Jump to content

User:Sofiariv10/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final Changes Made & Final Checklist (November 27)

1) Deleted one of the paragraphs that was originally on the OWS page because we decided it wasn't particularly relevant in the context of the overall OWS movement.

2) Improved the second paragraph by making tone more neutral, and rewording some of the syntax.

3) Included the critique about elitism to sufficiently encompass the point about OWS not being representative of the 99%.

4) Improved structure to the Criticism section by adding subtitles for each topic we discussed.

5) Deleted a few sentences from the "Wrong Audience" section to improve neutrality.

6) Reread article for grammatical errors and reviewed the Wikipedia final review checklist.

Changes Made (November 10)

1) We added content to each of our paragraphs to make them more comprehensive.

2) We reworded paragraph 5 because we determined it sounded biased

3) We added a picture to demonstrate the class warfare criticism

4)We added links to several wikipedia pages.

5)We deleted one of the paragraphs on the OWS page because it appeared biased and had no source to verify the claim.

OWS slogan
Example of poor vs rich theme that emerged from OWS

Continue Working on the Article (November 10)

OWS slogan

A number of criticisms towards Occupy Wall Street have emerged, both during the movement’s most active period and subsequently after. These criticism include a lack of clear goals, false claim as the 99%, a lack of measurable change, trouble conveying its message, and a failure to continue its support base.

The Occupy Movement has been criticized for not having a set of clear demands that could be used to prompt formal policy change. This lack of agenda led to the Occupy Movement fizzling before achieving any specific legislative changes. Although it has simultaneously been argued as one of the advantages of the movement[1], the protesters in Occupy rejected the idea of having only one demand, or a set of demands, and instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda[2][3]. Thus, this criticism was heavily debated.

Although the movement's primary slogan was "we are the 99%," it was criticized for not encompassing the voice of the entire 99%, specifically lower class individuals and minorities. For example, it was characterized as being overwhelmingly white[4] and poorly representative of the needs of the immigrant population. The lack of African American presence was especially notable, with the movement being criticized in several news outlets and journal articles about its lack of inclusivity and racial diversity[5][6][7][8].

Some publications mentioned that the Occupy Wall Street Movement failed to spark any true institutional changes in banks and in Corporate America. This idea is supported by the number of scandals that continued to emerge following the financial crisis such as the London Whale incident, the Libor-fixing scandal, and the HSBC money laundering discovery. Furthermore, the idea of excess compensation through salaries and bonuses at Wall Street banks continued to be a contentious topic following the Occupy protests, especially as bonuses increased during a period of falling bank profits[9][10][11].

Another criticism was the idea that the movement itself was having trouble conveying its actually message. The movement was criticized for demonizing the rich and establishing a theme of class warfare[12][13][14]. Another issue that was raised was that the Occupy Movement was attempting to indict the entire 1% and argue for wealth redistribution, when in fact, the focus of the movement was centered around upward mobility and fairness for all through government regulation and taxation[15][16].

The movement was also criticized for not building a sustainable base of support and instead fading quickly after its initial spark in late 2011 through early 2012[17]. This may be attributed to Occupy's lack of legislative victories, which left the protestors with a lack of measurable goals. It was also argued that the movement was too tied to its base, Zuccotti Park. Evidence of this lies in the fact that when the police evicted the protestors on November 15, the movement largely dissipated[18][19]. While there is evidence that the movement had an enduring impact, protests and direct mentions of the Occupy Movement quickly became uncommon[20][21][22].

Many people felt that Occupy had the wrong target in mind, and that Washington, politicians, or the Federal Reserve should have received much of the rebuke[23][24] for ignoring the warning signs leading up to the financial crisis and not taking action more quickly. In addition, the movement was criticized for demonizing banks and the entire financial industry, with the argument being that only a certain portion of wall street workers contributed to the actions that eventually sparked the financial crisis[25][26]. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly where all of these malicious actions occurred. This uncertainty made it difficult not to target large banks or Wall Street in its entirety.

Integrate Into Wikipedia (November 3)

A number of criticisms towards Occupy Wall Street have emerged, both during the movement’s most active period and subsequently after.

The Occupy Movement has been criticized for not having a set of clear demands that could be used to prompt formal policy change.It was argued that this lack of agenda led to the Occupy Movement fizzling before achieving any legislative change. Although it has simultaneously been argued as one of the advantages of the movement[27], the protesters in Occupy rejected the idea of having only one demand, or a set of demands, and instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda[28][29].

