Talk:AmeriCorps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AmeriCorps article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old talk

Much work is needed on the list of AmeriCorps organizations. AmeriCorps National Direct, AmeriCorps NCCC, and AmeriCorps Promise Fellows have none listed yet, and the other two sections are incomplete. I'd appreciate any help with it. -- LGagnon

Do you want to make those subpages, or just sections of the main page? I'm an NCCC applicant this year, so I can probably come up with at least a few paragraphs summarizing that branch of the program. --MC MasterChef 20:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where to go with this article at the moment. I guess keeping the NCCC info in here is ok. -- LGagnon 07:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is the place to be listing every single AmeriCorps program. There are so many, and they're constantly changing. It would be far better to give links to some example programs and provide multiple links to the Corporation's website. As a current VISTA, I'll try to gather together some more info regarding the Corporation itself and the history of the program. treebeard

[edit] Average age of Americorps participants?

I'm 36 and wanting to spend a year trailblazing or doing some other outdoorsy environmentally focused activity, and Americorps sounded perfect until someone suggested most participants would be just out of college. I really don't want to be the grandma on the team. I'm already feeling old and freaky for not being married; I kind of wanted to be surrounded by others in my age group who are like minded about the environment and being physically active and wanting to make a positive difference. Being surrounded by kids just starting out in life I think is going to just be depressing, given I haven't really moved forward since age 22! Without going into psychology, anyone have some factoids about average age of participants in these programs (I know there are the occassional 85 year olds, but I'm talking average, or mean, not the rare exception!)

NCCC is only for 18-24 year-olds. I know plenty of older partcipants work with state and local programs. Call 202-606-5000 for more info.

I don't think the average age is needed. NCCC is age limited as are some other specific programs (I believe City Year has limits too) but most of the programs are only limited to 18 and up. The only real requirement for most programs is a Diploma or GED. There are of course exceptions. I know of one program in St Louis that the first person in the section could be excited about. Anyway, I've seen AmeriCorps work to make everyone feel included and actively seeks out people of all ages who are interested in their programs. Dividebyzero

[edit] NCCC And Weasel Words

First, this subsection has been peppered with weasel words in the past year or so. For those who don't understand what constitutes "weasel words" per Wikipedia standards, feel free to check here --> Weasel Words.

The OMB is not the Whitehouses "own" , as intimated in the article. The OMB is entirely independent, as much as certain people would like to blame "Bush" for everything under the sun. The whole "praised by some conservatives" thing is weasel-wordery to a tee, in addition to numerous other examples of WW's. Instead of editing out all of the NPOV sort of stuff, I thought i'd start a talk on the discussion page about this first. There is an undeniable political bend to most (but not all) NCCC alums, thus it is extremely easy for NPOV sort of things to slip by since most people seeking out the article will be like-minded. I think we should at least hold some heights and standards by eliminating the partisanship and simply report facts as they are. --FactsAndHonesty 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, someone cleaned it up. Weasel Words tag appropriately removed. --FactsAndHonesty 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

This article is a copy of the AmeriCorp website
I reverted it to a version that seemed less flagrant. I did not mean to undo any constructive changes, and am sorry if I have inadvertantly done so.
--Haikon 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely undid constructive changes, and it is not a copy of the website. I wrote completely new prose for it and cited a variety of references that extend beyond the AmeriCorps website. What you did was completely bogus, undoing what other editors, including myself, spent a great deal of time doing. Major revisions should be discussed before you do them, particularly when they are cited as well as that prose is. I will add more citations and rework the prose more, but wow. Mmmm. - Freechild 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I did not erase anything. I did not erase one word of anything that anyone wrote. Every link that was cited as a reference was a link to the AmeriCorps website. That's why I added the words "According to the AmeriCorps website." If you want to add other links to other websites, please go ahead. Grundle2600 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. You were talking to someone else. Grundle2600 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a press release, not a legitimate article. And when I added criticisms with sources, they were deleted.

I noticed that every single so-called "reference" in this article was from the AmeriCorps website. That's not an article. It's a press release.

So I added some criticisms, along with sources. But then someone erased them.

This is not an article. It's a press release.

