|WikiProject Law||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Drug Policy|
Aww my first article. I appologize for putting up the section headings without any filler, I started writing this one a little too late, but I'll be sure to fill in those sections with at least the basic information tomorrow. -Jonamerica 06:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- (p.s. if it's poor wiki edicate to have empty headers I appologize, feel free to remove them. I put them there in case others wanted to add to the article before I get to it tomorrow, they'd know what areas would be helpful to work on.)
"Drug courts have been scientifically proven to significantly reduce drug use and crime and do it cheaper than any other justice strategy."
Going to need to see some serious citations on this.
references, and some clean up recommended
Hi there- brand new member, though I've come to wikipedia for info, actually how I ended up here today. I can update your references I think rather easily. A lot has come out in drug court literature during the 2000s. The cite you mention to Roman et al's study should be added (2003), and Belenko is a central author in drug court research. I could supplement and develop a number of areas. I think this is a good start, but there are topics and conditions of treatment you describe here that may be specific to certain jurisdictions' areas that were covered in the lit you cite. And, the approach to treatment is so-called "therapeutic jurisprudence" (my POV on "so-called"), involving a system of sanctions and rewards to change behavior. This needs fleshed out. I could help with this if you are open to these changes. Best, Valerie
- Please feel free to update the article. Wikipedia is all about many users updating articles, so no need to ask my permission. :) -Jonamerica (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Concern was raised by an editor about the recent split that I carried out. From my talk page:
- I work in the public policy space, and just noticedchanges to drug courts. I don't think this change, with a breakdown by geography, makes sense as the general drug court model is ideologically the same around the world. If anything, I think the text of original drug court page should be restored, with subsections for Australia, Britian, and the 2 or 3 other locations. A large majority of the drug courts, greater than 90%, are in the US, so the topic is highly US centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "
- "Sorry, I am not very good with Wikipedia so I created another post. This is the EXACT problem I have, this bias issue you mention, where the majority or the well funded can create bias. Essentially, the drug court research is 50/50 pro/against, BUT, there is a huge lobby machine pushing out its pro drug court research publically in the media, and this lobby has a financial incentive to do so. If anything, the research being published against drug courts is from FAR better sources, including Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, The Brookings Institute, the UK Justice Ministry, and others. The drug court lobby publishes mostly studies done by either drug courts themselves, paid for by drug courts, or done by industry associations. The drug court industry orginally wrote this article as a banner advertisement for the indusry, touting growth in drug courts and only research that supports their case. This is the most visible media venue/resource for drug courts in the world - moreso than newspaper articles, other websites, associations of drug court professionals, TV media, etc. Any law student, citizen, representative, ect. seeking to learn about drug courts, who googles drug court, comes up with this site first. It must be accurate, and unbaised for all.
- Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)"
I had split the article into Drug courts in Australia and Drug courts in the United States as a logical progression in article (and Wikipedia) growth and to avoid issues with systemic bias. In relation to the split out of the articles I don't think the concerns raised above are valid. There may be some concern about whether there is an adequate summary but this can be addressed with some editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree Alan's point here about moving discussion from various user pages back to the article. Here's some discussion from my talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a novice to Wikipedia, but help to maintain a few topics I have knowledge of as best as I can. One of these is called Drug Court. A gentlemen recently edited the website, some Wiki expert, but not an expert in the topic area. I find his edit annoying, as when you go to drug court, you now see a bunch of categories, but very little information like one used to - for instance, all you really see now is "drug court in australia," "drug court in us," "drug court in uk," and on, and on, and on. I saw in your talks you had an exchange over this categorization on other sites.
I wanted to know what you thought of this as more of an expert than I, and if it could be revert or some compromise made that actually put a real level on info on the main "drug court" page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you mean these edits. At first sight they're a reasonable split of a large article - moving content (not deleting it) to new articles at Drug courts in Australia etc. Just read these linked articles - all your content is still there, just re-arranged.
- WP has an international audience. Many readers will be interested in a topic in general, or that topic in their country, but may not be so interested in that topic everywhere in the world. This new structure makes it easier for readers to see the overall topic, and they can still read the per-country articles if they're interested.
- Perhaps this should have been discussed better beforehand at Talk:Drug court, but Alan Liefting instead followed the "bold" principle of WP:BRD and just went ahead and did it. He's entitled to do that, you're entitled to complain about it afterwards, maybe even reverse the change. As it is clearly now somewhat controversial, I'd recommend this is raised at the article talk page. Be careful though - per WP:CONSENSUS, asking the community for an overall opinion is also accepting that you're going to follow that consensus opinion, even if it disagrees with your standpoint.
- I've not read these articles in detail, so I could be missing some key point where they only make sense if read as one overall article: perhaps the Australian coverage makes detailed reference to the American content, or US policy was itself based on some earlier trials in Australia. Those could be valid reasons as to why a single article is clearly better. However in general, this is just the sort of article situation that's improved by a split like this, and so I'd support Alan's changes (even though I have a history of disagreeing with him over categorization). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- One comment on the readability of the drug court article is that, as you seem to be concerned, it may indeed have lost readability because content has moved to Drug courts in the United States. Now Drug courts in Australia isn't a problem - that's a simple (and quite dry) article that merely lists their use and distribution. However the US article includes some important history of how drug courts developed, and detail of their differences from other courts. This needs to appear in drug court itself.
- There would seem to be three options here:
- Duplicate this background content into both the US and the overall drug court articles. Duplication is OK between such articles (although both sections should be carefully edited, so that they include only the content relevant to that article. NB this doesn't mean "content relevant to only that article"! - there will still be overlap)
- Move the content back to the overall article. That may leave the US article a little bare, and some of this content is still highly relevant to the US article specifically.
- Reverse the split. This is after all simple. Nor is the un-split article too big to remain as a single article.
- Overall I'm on the fence here. I began by seeing this as a legitimate split, I now see it as having damaged the drug court article and must be fixed. I think that a split article could be repaired without too much effort, probably by some duplication. If a good fix isn't forthcoming though, I would support simply undoing the split as the way to achieve an acceptable article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)