Wikipedia - Public Education

[Spideynw]

Please feel free to help me edit this article.  I have added a section "arguments against".

http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Arguments against

There is no causal evidence to suggest that public education makes society wealthier, healthier, or better off whatsoever.

Public education crowds out private education by taking funds from people without their consent. As such, they do not have the funds to afford private school. If public education were eliminated, people would have vast amounts of money to put into private education. And if education is actually valuable, there is no reason to believe that people will not purchase it.

"Education" is a subjective word. Everything we learn about is "education". How do we decide what is important to be taught? In public education, what is taught is decided upon by school boards. In private education, what is taught is decided by the consumer. Since it is the consumers money, they should be able to decide what education is best for their child.

Public education results in conflicts of interest between the government and the public. In private education, there is no debate about what can or cannot be said in school. The school can set whatever rules it wants about what can be said, and if people do not like the rules, they can choose a different school. In public education, what can or cannot be said in school becomes a legal issue.

In public education in the United States, many of the teachers are unionized, because of union laws, and results in all the problems of unionization.

Only a little over half of the funds for public education go to paying for instruction.

Just saving it here before it gets edited!  I can't wait to see the wiki-war that ensues.

[danneracci]

Please feel free to help me edit this article.  I have added a section "arguments against".

http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References

I agree with what you've written, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for that kind of commentary. There should be a criticisms section in the article, but like the rest of Wikipedia it should be written from a neutral point of view and with citations from relevant sources.

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox imho.

[Rillion]

There is already a page covering that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_public_education_in_the_United_States

[Alex Libman]

I was banned from Wikipedia for calling Global Warming a hoax, and I ain't coming back as an editor until they apologize publicly.

[Spideynw]

Please feel free to help me edit this article.  I have added a section "arguments against".

http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References

I agree with what you've written, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for that kind of commentary. There should be a criticisms section in the article, but like the rest of Wikipedia it should be written from a neutral point of view and with citations from relevant sources.

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox imho.

WTF are you talking about?  It is not a "soapbox".  They are valid arguments.  And give me a fucking break about a "neutral point of view".  There is no "neutral point of view" about public education.  If you are talking about adding a section for "arguments for" feel free to add it.

But it is the place for that kind of commentary.

[Spideynw]

There is already a page covering that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_public_education_in_the_United_States

I do not see why there should be a separate page.  That makes no sense to me. 

[TimeLady Victorious]

I was banned from Wikipedia for calling Global Warming a hoax, and I ain't coming back as an editor until they apologize publicly.

Wikipedia has informed me that Donkey Kong was named for his giant penis and that the proper name of Asperger's syndrome is "Ass Burgers Syndrome."

[Alex Libman]

No, I do like Wikipedia as a shortcut to more reputable sources, I just don't fight the edit wars any more.

[danneracci]

Please feel free to help me edit this article.  I have added a section "arguments against".

http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_education#References

I agree with what you've written, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for that kind of commentary. There should be a criticisms section in the article, but like the rest of Wikipedia it should be written from a neutral point of view and with citations from relevant sources.

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox imho.

WTF are you talking about?  It is not a "soapbox".  They are valid arguments.  And give me a fucking break about a "neutral point of view".  There is no "neutral point of view" about public education.  If you are talking about adding a section for "arguments for" feel free to add it.

But it is the place for that kind of commentary.

I understand that they are valid arguments, and again, I agree with the sentiment entirely. The thing that I disagree with is the style that you used to write the article.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -
"Wikipedia is not:... Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]"

You misunderstand what is meant by "neutral point of view" in the context of wikipedia. You can read the NPOV policy here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

You will notice that the rest of Wikipedia is not written in an editorial fashion with source-less assertions and rhetorical questions. If you can find some examples of them (they certainly exist) you should fix them or add a warning/notice to the article so that others can fix them.

If you feel that the subject is lacking a critical point of view you could add to the two critical sections of the article that already exist, "Controversy regarding federal involvement in public schools" and "Proposed abolition" or the entirely separate article Opposition to public education in the United States and maybe edit some comments in the main article which do not match Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Look at the criticism section in some other controversial articles and contrast them against your own, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory#Critiques
If you attributed your assertions to some relevant sources and formatted it correctly (top of the page is a no-no) and wrote from a more neutral perspective then your contribution would be welcomed.

As it is, you're shitting all over the only thing that makes Wikipedia useful.



edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
"please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles."

[Spideynw]

As it is, you're shitting all over the only thing that makes Wikipedia useful.

Baseless assertions like this completely discredit everything else you wrote.  But I guess it will be decided by Wikipedia, since apparently you have decided to flag the post as non-neutral and lacking references.

[danneracci]

As it is, you're shitting all over the only thing that makes Wikipedia useful.

Baseless assertions like this completely discredit everything else you wrote.  But I guess it will be decided by Wikipedia, since apparently you have decided to flag the post as non-neutral and lacking references.

Baseless? Your addition and responses show zero respect for the policies of Wikipedia.

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
...
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."


If Wikipedia was just a mish-mash of random peoples conflicting opinions on subjects with no structure, sources or neutrality it would be entirely useless as a resource. That's my opinion. It's far from baseless.

[Spideynw]

I think your argument that it is not neutral is baseless.

However, after looking at their policy of "original research", it states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments..."

My whole section is an argument!

[danneracci]

I think your argument that it is not neutral is baseless.

However, after looking at their policy of "original research", it states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments..."

My whole section is an argument!

Well, arguments and differing opinions are acceptable/welcomed on Wikipedia as long as they are appropriately sourced and presented from a neutral perspective.
"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone"
"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."


I think the argument comes from your choice of language. Here are a couple of the statements that I think could be presented in a more impartial manner:

-"In public education in the United States, many of the teachers are unionized, because of union laws, and results in all the problems of unionization."

-"Since it is the consumers money, they should be able to decide what education is best for their child."

-"There is no causal evidence to suggest that public education makes society wealthier, healthier, or better off whatsoever."

-"Only a little over half of the funds for public education go to paying for instruction."
for example:
"In the United States recent studies have shown that nearly half of public education funding goes towards administrative salaries and overhead.[7][8][9]"   (I'm making this up)


You can still get your point across while presenting it with impartial language, and it will be much more persuasive. You just might have to do a little research.

[Spideynw]

OK, now I understand what you are talking about.  However, I have already made quite a few changes.  Your input would be appreciated.  This is definitely more difficult than I first thought it would be.  Maybe I will just stick to wiki.freestalklive.com.