User:Svila010/sandbox

Cause of ignition failure
Unintended ignition switch shut-off happened because the "switch detent plunger", designed to provide enough mechanical resistance to prevent accidental rotation, was insufficient. General Motors was aware of this potential problem, and held meetings about it, as early as 2005. [THIS IS FROM THE ARTICLE]

WHAT I WILL ADD:

General Motors did not meet two specific requirements – torque required and vibration environment – for the ignition switch. The torque, or rotational power that prevents the ignition switch from changing modes, was required to be between 10 N·cm and 20 N·cm (Newton centimeters). However, it was less than 10 N·cm, a force so little that made it prone to changes in modes which could potentially shut off the engine.

The switch was required to withstand exposure to a vibration environment without damage or loss of function. Yet, it was discovered that during extreme moments of vibrations, or even with the presence of heavy objects on a keychain, the switch would change modes from Run to Accessory without the intent of the driver. The ignition switch was designed remove power from the vehicle’s airbags when in the Off or Accessory mode. Therefore, this was a safety hazard because if the switch changed from Run to Accessory and the vehicle was involved in an accident, it would not have enough power to release the airbags, and it would be difficult for the driver to steer and brake.

Ethical implications [NEW SECTION TO ADD]
General Motors corporate culture of secrecy encouraged a lack of communication that contributed to the company’s unethical actions as they attempted cover up the defective ignition switch scandal. The faulty ignition switch that was part of numerous GM car designs caused the vehicle’s mode to change abruptly, shutting off the engine, and preventing the airbags from being released. Numerous consumers were injured and others died when their vehicles were involved in accidents during the last decade. The company experienced serious legal and ethical consequences. General Motors lawyers were aware of the defect since 2005 and failed to communicate this issue to the upper management. This included CEO, Mary Barra, and the board of directors who claim to have learned about the defect in January 2014. By concealing such pertinent information they violated clearly defined ethical obligations under state rules and federal law such as the Sarbanes – Oxley Act (SOX). Just like the lawyers, GM engineers were aware of the issue as well. They had received reports about these faulty ignition switches and discussed possible solutions as early as 2005. However, they decided not to fix this issue because it was costly and time consuming. General Motors recall after nearly a decade had a significant impact on the company’s reputation. In addition, they expected sales to decline since customers would associate the company with the scandal. The CEO, declared that GM's reputation "won't be determined by the recall itself, but how we address the problem". The company was determined to honor Barra's promise and, as a result, hired outside attorney Anton Valukas to conduct an internal investigation. The investigation found "a pattern of incompetence and neglect at the company, but no cover-up". Barra stated she planned to act on all of Valukas recommendations, including firing 15 employees that were determined to have acted inappropriately and disciplining five others. In addition, General Motors launched a compensation program for victims who were harmed by the faulty ignition switches that prompted a recall of more than two and a half million vehicles.

Possible Articles:

 * 1) General Motors ignition switch recalls
 * 2) Samsung Galaxy Note 7

Article Evaluation:
The article I will be evaluating is a WikiProject on Corruption. It began with the purpose of gathering more information on the topic of corruption and other related subtopics. The article lacks significant content and includes several sections that may seem distracting and even confusing to the reader. As of now, the article appears to include only one paragraph along with several subheadings about future plans for this WikiProject that are not very developed. It is almost as though some of these subheadings belong in the sandbox and are not very relevant to the article but rather to be used by editors as they plan what they will write. The article states the subtopics it will cover related to corruption but includes little to no information on them. Therefore, to improve this article they could add more information about these subtopics and how they relate or result in corruption. So far, the article appears to be neutral, showing no bias or preference but merely facts. As for citations, they should be properly cited and included at the end of the article under a reference subheading. The current subheading used (resources) does not include any citations so there is a possibility of bias since I am unable to check if the information was gathered from a reliable source. Wikipedia discusses this topic or in this case will discuss in the future in a very neutral and unbiased way. In class, we would discuss the unethical nature of corruption and its related subtopics, displaying bias.