Although the movement's primary slogan was "we are the 99%," it was criticized for not encompassing the voice of lower class individuals and minorities. For example, it was characterized as being overwhelmingly white[30] and poorly representative of the needs of the immigrant population. The lack of African American presence was especially notable with the movement being criticized on several news outlets about its lack of racial diversity[31][32][33].

Some publications mentioned that the Occupy Wall Street Movement failed to spark any true institutional changes in banks and in Corporate America. Specifically, bonuses at Wall Street banks were a contentious topic following the Occupy protests, especially as bonuses increased during a period of falling bank profits[34][35][36].

Another criticism was that the movement demonized the rich and established a theme of class warfare[37][38][39]. It was argued that instead of indicting the entire 1% and arguing for wealth redistribution, the focus should have been centered around upward mobility and fairness for all through government regulation and taxation[40][41].

The movement was also criticized for not building a sustainable base of support and instead fading quickly after its initial spark in late 2011 through early 2012[42]. This may be attributed to Occupy's lack of legislative victories, which left the protestors with a lack of measurable goals. It was also argued that the movement was too tied to its base, Zuccotti Park, evidenced by the fact that when the police evicted the protestors on November 15, the movement largely dissipated[43][44]. While there is evidence that the movement had an enduring impact, protests and direct mentions of the Occupy Movement quickly became uncommon[45][46][47].

Many people felt that Occupy had the wrong target in mind, and that Washington, politicians, or the Federal Reserve should have received much of the rebuke[48][49] for ignoring the warning signs leading up to the financial crisis. In addition, the movement was criticized for demonizing banks and the entire financial industry, with the argument being that only a certain portion of wall street workers contributed to the actions that eventually sparked the financial crisis[50][51].                                             

Expand Your Draft (October 17)

New topic: Our group plans to improve aspects of the Occupy Wall Street Wikipedia page that are less developed by discussing criticisms to the movement and reasons why it did not succeed in accomplishing its initial intent. This section is very undeveloped compared to other sections of the Occupy Movement. While there have been a number of criticisms against the movement, very few are articulated in the Wikipedia article. In addition, the current criticism section is too vague and anecdotal. We would like to incorporate a greater variety of criticism along with more factual information leading to why the movement allegedly failed. Below are nine criticisms we have identified that we want to incorporate into our article. We believe that all of these points are relevant to OWS. We think that they should be included in the criticisms section and that they are notable in the eyes of Wikipedia.

Below are criticisms that we believe should be included. We have expanded on the criticisms from our original draft, and we will make a decision on how to integrate the content into the wikipedia article after receiving peer feedback.

1. Lack of clear agenda/demands: The Occupy movement was criticized for not having a set of clear demands that could be used to prompt formal policy change. It was argued that this lack of agenda led to the Occupy Movement fizzling before achieving any legislative change. The protesters in Occupy rejected the idea of having only one demand, or a set of demands, and instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda.

Weissman, Robert. 'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand. 19 Oct. 2011, www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-occupy-wall-street-the-next-tea-party-movement/occupy-movement-purposely-has-no-single-set-demand-occupy-movement-purposely-has-no-single-set-demand.

2. Ignoring the voice of minorities: (The concept of 99% does not encompass lower class individuals and their opinions on the matter) Many of the participants were actually white and middle class. Colorlines is a platform that has addressed this issues as well as similar immigration concerns. Colorlines talks about New York efforts merging to create even bigger change. Other cities like LA have not yet utilized the combination to enhance their movements, which is an area that they look to improve. (Zlutnick, David, Rinku Sen, Yvonne Yen Liu. “Where’s the Color in the Occupy Movement? Wherever We Put It.” Colorlines, May 1, 2012. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/wheres-color-occupy-movement-wherever-we-put-it)

3. The “Occupy Factor”: The movement was too tied to its home base, a small symbolic tent-city near Wall Street, and in other similar parks in Boston, San Francisco, and other cities. In order to rally scalable national support people needed to see marchers taking to the streets rather than largely hanging out in a park, which served, rightly or wrongly, to portray the Zuccotti Park inhabitants as drifters, vagrants, and freeloaders rather than committed protesters.

