![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Fair trade#Impact studies. |
The image Image:BrewingJustice.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Fairtrade Impact Studies page does not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria. It provides short statements of some of the data in some publications.
There is no attempt to provide representative research. Instead people seem to be using the page as a bulletin board or blog to publicize their publications. This is not a legitimate function of an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia is not an abstracting service: it is an encyclopaedia – CAB international, Agricola, etc would be appropriate places to put abstracts. They do attempt full coverage, while this page has been recipient of a targeted selection of publications
There are two related biases. First there is a bias in which Fairtrade cooperatives to study. Second there is a bias in which of the studies to present on this page.
It would be misleading and biased to publish full details of the very few people who smoke 100 cigarettes a day and reach the age of 100, and to claim or suggest that this heavy smoking leads to longlivety. Honesty requires that the large number of people who do not smoke and reach this age are also mentioned, and the high death rate of those who do smoke is mentioned. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi applies: to suppress the truth is to imply a falsehood. These studies are biased because the people doing the research choose to research what seem to be successful Fairtrade cooperatives. There is no attempt to look at the unsuccessful cooperatives. There is no mention of or impact study of, say, the 50% least successful cooperatives. Some of the studies cited on this page, probably nearly all, were written by people already committed to Fairtrade when they started their investigation. Indeed some of the publications cited in Murray, Raynolds and Taylor 2003 were written by members or employees of Fairtrade cooperatives, implying bias in both the selection of the sample cooperatives and in the carrying out of the study.
The selection of studies to report here is biased. For example, there is a failure to include papers which give the opposite picture. For example, Bacon 2005 is cited, but not papers which produce the opposite conclusion[ Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497–511is cited, but not Mendoza, R., & J. Bastiaensen, J. (2003). “Fair Trade and the Coffee Crisis in the Nicaraguan Segovias.” Small Enterprise Development , 14(2), Valkila, J., Haaparanta, P., & Niemi, N. (2010). Empowering Coffee Traders? The Coffee Value Chain from Nicaraguan Fair Trade Farmers to Finnish Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics , 97:257-270, Valkila, J. (2009). Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua - Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics , 68 3018-3025.
The page gives a line or two of ‘results’. Few of the studies reported were intended to be ‘impact studies’ and fewer still meet the normal requirements for ‘impact studies’. They are instead case studies, which may give a lot of valuable information, on how the cooperative worked, how the Fairtrade fitted in, and what problems arose, and what unintended harmful effects were observed, for example. Some are little more than unevidenced journalism. It is misleading in the extreme to select one or two favourable outcomes, a couple of sentences from a 40,000 word report, perhaps, and present it as a definitive ‘favourable impact’. No meaningful impact study identifies just a single impact. No meaningful impact study fails to recognize that there are negative effects as well as positive effects to any intervention. AidWorker ( talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has firm guidelines on this. Wikipedia forbids the citation of primary studies like these. The guideline does not consider the possibility that people might go a step further and select a particular datum or selection of data from a primary publication and present it as being in some way representative of all. I do not believe that the editors considered that anyone would do it.
It is relevant that Fairtrade is a commercial brand which big businesses in the rich countries are making a lot of money out of.
The article as it stands at this point primarily cites a single source: Griffiths. If there were a Wikipedia article specifically on the notable subject of his stance on fair trade impact studies, this would be OK. But that's not what the article is supposed to be about. Yakushima ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The last change by AidWorker violated WP:PRESERVE. I'm restoring the article to the state it was in before the almost-wholesale deletion of sources besides Griffiths and one other.
References
For the record, the following is the edit objected to: link. I replaced the copy/pasted text with a diff; it was hard to follow the discussion. jonkerz ♠talk 15:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
References
This entry is rather problematic. It reads more like an essay or academic paper than an encyclopedic overview and the first paragraph is way to long. If I have some time, I'll try to fix it up, but I'd just like to point that out. Canadianism ( talk) 18:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is an encyclopedic review of the subject by one of the top economists in the area who is deeply immersed in the literature. It is necessary to state the criteria etc, clearly and unequivocally or else the page gets flooded with references to a highly biased selection of bad term papers and dissertations. By all means rewrite, but do not lose this. AidWorker ( talk) 18:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is worrying that someone should have put in a statement that Peter Griffiths is a retired Conservative politician, when ten seconds on Google would have shown that he is an economist best known for preventing a famine in a developing country. He is not a politician nor Conservative. Similarly changes were made to a statement on the coverage of a review paper, contradicting what the paper itself claims to have covered. AidWorker ( talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this article about "fair trade" or the organization "Fairtrade"? The terms are used interchangeably in this article, but do not have identical meanings. Additionally, the article is not about the stated topic of fair trade impact studies themselves (no specific studies are listed in the body of the article or examined), is not concise, is not encyclopedic, and does not have adequate citations. This article presents a negative opinion against either fair trade practices or the organization Fairtrade, making it a useless article for a reader seeking unbiased info on fair trade impact studies. 172.58.97.154 ( talk) 07:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Fair trade#Impact studies. |
The image Image:BrewingJustice.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The Fairtrade Impact Studies page does not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria. It provides short statements of some of the data in some publications.
