User:Tasmia.r/sandbox

Article Evaluation
In the article, "Postal voting in the United States," I truly do feel that everything in the article was relevant to the top of what postal voting is, how it is carried out, and the effects regarding the topic. Overall I thought that the article was written well however, I feel the article had lots of information and was not organized in the most coherent way it could have been and this proved to be a bit distracting for readers. I believe that the article appears to be neutral. The writer does not use specific language to portray that he or she carries a certain bias or is trying to persuade readers of he or she's opinion. For example, in a portion of the article, the author addresses Trump's stance on mail in voting and how it is "'substantially fraudulent.'" Instead of the writer asserting he or she's opinion and expressing how they feel on Trump's claim, the author instead explains how the majority of Republic politicians have split opinions on the issue and, by citing a reliable source, factually explains how "fact checkers say there is no evidence of substantial fraud associated with mail voting." This proves how the author was not trying to assert a bias towards a particular position. In the section of the article titled "Other Challenges" I feel is underrepresented. For example, there is only three sentences that focus on how postal voting solely depends on the usage of the postal service. The article spends very little time explaining how even though postal voting is dependent on the postal service, the financial crisis due to the pandemic has resulted in defunding of the postal service. The defunding of the postal service is vital to postal voting especially in current times as the election is soon thus this section was underrepresented and needs more representation. All of the links in the article do work and they all do support the claims in the article. Each fact in the article includes an appropriate, reliable reference and the information comes from credible, reliable sources. These are all neural sources mainly from accredited sources that portray factual information. Looking at all the the citations, the majority of the articles were published in 2020 and the oldest article was published in 2016. Based on this, I would say that the information is not out of date and I do not see anything crucially missing that could be added other than potentially having more sources regarding the current situation of the postal service. In the Talk section, there was a lot of conversation regarding the validity of some of the sources the writer used. The writer however removed some of the sources and gave his or her reasoning on why the removed it. Most of the Talk page discussions revolved around the credibility of some the facts and summaries the author chose to include. The article is part of the WikiProject Elections and Referendums and is rated start-class. The article is also a part of WikiProject Politics and is rated state-class on quality scale and low-importance on importance scale. It is also a part of WikiProject United States and is rated State-class on project's quality scale and high-importance on importance scale. The way Wikipedia discusses postal voting is a bit different than how we talked about it in class such as when we discussed it with the Secretary of State of Missouri. The Wikipedia article provided much detailed, impersonal, non biased information however, in class when spoke generally about it and asked about personal insights and opinions regarding the topic.

Talk:Postal voting in the United States

Topics to Improve On

 * 1) Microtargeting

Reason why I chose this topic logistically: This article is start-class on the importance scale meaning that there is still much area to improve upon. Additionally the article is not controversial and is a general topic as well. Although the article is not of high importance, it is of mid-importance on the importance scale.

One area of this article that I could improve on from looking at the Talk's page and seeing what other people have been contributing, I would choose to improve on the section regarding History. The article solely focuses on micro targeting is implemented in the United States and only in US companies. In order to be a notable Wikipedia article, the article must contain a holistic view. Additionally, the US is not the only country impacted by micro-targeting so it is important to include other entities involved. Another aspect I would improve upon would be the different medias that utilize the strategy of micro-targeting. I would also improve upon the benefits and ethics involved with the usage of micro-targeting.

2. Quadratic voting

Reason why I chose this topic logistically: The article is start-class on importance scale thus has area to improve on. The article is is not controversial.

One area of the article I would improve on is the criticisms of quadratic voting. For example, although the article touches upon critiques regarding quadratic voting, it does not specify how it could disproportionately effect voter based on socioeconomic status or how it ensures transparency in the voter process but still guaranteeing anonymity of the voters. I would also improve on the section regarding application of quadratic voting and specifically expand on Democracy.Earth 's usage of it.

3. Participatory budgeting

Reason why I chose this topic logistically: The article is start-class on importance scale thus has area to improve on. The article is is not controversial.

One area of the article that I would improve upon is the criticism portion in which it is not throughly expanded on how participatory budgeting can disproportionately favor one group of people and not others. I would also include how studies have shown that participatory budgeting has strengthened over time and led to more government transparency.

4. Liquid democracy

Reason why I chose this topic logistically: The article is start-class on importance scale thus has area to improve on. The article is is not controversial. Also the article is not yet notable as it does not have reliable sources and includes unsourced materials.

One area of the article I would improve on is the aspect of blockchain and its role in liquid democracy. I would also include Democracy.Earth's usage of liquid democracy and how it has been influenced by this ideology.

Participatory Budgeting
Some things I could add to the article:

- More images

-More sources (specifically recent sources)

-Focus on how PB has strengthened over time and led to more government transparency

Draft of My Contributions
Outcome section

Researchers have concluded that Participatory Budgeting not only allowed for effective and efficient policy changes, but also had substantial positive influence in other aspects such as an increase in government transparency. Through the promotion of social change, participatory budgeting allows for increase in budget transparency. For example, in the Dominican Republic, citizens reported that they did not feel they had a voice in their local government and claimed that they were not aware of how to participate in legislation within their districts. Due to this attitude, “citizen's perceptions of such things as why raising tax revenue is important, how public budgets are carried out, or how public works are paid for are often ill-informed.” Fundacion Solidaridad, an organization that seeks to promote democratic developments through participatory budgeting practices, implemented seminars and practices to “facilitate the exchange of experiences in participatory budgeting at the municipal level through dialogues and planning meetings.”