4. The Wrong Message: Some people think that the movement essentially turned into a “rich bad/poor good” theme. That the indictment of everyone in the “1%” (including passionate, dedicated, extremely generous liberals like George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the Kennedys) was the wrong message. People also believe that OWS advocated for class warfare and that equality and fairness for all through reasonable government regulation and taxation should have been the real message. "Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that and towards an insistence on equality of outcome. Let's not focus on redistribution; let's focus on upward mobility." The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz Page 116

5. Institutional change: The Occupy Wall Street movement failed to spark any true institutional changes. Corporations didn't change anything about their hiring processes and similarly, nothing was done about the salary gaps between the CEO of a company versus a regular employee. Small setbacks at the corporate level still have major impacts on today's economy, therefore power is still truly confined to the 1%.

6. Timeline of the movement: The Occupy Wall Street movement fizzled extremely quickly and was only powerful in late 2011 through 2012. Because the movement didn't define a clear list of achievable goals, it was hard to gauge the successfulness of the movement. As time went on, protestors might have felt like their efforts were going towards a doomed cause, simply because of the immeasurable goals. This eventually led to the movement's fade away from media attention until everyone forgot about it and the movement ultimately dismantled on its own.

7. Political nature of the movement: The activists who back the Occupy Wall Street movement failed to use Bernie Sander's presidential campaign to help bring their social image back into the public eye. Although the social movement itself had already died, Bernie Sanders public focus and interest in protesting the influence of large corporations in American politics and in the world's economy would have been a great opportunity for protestors to reignite burnt out flames.

Peer Edit (Lizet (Lisa) Ceja)

[edit]

The length of the information added brings a significant importance to the Occupy Wall Street article. Your team included topics that needed more development and details. I would suggest to include the links to the reliable sources used for the following topics: The “Occupy Factor”, Institutional Change, Timeline of the Movement, and Political nature of the movement. Also, on topic Timeline of the Movement I would be more specific as to who you are referring to when stating “everyone”, do you mean the 1% (last sentence). 

Response to Peer Edit (Sofia Rivas):

Thank you for your insight. Our next steps for improving the "Criticism" section of the Occupy Wall Street page will definitely include reliable sources with facts rather than pure analysis. Also, thank you for pointing out that we might have been a bit vague in our word choice especially when referring to "everyone." We will incorporate your feedback by avoiding the use of generalizations and referring to groups directly.

Peer Edit (10/19)

[edit]

I think you guys have a really good idea here. I checked out the Criticisms section on that Wikipedia page, and you're absolutely right that it could be improved. You'd need to tighten up some of these points to make them a little more succinct and objective, but I definitely think you're on the right track. Really looking forward to seeing what you guys end up doing with this one!

Respond to Peer Edit (Olivia Hauger)

Thank you for your thoughts! Occupy Wall Street is not current anymore but the ideas still exist and extend past the end of the movement. I think our edits will add to the article.

Peer Edit (Raffi Terteryan)

[edit]

You guys did a good job of creating specific subheadings that make your draft clear and concise.

Lack of clear agendas/demands: Try to avoid phrases like "It was argued," it makes it sound less neutral.

Ignoring the Voice of Minorities: Perhaps some data showing the breakdown of the demographics of the protestors and how there were very few of them would be useful.

The "Occupy Factor": Remember to cite your sources. Also, the sentences can be reworked to be more concise, they are a bit run on.

The Wrong Message: Try to avoid phrases like "some people think." Second sentence seems like a fragment. Try to avoid "People also believe" in the third sentence. Section can be reworked to sound more objective.

Institutional Change: I believe theres a missing word in the second sentence, "Corporations did not change." Maybe add some statistics on the CEO vs employee point. Include sources.

Timeline of the Movement: "The protestors might have felt" sound subjective...try to find some stats or sources on the point. Maybe add some google trends data showing the drastically decreased interest.

Political Nature of the Movement: Not sure if this section should be included, don't see how it was a shortcoming of the movement itself.

Response to Peer Edit (Olivia Hauger)

Thank you so much for your edits. Your insight will be very helpful for refining our draft. I see what you mean about the vague verbiage making the content less neutral. We will fix that.

Response to Peer Edit (Sofia Rivas):

Thank you for taking the time to comment on each subheading, your help will go a long way in helping us prepare our final edit. A major issue we will work to improve is citing our sources and straying from using any sort of nonneutral or vague language. Lastly, we will make sure to read over and correct any grammatical errors, including those that you pointed out, when we convert our bullet points into paragraph form.


Peer Edit (Guowei Yang)

The structure of the draft is really clear. The information that you will be adding will really create a comprehensive review of OWS. Nice job! However, there are several spots that is needed to be improved:

The Wrong Message section: try include the sources that you cited. This will make the article more reliable.

