Talk:Participatory budgeting

message: I have extended the article and removed some of the unref. material. Still needs a lot of work.
--SasiSasi (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: I consider the following a weasel worded sentence: It is said they are usually attended almost only by militants to the Worker's Party and akin organisations. It is said by whom? Qwertyus 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem Qwertyus mentioned has been removed, so I've removed the 'weasel' tag.  Also I've added some names of scholars that have studied Porto Alegre's PB system, as I imagine saying 'many scholars' could also be considered weaselly.  Saamah 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: The lead read this way: 
Various studies have suggested that participatory budgeting results in more equitable public spending, higher quality of life, increased satisfaction of basic needs, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents), and democratic and citizenship learning.http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03252-8.html
...but the reference provided definitely didn't make any claims quite that profound/definitive.  I'm retaining it here in case someone has access to more of those "various studies" that back all of this up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  amended lead 

message: Great article, I just think it needs some minor changes. First, I think you need to elaborate more on the steps for PB listed in the intro and make that work within your article. Second, is there any results on how PB has worked in New York? It seems really short so try to elaborate more on how PB has worked in the rest of the world and whether it has been successful or not. Overall, great job though! Drg81 (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Overall the article does a good job on offering a clear and simple understanding on what participatory budgeting is. I like how different aspects were included (locally, state-wide, and internationally). I also like how the history section included different view points! However, the article could use some more work in references and citing. There was a couple of broken links and some sources that were not linked at all. Also, you could work more on coverage. Some sections offered longer content than others. But overall, the article was really good. Good job everyone!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrj17 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The first Paragraph is clear and concise, and gives a good definition of what PB is, and what it is related to, which helps to give further meaning and context to the word. However, the last sentence comes across as favoring PB, and seems bias. I would suggest raising the point that it can be useful (i.e. willingness to pay taxes), and raise another point of how it can be problematic in some situations. The History of PB was a large section on this article, which helps to further define, and create a sense of understanding on the purpose of PB and how it came about. Another key point was implementation of PB. There were many subsections to give context of application in many different parts of the world. The Criticism section also seemed to be a key point, even though it was short. I would suggest looking over that section for grammatical errors, and possible elaboration on issues in PB(one sentence starts with "or", which seems awkward when reading). Overall the article is focused clearly and provides plenty of sources. Even though there are many sources and scholars in this page I would be wary to not sound too bias and geared to the favoring of PB. I like how this article is organized, and provides plenty of examples which really helps the reader to comprehend what participatory budgeting is, and how it works. I think this article needs to be revised to make sure and take out any biases there are, and ensure that all points of view, positive and negative, are taken into consideration. Also, I would like to see some of the examples like New York, and Argentina elaborated on to better understand how PB worked there, and a further explanation of the criticism involved with PB, and why it can be controversial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelliehenson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEER REVIEW 

message: This article provides a good definition of what Participatory Budgeting is and how it works. The content of this page has to do mainly with the history of PB and the functions that take place in different countries across the world. The article can go more in depth about how Participatory Budgeting works in other nations, some of those paragraphs such as New York, Argentina and California were brief. The article seems to do a good job of detailing how PB works in Porto Alegre but the same focus doesn't go to the other political bodies it wants to talk about. The "Outcomes section was useful and provided good information as well as the "Criticism" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchaze10 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Dear phenomenal Wikipedians,
In the process of improving the article, I have made some major changes in order to render the article more comprehensive and informative. 
* I have written-up what is now the final paragraph in the lead section. Then I have moved the previous final paragraphs in the lead section under a new section called 'Procedure'. 
This is still to be worked on, but I have done as such because I believe the democratic elements embedded in the procedures of PB needs to be highlighted further. I will be including images of a very general demonstration of PB as well as more specific examples of PB structures from municipalities such as Porto Alegre, Seoul, and etc. 
* I have added 'Outcomes' under 'History'. Originally 'Oucomes' was under 'Implementation' for 'The Brazilian Model' (now 'Brazil'). The World Bank Group's report on Porto Alegre's outcomes, I believe, is more relevant to the description of PB's history explicitly in regards to Porto Alegre (how it began, how it worked, and how it succeeded). 
* I have changed the title 'Implementation' to 'Implementation and Policy Diffusion'.
* I have removed a section called 'Rest of the World'. All the text under that section is now included as the second paragraph in the lead section of 'Implementation and Policy Diffusion'. I made this change, because putting 'Rest of the World' in the middle of implementation examples, especially after the Brazilian example, makes the article sound too subjective on Brazil. This way, the examples are structured to have a more comprehensive presence. 
* For 'Implementation and Policy Diffusion', I have categorized all the examples by nations. There was much thought put into making this decision because I was unsure how to structure it "best". I chose to do it by country (and I have chosen countries from different continents on purpose) because I thought it was most important to show how PB has varied through international diffusion. 
* 'Boston' example has been included in the lead section paragraph of 'Implementation and Policy Diffusion'. It was only a sentence that did not deserve a whole section. 'New York' has been included under United States of America in order to be consistent with the categorization by nation. 
* 'United Kingdom' 'Republic of Korea' 'India' 'South Africa' are examples that I researched and added. 'Peru' will be added soon. I have chosen these countries specifically in order to represent all continents more or less. Plus, these were nations with adequate amount of research material so that I could write sufficiently per country.
* I have left 'Iceland' and 'Buenos Aires', but they do seem a bit awkward in the bottom. My current thoughts are to keep them. 
These are the changes that I have made up to this point. There will be more to come, such as adding text to the 'Procedure' section (please don't erase yet!). There was a lot of dissecting, categorizing, and reshuffling of the original text as well as the text that I have added. I have not deleted too much (though I have moved them around a lot), and I don't plan on deleting the previously written texts anymore. Please let me know if you have any comments or critiques that can improve the article further!
My322 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes in the article 

message: Hello all,
I have made additions to the "United States of America" section. It previously only contained New York City, and a mention of Chicago. I have made additions now with multiple other processes, which are bracketed under subsections entitled "Municipal Processes"; "Housing Complex Processes"; and "Youth, School, and College Processes." Each of these subsections includes content about processes ranging from Boston, to Texas, to NYC, and elsewhere. It also includes a note about advocacy in LA for a PB process, with detail on that.
I thought these subsections would help as they help give a more specified image of the various ways participatory budgeting is being applied and implemented in the United States. I think it also helps for navigating the page as well.
I have not deleted any content. In fact, I see this as a deepening of the preexisting content, and as a kind of update since the last time additions were made to the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akolokotro (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to USA Section 

message: I (Tasmia.r_) am editing this article for class.
Bibliography
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/22/brazil-let-its-citizens-make-decisions-about-city-budgets-heres-what-happened/
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/
https://www.internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Involving-Citizens-in-Public-Budgets-Mechanisms-for-Transparent-and-Participatory-Budgeting.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ncr.20059
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2016.1243814
https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/nispa/12/2/article-p109.xml
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23812346.2020.1731944  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmia.r (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wafflehouse777 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Civic Technology