Through Fundacion Solidaridad’s approaches, the project revealed many concrete results that proved that participatory budgeting led to advancement in democracy. The results concluded that participatory budgeting served as a platform for democratic societies to be able to partner with public institutions and international partners to be able to “promote activities for democracy and transparency at the local level.” Having more transparency within government allows civic societies to to have more impact within their own communities and understand the importance of civic engagement.

Research has also shown that participatory budgeting has led to increase citizen’s overall well being. For example, studies based on Brazil’s adaptation of participatory budgeting shows that increase in participatory budgeting correlates to improvements in infant mortality in Brazil. Through researching the influence of participatory budgeting in Brazil, studies have found that infant mortality rates are substantially lower in governments that use participatory budgeting compared to those that do not. This is due to the fact that infant mortality disproportionately affects poorer income groups than middle-upper groups. These results suggest to researchers that “sustained participatory budgeting programs may be part of general improvements in governance that produce[s] more durable access to healthcare.” Participatory budgeting has led to advancements in government because democratic governments with this kind of budgeting are able to make better use of public funding.

Another outcome of participatory budgeting is that citizen’s attitudes significantly change. For example, research has shown that when citizens participate in participatory budgeting they are more inclined to support democracy and perceive democracy as an institution that is effective and understanding the way governmental budgeting occurs. Through participatory budgeting, citizens are able to acquire skills that allow them to be active citizens. Participatory budgeting has proved to show that it “may help marginalized people and other previously excluded groups to build their self-esteem and self-fulfillment through their participation in local budget decisions.” Civic participation has also shown “foster the attitudes and skills of citizenship” and essentially shape identities and loyalties.

Criticism Section

Although participatory budgeting has many benefits, it also requires public officials to spend more time to become directly involved with citizens and some criticize that the time they spend with constituents could have been used for other, more important purposes. Additionally, by utilizing participatory budgeting, implies that other projects that could be crucial to government will not be pursued due to finite resources. There are many barriers to entry for governments to get involved in participatory budgeting thus officials fear electoral costs. Institutions also might lack resources and political will to engage. Some institutions also lack the bureaucratic structure to be able to design and execute this kind of approach.

Response to Peer Reviews
Bryankjh gave me advice on how to improve my article. He explained how I could improve on the organization and cohesiveness of my article. I will address this issues by creating a "methods" section and further splitting up my contributions in more a more concise, organized way. H.Susanna also explained how I should organize my writing a little better so that it is easier for readers to comprehend. I will address this by, in my outcomes section, concentrating each outcome with the corresponding country to provide a more easier read to the readers of the article. I will also state more of my information as facts instead of using language such as "research has shown." Ryanliou also suggested more organization and I will address this by implementing some of his suggestions such as split the outcome section into 3 subsections: government transparency, citizen's overall well-being, and citizen's attitudes to provide an easier read. I appreciate all the advice given by my peers to improve my article.

Edit of My Contributions
Outcome section

Government Transparency

Participatory Budgeting not only allowed for effective and efficient policy changes, but also had substantial positive influence in other aspects such as an increase in government transparency. Through the promotion of social change, participatory budgeting allows for increase in budget transparency. For example, in the Dominican Republic, citizens reported that they did not feel they had a voice in their local government and claimed that they were not aware of how to participate in legislation within their districts. Due to this attitude, “citizen's perceptions of such things as why raising tax revenue is important, how public budgets are carried out, or how public works are paid for are often ill-informed.” Fundacion Solidaridad, an organization that seeks to promote democratic developments through participatory budgeting practices, implemented seminars and practices to “facilitate the exchange of experiences in participatory budgeting at the municipal level through dialogues and planning meetings.”

Advancement in Democracy

Through Fundacion Solidaridad’s approaches, the project revealed many concrete results that proved that participatory budgeting led to advancement in democracy. The results concluded that participatory budgeting served as a platform for democratic societies to be able to partner with public institutions and international partners to be able to “promote activities for democracy and transparency at the local level.” Having more transparency within government allows civic societies to to have more impact within their own communities and understand the importance of civic engagement.

Improvement in Citizen's Well-being

Participatory budgeting has led to increase citizen’s overall well being. For example, studies based on Brazil’s adaptation of participatory budgeting shows that increase in participatory budgeting correlates to improvements in infant mortality in Brazil. Through researching the influence of participatory budgeting in Brazil, studies have found that infant mortality rates are substantially lower in governments that use participatory budgeting compared to those that do not. This is due to the fact that infant mortality disproportionately affects poorer income groups than middle-upper groups. These results suggest that countries who “sustain participatory budgeting programs may be part of general improvements in governance that produce[s] more durable access to healthcare.” Participatory budgeting has led to advancements in government because democratic governments with this kind of budgeting are able to make better use of public funding.

Citizen's Attitudes

Another outcome of participatory budgeting is that citizen’s attitudes significantly change. For example, research has shown that when citizens participate in participatory budgeting they are more inclined to support democracy and perceive democracy as an institution that is effective and understanding the way governmental budgeting occurs. Through participatory budgeting, citizens are able to acquire skills that allow them to be active citizens. Participatory budgeting has proved to show that it “may help marginalized people and other previously excluded groups to build their self-esteem and self-fulfillment through their participation in local budget decisions.” Civic participation has also shown “foster the attitudes and skills of citizenship” and essentially shape identities and loyalties.

Criticism Section

Although participatory budgeting has many benefits, it also requires public officials to spend more time to become directly involved with citizens and some criticize that the time they spend with constituents could have been used for other, more important purposes. Additionally, by utilizing participatory budgeting, implies that other projects that could be crucial to government will not be pursued due to finite resources. There are many barriers to entry for governments to get involved in participatory budgeting thus officials fear electoral costs. Institutions also might lack resources and political will to engage. Some institutions also lack the bureaucratic structure to be able to design and execute this kind of approach.