Also, instead to make in line citations, it would be clearer to use Wikipedia editor to insert the sources and have them displayed at the very bottom of the page.

Overall: some paragraphs have grammar errors.

Response to Peer Edit (Olivia Hauger)

Thank you for your thoughts and comments on our draft. I think we can clean up our submission as well and will look to do that before the final draft is due and we add more to Wikipedia.

Response to Peer Edit (Zeeshan Rauf)

Thank you everyone for the peer reviews. Overall, I think we need to really tighten up our points and include a few reliable sources for each one. I especially appreciated Raffi’s suggestions. We’ll need to make sure that we’re conveying the criticisms of the movement in the most neutral tone possible, even though it will be challenging. For next steps, we’re going to attach one source (or more) to each criticism, and we’re going to rewrite the bullet points in a more neutral tone. We’re also going to review each of the points, and potentially eliminate one or two, such as the political nature of the movement. After that we’re going to incorporate our criticisms into paragraph form and see how we can best integrate them into the Wikipedia article.


10/10/17

Finalize Your Topic:

My group plans to improve a section of the Occupy Wall Street Wikipedia page that is less developed by discussing criticisms to the movement and reasons why it did not succeed in accomplishing its initial intent.

1. This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fqAsfwo2gxkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=occupy+wall+street+failure&ots=oZDwuYvZG7&sig=shrsyk7rN6t2OlTEOMixggJeTWU#v=onepage&q=occupy%20wall%20street%20failure&f=false

2. Anatomy of Protest in the Digital Era: A Network Analysis of Twitter and Occupy Wall Street

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14742837.2013.830969

3. Occupy Wall Street: After the Anarchist Moment by Jodi Dean

4. The Digital Evolution of Occupy Wall Street

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064679

5. Wall Street As Community of Fate: Toward Financial Industry Self-Regulation

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41038809?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


Group Project Work:

Topic 1- Occupy Wall Street Page: add other locations such as universities and international locations where interest towards Occupy Wall Street was shown and link the Occupy Wall Street location link to the section.

Topic 2- Occupy Cal: The effects of Occupy Cal and how it might have changed the culture of the Berkeley population, specifically career interests.

Topic 3- Lack of Organized Agenda: We could address the problem of unclear demands.

Topic 4- Responses to OWS: talk about financial institutions and corporations and their responses (new regulations, culture, pay, minority outreach, etc.) -~~~~

My name is Sofia and this is my sandbox. I use it for perfecting my editing skills on Wikipedia, while I practice being bold. [52]

