. I believe that while there are many challenges, the advantage a student in philosophy has can overcome the adversity. The tantamount sources a philosophy student can gain access to under the purpose of academical research may be greater than that of a non-student. In addition, if needed, there will be professors and fellow students who will be able to assist one in dissecting and translating an original work for more sources and contexts. Regardless, it will be crucial for one to keep in mind the fundamental difference that lies between an academical essay on philosophy and an encyclopedia entry: the line of objectivity and the less-flexible style of writing in expressing and analyzing a philosophical work.