Peter Bates, Kathy Hardwick, Katie Sanderson, Raschel Sanghera and Jeannie Clough
This article aims to investigate some of the pitfalls and potential of supporting people on a one‐to‐one basis in their community in order to stimulate improvements in practice.
Abstract
Purpose
This article aims to investigate some of the pitfalls and potential of supporting people on a one‐to‐one basis in their community in order to stimulate improvements in practice.
Design/methodology/approach
The article discusses a range of situations via several vignettes and draws advice out of these for support workers and their managers. Staff are encouraged to reflect on their approach to providing support in community settings in the context of person‐centred planning and Wolfensberger's theories.
Findings
Staff are encouraged to plan carefully so that they can hold back from doing too much for the person, engage as full participants rather than passive bystanders, and seek opportunities for the person to develop informal connections in the community. Managers are encouraged to develop risk management systems that promote contact with ordinary citizens and a culture of community participation through training and mentoring support staff.
Originality/value
Whilst most support staff willingly recount stories that illustrate the complexity of providing 1:1 support in the community, they have minimal access to publications, training or supervision on this topic. The article will stimulate further reflection by managers and front line staff so that people are supported more effectively in the community of their choice.
Details
Keywords
Kathy West and Janet Williamson
The purpose of this paper is to report on a research study that entailed the rigorous evaluation of the quality of a large multidisciplinary sample of Wikipedia articles. The…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to report on a research study that entailed the rigorous evaluation of the quality of a large multidisciplinary sample of Wikipedia articles. The objective of the paper is to assess whether Wikipedia can be used and recommended as a credible reference or information tool.
Design/methodology/approach
The 106 randomly generated Wikipedia articles are analyzed and evaluated on specific criteria (completeness, accuracy, presentation, objectivity, and overall quality). Articles are reviewed from a broad range of subject areas: arts, popular culture, entertainment, geography, history, science, technology, people, entities, and politics.
Findings
The findings indicate that overall the articles are objective, clearly presented, reasonably accurate, and complete, although some are poorly written, contain unsubstantiated information, and/or provide shallow coverage of a topic.
Research limitations/implications
Further research on evaluating Wikipedia entries should include reviewing outward links to more accurately assess overall quality.
Practical implications
Wikipedia has a role as a reference and instruction tool.
Originality/value
This paper provides empirical data on a large number of articles on a wide range of disciplines in Wikipedia, supporting its use as an acceptable encyclopedia.