Grundle2600 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the intro line "According to the AmeriCorps website" from the beginning of every section because its not necessary. An editor inserted the line in the lead, and that's enough; readers can locate the sources on their own.
I also cleaned up the criticism section, including the reference style used. I think its a little ironic for someone to complain about using single source when the editor who wrote this section originally used three sources for four long paragraphs of info. Alas, I will leave it stand for now. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Three sources for one section, is a lot better than one source for the entire article! I never erase anyone's stuff. I only add stuff, so that all points of view will be present. Grundle2600 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow! I really like the way you fixed up that section. It's way better now! Thanks for doing that! Grundle2600 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag inserted into the criticism section, namely because it was put there by an anonymous IP and not explained here. I presume that it was inserted into the criticism because on WP it seems that any criticism is inherently seen as NPOV. To counter that concern I've created a section on "Successes" - however, everything I've found in a quick google search alludes to one longitudinal study that is only available on the A*C website. So the successes section should be expanded. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm fixing to remove the neutrality tag on the article. • Freechild'sup? 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

I don't know enough about Americorps to intelligent edit the article, but I'll just throw this out. A quick readthrough makes me suspect James Bovard is being given a tad too much weight here. Americorps is , at the least, an internationally known multimillion dollar organization, but about half the article is devoted to the criticism from an author who doesn't seem _particularly_ notable.

Just my two-cents-- i'll throw it out there but I won't try to fix it myself, since pretty much all I know about Americorps is what I just read here. :). I willl put a pov-check template up. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add, one quick fix, if others agree, would probably be to thin out the criticism just a tad , while still leaving the major points intact. And then to round out the successes section, which might be a bit sparse. --Alecmconroy 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism is out-of-balance with the rest of the article, and that the cited author is given too much credibility. However, I am sensitive to the boosterism this government program often suffers, and will cry fowl at any attempt to eradicate criticism without just cause. • Freechild'sup? 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who orignally created the criticism section. And I had a very good reason to do so. When I first read this article, it was nothing but a copy from the Americorps website. Every single source was from the Americorps website. It was nothing buy a puff piece. So that's why I added the criticism section. And even though all the praise was sourced from the Americorps website, I did not erase any of it. Whoever keeps erasing the criticism is doing so because they are afraid of people finding out the truth. Please stop erasing the criticism. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Grundle2600, I'm glad you responded to the editing that's been ongoing. FYI, I added the original citations from the A*C website, primarily because there were no citations to begin with. However, you'll also notice I've been reverting all the attempts to eradicate the criticism section, as well. I share your concerns about the article, and will continue to watch it. • Freechild'sup? 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am an Americorps Alum (NCCC)- spent a year of my life, full time, in the program. Americorps programs are *severely* prone to boosterism, given the nature of most of the participants (who definitely 'trend' towards certain idealist archetypes) - Americorps is the sort of well-intentioned program that rings very profound to certain people, often times at the expense of valid criticisms. Finding a NPOV balance in Americorps articles can be damn near impossible (feel free to check the Americorps NCCC talk archives for examples of this) but thusfar, Bovard seems to be the only traditional media person who has made a point to criticize it on a formal level. --LoverOfArt (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As a multi-year alum myself I understand your perspective, and have carefully edited and monitored this article for WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel and WP:Neutral. However, I believe Bovard was receiving too much attention in the criticism section, regardless of whether he was the only one saying anything - which he is not. If anyone wants to see more substantive criticism in the article, please add it, along with reliable citations from a variety of sources. After this recent cleaning though, I do notice that there is no material cited from after 1998. That might be just about the time that A*C criticism picked up and became powerful. If an editor was truly concerned with the absence of criticism in the article that would be something to contribute. • Freechild'sup? 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some of the criticisms back. If anyone wants to add any more examples of success to the success section, then please do so. If the evidence shows more waste than successes, then that should be reflected in the article.

So far, I haven't been able to find any evidence that Americorps is more successful or cost effective compared to private charities. All of my evidence shows that Americorps is more wasteful compared to private charities, and that it's no different than any other kind of pork barrel spending program. This evidence should be reflected in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)