Article Evaluation

The first article I have chosen to evaluate on Wikipedia is one about the Cuban Revolution. This relates to my Social Movements and Social Media course because we recently took some time to study the artwork of Cuban artists and political activist, Tania Bruguera. Bruguera creates art that speaks to the current political turmoil in Cuba and its affects on the citizens. The article does a very good job of summarizing the Cuban revolution as a whole by describing its precedence, how it played out, and later repercussions to the change in the political system. All sections of the article are relevant to the topic and more impressively, every mention of topics that may require outside knowledge to fully understand this article was properly referenced to another page where the reader could easily read up on them, such as the reference to the Nicaraguan Revolution. The article was also written in a way that ensured no preference neither for nor against the Castro Regime, but rather maintained a neutral stance while explaining the circumstances of the revolution. Lastly, I noticed some comments on the talk page of the Cuban Revolution article that mentioned some gaps in the storyline of the revolution. I went back and re-read the article and realized that changes were made to create a more well-rounded story by incorporating information that was labeled as missing in the talk page.
  1. ^ Weissman, Robert (October 19, 2011). "'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand". US News.
  2. ^ Lacey, Marc (2011-10-17). "The Occupy Movement's Common Thread Is Anger". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  3. ^ Indiviglio, Daniel. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  4. ^ "Why is Occupy Wall Street 'overwhelmingly white'?". 2011-11-28. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  5. ^ Ross, Janell (2011-10-06). "Occupy Wall Street Doesn't Adequately Represent Struggling Black Population, Experts Say". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  6. ^ "Occupy Wall Street's Race Problem". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  7. ^ "Occupy movement fails to connect with blacks". SFGate. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  8. ^ Campbell, Emahunn Raheem Ali (2011). "A Critique of the Occupy Movement from a Black Occupier". The Black Scholar. 41 (4): 42–51. doi:10.5816/blackscholar.41.4.0042. JSTOR 10.5816/blackscholar.41.4.0042. S2CID 152127615.
  9. ^ Monica, Paul R. La. "Big bonuses alive on Wall Street. Why?". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  10. ^ "Occupy This: Wall Street Pay Rises as Profits Fall". Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  11. ^ Fox, Emily Jane. "Wall Street paychecks back near pre-recession highs". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  12. ^ "Occupy Wall Street benefits Wall Street". The Daily Caller. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  13. ^ "Demonizing the Rich Misappropriates the Blame". The Daily Nexus. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  14. ^ Kain, E.D. "Occupy Wall Street Spreads Class Warfare Across the Country". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  15. ^ Ostroy, Andy (2012-05-31). "The Failure of Occupy Wall Street". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  16. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (2012). The Price of Inequality. Norton & Company. p. 116. ISBN 978-0393345063.
  17. ^ Banjo, Shelly. "Remember Occupy Wall Street? Probably not". Quartz. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  18. ^ Crovitz, L. Gordon (2012-01-29). "Occupy AstroTurf". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  19. ^ Ostroy, Andy (2012-05-31). "The Failure of Occupy Wall Street". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  20. ^ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  21. ^ Sorkin, Andrew Ross. "Occupy Wall Street: A Frenzy That Fizzled". DealBook. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  22. ^ Banjo, Shelly. "Remember Occupy Wall Street? Probably not". Quartz. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  23. ^ "Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Protesters Have Picked the Wrong Target - The Finance Professionals' Post". post.nyssa.org. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  24. ^ Paul, Ron (2011-10-20). "Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  25. ^ Indiviglio, Daniel. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  26. ^ "Michael Bloomberg: 'It Was Not The Banks That Created The Mortgage Crisis' [WATCH]". Huffington Post. 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  27. ^ Weissman, Robert (October 19, 2011). "'Occupy' Movement Purposely Has No Single, Set Demand". US News.
  28. ^ Lacey, Marc (2011-10-17). "The Occupy Movement's Common Thread Is Anger". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  29. ^ Indiviglio, Daniel. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  30. ^ "Why is Occupy Wall Street 'overwhelmingly white'?". 2011-11-28. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  31. ^ Ross, Janell (2011-10-06). "Occupy Wall Street Doesn't Adequately Represent Struggling Black Population, Experts Say". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  32. ^ "Occupy Wall Street's Race Problem". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  33. ^ "Occupy movement fails to connect with blacks". SFGate. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  34. ^ Monica, Paul R. La. "Big bonuses alive on Wall Street. Why?". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  35. ^ "Occupy This: Wall Street Pay Rises as Profits Fall". Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  36. ^ Fox, Emily Jane. "Wall Street paychecks back near pre-recession highs". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  37. ^ "Occupy Wall Street benefits Wall Street". The Daily Caller. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  38. ^ "Demonizing the Rich Misappropriates the Blame". The Daily Nexus. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  39. ^ Kain, E.D. "Occupy Wall Street Spreads Class Warfare Across the Country". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  40. ^ Ostroy, Andy (2012-05-31). "The Failure of Occupy Wall Street". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  41. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph (2012). The Price of Inequality. Norton & Company. p. 116. ISBN 978-0393345063.
  42. ^ Banjo, Shelly. "Remember Occupy Wall Street? Probably not". Quartz. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  43. ^ Crovitz, L. Gordon (2012-01-29). "Occupy AstroTurf". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  44. ^ Ostroy, Andy (2012-05-31). "The Failure of Occupy Wall Street". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  45. ^ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  46. ^ Sorkin, Andrew Ross. "Occupy Wall Street: A Frenzy That Fizzled". DealBook. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  47. ^ Banjo, Shelly. "Remember Occupy Wall Street? Probably not". Quartz. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  48. ^ "Why the "Occupy Wall Street" Protesters Have Picked the Wrong Target - The Finance Professionals' Post". post.nyssa.org. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  49. ^ Paul, Ron (2011-10-20). "Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  50. ^ Indiviglio, Daniel. "5 Reasons Why 'Occupy Wall Street' Won't Work". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  51. ^ "Michael Bloomberg: 'It Was Not The Banks That Created The Mortgage Crisis' [WATCH]". Huffington Post. 2011-11-01. Retrieved 2017-11-04.
  52. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sofiariv10/sandbox&oldid=1092068399"