The “Internal Affairs” Wikipedia page needed a lot of work and still needs a lot more information. It had little to no information on the subject. Even after adding new content to the page, there is still a lot of material that needs to be covered. The article is somewhat informative; it is adequate enough to give readers the gist of the topic. The content that was added this semester adequately described the police behavior of the internal affairs unit to a point. The article does address certain police roles in society, but not completely. The content does showcase a few perspectives of internal affairs, but not adequately. The subject of internal affairs is much too broad to cover thoroughly in one semester, but the edits made to the page
…show more content…
The article clearly states that when an officer does something that goes against policy and/or the law, they will be punished accordingly. So many factors come into play, however, that when it comes to police behavior and consequences the subject becomes muddled. It is not all that simple to say or to think that when an officer does something wrong they will be punished. The blue wall of silence, or police loyalty, may keep an officer from being appropriately punished and keeping the facts of the event from the public. There is also the case of if what a complainant says is actually true and police discretion that may follow. Perhaps someone complained that they were pulled over due to racial bias, but it is known to the officers involved that that was not the case at all. The article does not describe the controversies surrounding the blue wall of silence or racial bias, nor does it define police discretion. The article does bring up the subject of bias when it comes to grudges and/or friendship, but does not go into a lot of detail. While the article describes the basics of consequences of police misconduct, it does not tell how broad police behavior towards those consequences …show more content…
The page goes into detail about the job of the officer’s more than what their perspective on that job truly is as well as the Civilian Review Board. The article does not take into consideration the afrocentric or the eurocentric perspective of internal affairs. Readers get a sense that there are controversies surrounding internal affairs units, but they are not aware of how all parties involved may see the issue. When and if the section of the page involving the controversial issues are expanded upon, that editor should take into account of all perspectives, which the article presently does not do. Readers have a sense of what the officers may be doing and feeling in the situation as well as the Civilian Review Board, but they will not be able to understand internal affairs from the complainants or civilians’ viewpoint. Readers need to understand the perspective of the complainant and the officers as there are a lot of racial biases and accusations involving race when it comes to officer complaints. Readers also need to be aware of those who pull the race card even though racial bias was never the officer’s intent. The article does a good job of describing what the internal affairs units do, but it does not explain the issues surrounding internal affairs or how those involved feel about the
The article clearly states that when an officer does something that goes against policy and/or the law, they will be punished accordingly. So many factors come into play, however, that when it comes to police behavior and consequences the subject becomes muddled. It is not all that simple to say or to think that when an officer does something wrong they will be punished. The blue wall of silence, or police loyalty, may keep an officer from being appropriately punished and keeping the facts of the event from the public. There is also the case of if what a complainant says is actually true and police discretion that may follow. Perhaps someone complained that they were pulled over due to racial bias, but it is known to the officers involved that that was not the case at all. The article does not describe the controversies surrounding the blue wall of silence or racial bias, nor does it define police discretion. The article does bring up the subject of bias when it comes to grudges and/or friendship, but does not go into a lot of detail. While the article describes the basics of consequences of police misconduct, it does not tell how broad police behavior towards those consequences …show more content…
The page goes into detail about the job of the officer’s more than what their perspective on that job truly is as well as the Civilian Review Board. The article does not take into consideration the afrocentric or the eurocentric perspective of internal affairs. Readers get a sense that there are controversies surrounding internal affairs units, but they are not aware of how all parties involved may see the issue. When and if the section of the page involving the controversial issues are expanded upon, that editor should take into account of all perspectives, which the article presently does not do. Readers have a sense of what the officers may be doing and feeling in the situation as well as the Civilian Review Board, but they will not be able to understand internal affairs from the complainants or civilians’ viewpoint. Readers need to understand the perspective of the complainant and the officers as there are a lot of racial biases and accusations involving race when it comes to officer complaints. Readers also need to be aware of those who pull the race card even though racial bias was never the officer’s intent. The article does a good job of describing what the internal affairs units do, but it does not explain the issues surrounding internal affairs or how those involved feel about the