User:ItsSader/sandbox

The Wikipedia article Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a collaborative article discussing a brief history and overview of the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The information contained in the article does not adhere to the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, due to some inconsistencies with sources of information. Despite this, the article gives a brief history of the legislation, as well as discusses implications of the legislation currently. The article has unique differences to other scholarly articles on the subject, mainly due to the layout and nature of Wikipedia itself.

Quality of Information

The background section of the Wikipedia article, Equal Pay Act of 1963 is short in comparison to similar articles on the subject. The background section gives the brief statement that, “In 1944, Republican congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley from Buffalo, N.Y. introduced H.R. 5056, Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on Account of Sex, which did not pass at the time”.. This is sourced from a National Archives Copy of the original referenced bill. While this is a credible source, additional sources would have added more context to the creation and need for the “Equal Pay Act of 1963”. For example, on the National Parks Service website the need for the Equal Pay Act is described as arising from the sudden deployment of American men into the military during World War II. Women filled these empty positions, and their unions advocated for raising their wages to match what men had earned in those roles. The Union’s intent was to prevent future low wages for the men when they returned. These factors add greater context to why Republican Congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley introduced the bill initially. The Wikipedia article lacks context.

According to a warning message at the top of the Wikipedia page, this article may have “Link Rot” because many of the relevant links on the page are not full citations. This issue makes comparisons to the original source material harder. This is one obvious difference between this Wikipedia article and a resource like the article, “Equal Pay Act of 1963” from the National Parks Service website. For example, the Wikipedia article on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 credits Thomas Sowell for critiquing the Act for women’s difficulties in workplace discrimination and joblessness. In an effort to further research Thomas Sowell’s statement, I was unable to find the edition reportedly published in 2004 of “Basic Economics” that the Wikipedia article cites. The book was published in 2000, and there have been several editions since then.The eBook available through Oregon State University’s library database is from 2014. The fact that the Wikipedia article’s source is so difficult to find makes it difficult to verify as a reliable resource. Ideally, this citation would be updated to reflect a more accessible version of Thomas Sowell’s book, Basic Economics.

Language and Bias

When looking for biases in scholarly articles it is important to take the author’s tone and language into account. Along with this, it is also important to note whether or not opinions are followed by counter-points. For the Wikipedia article Equal Pay Act of 1963, the tone seems to be very neutral with statistical information being cited throughout the article. Towards the last section of the article, it is noted that a Department of Labor study in 2007 concluded that the wage gap between men and women could be a facade; with personal choices simply being the cause for the difference in salary. However, the next paragraph cites a new study from 2014 that explains women of color have a larger wage gap when compared to white men. Essentially, this would mean that women of color are dealing with 2 separate types of discrimination: racial and gender. These statements are examples of the author(s) providing different perspectives on the application of the Equal Pay Act of 1963; hoping to give a balanced synopsis of the effects and shortcomings of the legislation.

Once again comparing the Wikipedia article to the article "Equal Pay Act of 1963" from the National Parks Service (NPS), there are many subtle differences. The NPS article gives a clear and concise breakdown of the major reasons for the passage of the legislation. The article is very neutral, to the point where it is simply a historical summary of the events leading up to the passage of the EPA. Although the article notes opposition to the act at the time of it’s passage, it does so in a neutral way that merely explains the point of the opposition at its time. This is where the Wikipedia article and the NPS article differ the most: The NPS article simply describes the reaction to the EPA when it was passed; where the Wikipedia article dives deeper into the discussion about the effects of the legislation and where the EPA falls short currently.

Writing and Editing Process

Lastly, while comparing the editorial processes of traditional authoritative texts to those of Wikipedia, there are major differences with how each presents itself. Most notably, Wikipedia’s use of hyperlinks and internal links contrasts to how scholarly texts generally cite sources. Another example would be the built in table of contents feature on Wikipedia, whereas most other authoritative sources do not list a table of contents (when the length of the article is held to a single page).