Wikipediais an online Wikipedia which is accessed free of charge. It is themost popular online reference materials that allows the users tofreely access and edit its content. The encyclopedia was launched byLarry Wales and Jimmy Sanger in 2001. Since then, the WikipediaFoundation-owned encyclopedia has been ranked as one of the mostpopular websites in the world. Today, its contents are written in 295languages including English, French, Japanese, Vietnamese, Wary-Wary,Spanish, Italian, Russian, Dutch, German, Cebuano, and Swedish (Azer,2015). Despite its popularity, Wikipedia has been criticized on thegrounds of accuracy, credibility, and quality because its authorshipis not done by experts. The purpose of this paper is to compare andcontrast Croftand Parish’s article called ‘Care integration in the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act: Implications for behavioralhealth’ and the Affordable Care Act described in the Wikipedia.
TheAffordable Care Act, popularly known as Obama Care is a comprehensivehealth insurance policy that was signed into law on March 23, 2010 byPresident Barrack Obama(Moriya, Selden & Simon, 2016).The act was introduced to improve accessibility to healthcareservices by the low, middle and high income earners across thecountry. It would advocate for the transformation of primary healthcare delivery by introducing a technological, financial, andclinical-friendliness. In other words, the aim of the act was toimprove affordability, quality, and health insurance by reducing thecosts of health care services and increasing the insurance coveragein the nation. Since its introduction, the act has greatlytransformed the US healthcare system. More people can nowadays accessquality healthcare services than it was before.
Compareand Contrast the Description of Obama Care in Wikipedia and theArticle
Wikipediaand the article provide a comprehensive discussion on Obama Care. Theway in which the plan is described in these two resources share lotsof similarities and differences. Whereas the article was published inthe year 2013, Wikipedia has been constantly updated because it isalways under review.
Thefirst similarity between the article and Wikipedia is that theycontain more or less similar content. The two resources havediscussions that revolve around Obama Care. They provide a lot ofinformation on the plan and explain different things about it. On itspart, the article explains how the plan has been applied by thehealthcare professionals. It gives detailed information on theapplication of the plan and how helpful it has been in the country.It examines how people have been empowered to access qualityhealthcare services. Similar explanations are given in Wikipedia inwhich the readers are adequately informed on the benefits of the plan(Oberlander,2012).Wikipedia goes ahead to provide a detailed explanation on theorganization of the plan and how it is implemented in the healthcaresystem. Despite adopting different approaches, the two resources do agreat job in providing informative data on the topic of Obama Care.
Theother similarity between the two resources is that they provide acritical discussion on the topic. Both the articles appear to becritiquing the topic(Georgescu, et al., 2013).In the article, a thorough analysis is provided on how the plan hasbeen instrumental in providing behavioral and mental healthcareservices to the Americans. Apart from focusing on the successes ofthis aspect of care, the article digs deeper into the weaknesses.Here, it describes how ineffective the plan has been. For example, itexplains that the integration of services has not been effectivelydone. In Wikipedia, the weaknesses of the article are explained.After telling the readers about the goals and benefits of the plan,the writers go ahead to give a critical appraisal of the plan. Here,they explain how the article has been criticized for failing to meetthe needs of diverse sections of the American population(Atzori & Zaniolo, 2015).
Despitesharing these similarities, the two resources have lots ofdifferences. This was obviously expected because the resources werepublished at different times by different authors, for differentpurposes and audience. Therefore, even if they discuss about ObamaCare, they do it in different ways. First and foremost, the resourcesdiffer in the scope of discussion. In Wikipedia, everything isdiscussed about the plan. In the article, only a small aspect of theplan is discussed. The authors took time to write about the history,legislation, provisions, enforcement, implementation, politicalaspects, public opinion, benefits, weaknesses, criticisms, and thefuture of the plan(Tomaszewski & MacDonald, 2016).However, in the article, the discussion is narrowed down to only oneessential health service-mental and behavior care. Here, the researchwas narrowed down to analyze how effective the plan has been as faras the delivery of mental health services are amongst the insuredAmericans.
Theother difference between the article and Wikipedia is that the formeris a product of research work that was published in 2013 and onlycontains information as at that date. This differs from Wikipedia inwhich the article has been under constant review(Azer, 2014).In the article, the research was done by the scholars after coming upwith a research problem, question and aims. Therefore, after thecollection and analysis of the data, the paper was peer-reviewed andpublished in the journal. Since then, no information has beenupdated. On the other hand, the Wikipedia version has been underconstant review. An analysis of its history reveals that the articlehas been edited and updated more than 100 times. In fact, the latestupdates were made last month when attempts were made by the TrumpRegime to repeal the act(Lieven, 2016).This implies that the Wikipedia article is more updated than theresearch article.
Finally,the two resources differ in their organization. The article is aproduct of a research work that was done by scholars. Therefore, itis organized as an academic or scholarly work. Meaning, it has anabstract, research questions, aims, objectives, backgroundinformation, methodology, data collection, data analysis, discussion,and conclusion. Each of these sections is organized in a propermanner. For example, in the abstract, a brief, but informativesummary of the entire research is presented. In the methodologysection, all the issues to do with the participants, sampling,recruitment, data collection and analysis is provided. Finally, underthe discussion section, a critical and in-depth explanation andinterpretation of the research findings is done. All these were notdone in Wikipedia in which the information is organized in achronological manner. The reason for this is because Wikipedia wasnot written by experts(Allen, 2017).This is why many people criticize Wikipedia for being disorganized,unfinished, and incredible.
Wikipediahas been used as a source of information for many online reads.However, it has been faulted because it is resource not written bycredible authorities. The way in which Wikipedia and the articlediscusses about Obama Care share lots of similarities anddifferences. Unlike the article whose research centers on one aspectof the plan, Wikipedia nearly discusses everything about it. This iswhy the article is more credible than Wikipedia.
Allen,B. (2017). Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia by DariuszJemielniak
Atzori,M., & Zaniolo, C. (2015, June). Expressivity and Accuracy ofBy-Example Structured
Querieson Wikipedia. In EnablingTechnologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative
Enterprises(WETICE), 2015 IEEE 24th International Conference on(pp. 239-244).
Azer,S. A. (2014). Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articleson Wikipedia: are
theysuitable as learning resources for medical students?. Europeanjournal of
Azer,S. A. (2015). Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medicalstudents? Evaluating
respiratorytopics. Advancesin physiology education,39(1),5-14.
Brookfield,S. D. (2015). Teaching Students to Think Critically About SocialMedia. New
Directionsfor Teaching and Learning,2015(144),47-56.
Georgescu,M., et al., (2013, May). Temporal summarization of event-relatedupdates in
wikipedia.In Proceedingsof the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web(pp.
Lieven,A. (2016). Clinton and Trump: Two Faces of American Nationalism.Survival58.5, 7-
Moriya,A. S., Selden, T. M., & Simon, K. I. (January 5, 2016). LittleChange Seen In Part-Time
EmploymentAs A Result of the Affordable Care Act.Health Affairs. 35(1): 119–123.
Oberlander,J. (2012). The future of Obamacare. NewEngland Journal of Medicine,367(23),
Tomaszewski,R., & MacDonald, K. I. (2016). A Study of Citations to Wikipediain Scholarly Publications. Science& Technology Libraries,35(3),246-261.
No related posts.