There is no attempt to provide representative research. Instead people seem to be using the page as a bulletin board or blog to publicize their publications. This is not a legitimate function of an encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia is not an abstracting service: it is an encyclopaedia – CAB international, Agricola, etc would be appropriate places to put abstracts. They do attempt full coverage, while this page has been recipient of a targeted selection of publications
There are two related biases. First there is a bias in which Fairtrade cooperatives to study. Second there is a bias in which of the studies to present on this page.
It would be misleading and biased to publish full details of the very few people who smoke 100 cigarettes a day and reach the age of 100, and to claim or suggest that this heavy smoking leads to longlivety. Honesty requires that the large number of people who do not smoke and reach this age are also mentioned, and the high death rate of those who do smoke is mentioned. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi applies: to suppress the truth is to imply a falsehood. These studies are biased because the people doing the research choose to research what seem to be successful Fairtrade cooperatives. There is no attempt to look at the unsuccessful cooperatives. There is no mention of or impact study of, say, the 50% least successful cooperatives. Some of the studies cited on this page, probably nearly all, were written by people already committed to Fairtrade when they started their investigation. Indeed some of the publications cited in Murray, Raynolds and Taylor 2003 were written by members or employees of Fairtrade cooperatives, implying bias in both the selection of the sample cooperatives and in the carrying out of the study.
The selection of studies to report here is biased. For example, there is a failure to include papers which give the opposite picture. For example, Bacon 2005 is cited, but not papers which produce the opposite conclusion[ Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497–511is cited, but not Mendoza, R., & J. Bastiaensen, J. (2003). “Fair Trade and the Coffee Crisis in the Nicaraguan Segovias.” Small Enterprise Development , 14(2), Valkila, J., Haaparanta, P., & Niemi, N. (2010). Empowering Coffee Traders? The Coffee Value Chain from Nicaraguan Fair Trade Farmers to Finnish Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics , 97:257-270, Valkila, J. (2009). Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua - Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics , 68 3018-3025.
The page gives a line or two of ‘results’. Few of the studies reported were intended to be ‘impact studies’ and fewer still meet the normal requirements for ‘impact studies’. They are instead case studies, which may give a lot of valuable information, on how the cooperative worked, how the Fairtrade fitted in, and what problems arose, and what unintended harmful effects were observed, for example. Some are little more than unevidenced journalism. It is misleading in the extreme to select one or two favourable outcomes, a couple of sentences from a 40,000 word report, perhaps, and present it as a definitive ‘favourable impact’. No meaningful impact study identifies just a single impact. No meaningful impact study fails to recognize that there are negative effects as well as positive effects to any intervention. AidWorker ( talk) 18:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has firm guidelines on this. Wikipedia forbids the citation of primary studies like these. The guideline does not consider the possibility that people might go a step further and select a particular datum or selection of data from a primary publication and present it as being in some way representative of all. I do not believe that the editors considered that anyone would do it.
It is relevant that Fairtrade is a commercial brand which big businesses in the rich countries are making a lot of money out of.
The article as it stands at this point primarily cites a single source: Griffiths. If there were a Wikipedia article specifically on the notable subject of his stance on fair trade impact studies, this would be OK. But that's not what the article is supposed to be about. Yakushima ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The last change by AidWorker violated WP:PRESERVE. I'm restoring the article to the state it was in before the almost-wholesale deletion of sources besides Griffiths and one other.
References
For the record, the following is the edit objected to: link. I replaced the copy/pasted text with a diff; it was hard to follow the discussion. jonkerz ♠talk 15:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
References
This entry is rather problematic. It reads more like an essay or academic paper than an encyclopedic overview and the first paragraph is way to long. If I have some time, I'll try to fix it up, but I'd just like to point that out. Canadianism ( talk) 18:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is an encyclopedic review of the subject by one of the top economists in the area who is deeply immersed in the literature. It is necessary to state the criteria etc, clearly and unequivocally or else the page gets flooded with references to a highly biased selection of bad term papers and dissertations. By all means rewrite, but do not lose this. AidWorker ( talk) 18:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is worrying that someone should have put in a statement that Peter Griffiths is a retired Conservative politician, when ten seconds on Google would have shown that he is an economist best known for preventing a famine in a developing country. He is not a politician nor Conservative. Similarly changes were made to a statement on the coverage of a review paper, contradicting what the paper itself claims to have covered. AidWorker ( talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this article about "fair trade" or the organization "Fairtrade"? The terms are used interchangeably in this article, but do not have identical meanings. Additionally, the article is not about the stated topic of fair trade impact studies themselves (no specific studies are listed in the body of the article or examined), is not concise, is not encyclopedic, and does not have adequate citations. This article presents a negative opinion against either fair trade practices or the organization Fairtrade, making it a useless article for a reader seeking unbiased info on fair trade impact studies. 172.58.97.154 ( talk) 07:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)