Funkymallam:

Young man, where r u pulling those figures frm? Provide a link or source to back up a claim or shushhhh!
SR should have started a new song if ur dream comes tru.

133 aides

An official document obtained by NEXT, titled ‘List of presidential Aides as at February, 2011’ shows that the country currently pays for at least 133 personal aides to the president, the vice-president, and the first lady. These aides, who are mostly political appointees, include the Chief of Staff to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Principal Secretary to the President, Principal Secretary to the Vice President, 25 special advisers, 42 senior special assistants, 52 special assistants and 12 personal assistants. Two of the personal assistants are Malian and Senegalese tailors who sow the president’s clothes.

Activist Shehu Sani, president of the Civil Rights Congress, said most of the appointees were simply engaged by President Jonathan as campaign foot soldiers.

“The president is simply wasting our national resources and applying pressure on the economy by settling cronies, bootlickers and parasites on the corridors of power with appointments,” said Mr. Sani who wants labour, civil society and opposition parties to check the trend.

Looking through the list, some of the appointments indeed appear to be duplication of duties. For instance, there are six physicians (two senior special assistants and four special assistants) who attend to the health needs of the president, the vice president and the first lady. They include two chief physicians to the president and vice president, two personal physicians to the President and the vice president, an assistant personal physician to the president and a personal physician to the first lady. Yet some public hospitals across the country do not have a single physician.

Apart from the large number of domestic staff in the presidential villa, who are civil servants, there are also six special assistants in charge of domestic matters for the president and his vice. Their job descriptions are special assistants on presidential household matters, domestic affairs, domestic matters, household administration, social events and household matters, and domestic affairs.

Eleven of the presidential aides on the list work for the unconstitutional office of the First Lady. They are Ike Neliaku and Oroyemisi Oyewole, both senior special assistants on administration to Mrs. Jonathan; Mary Oba, a special assistant on administration; Grace Koroye, coordinator, Organization of African First Ladies Against HIV/AIDS, and Martha Owuzurumba, coordinator, African First Ladies Peace Mission. Other aides of Mrs Jonathan are Hannah Offor, a special assistant on protocol, Isiaku Aliagan, her media assistant, and Elizabeth Austin Amadi, her personal physician. On August 13, 2010, Mrs. Jonathan’s stylist, Agnes Aineneh, was appointed a presidential assistant. Two ladies-in-waiting were also appointed for the president’s wife. In the United Kingdom, the term Lady-in-Waiting, according to Wikipedia, is used to describe a woman attending a female member of the royal family other than the Queen or Queen Consort. In Cambodia, the term refers to high ranking female servants who served food and drink, fanned and massaged, and sometimes provided intimate services to the King. It is however not clear what Justin Adaba and Amina Iye Ahmadu do for Mrs. Jonathan.

Yet, there are other aides of the First Lady that are not on the list. Among them are her steward, Benson Okpara; her luggage officer, Geoffrey Obuofforibo; her aide-de-cap, Jacob Tamunoibuomi; her orderly, Abigail Jonah, her chief security officer; Francis Ibiene; her director of protocol, Mfama Abam; her principal protocol officer, Nuhu Kwache; and another media assistant, Ayobami Adewuyi.

It remains unclear the exact number of official staff permanently employed by the federal government for the state house in addition to the 133 personal aides. This would include bureaucrats, directors, security personnel, administrative staff, and cleaners. Indications are that this figure would be higher than that of the special aides since the State House has budgeted an additional N1.42 billion for the payment of salaries of these other staff this year.

The situation in other climes

In the United States, there are 470 employees working in the White House. But most of them are employees on permanent appointments who have worked there for years. President Barack Obama only appointed a handful of key advisers.

Similarly, in South Africa, according to the 2009 annual report of the presidency, President Jacob Zuma appointed only seven advisers while the remaining 582 members of staff were mostly career civil servants.

Chimex30:

I wonder what this comparison means.At least Michell Obama speaks good English than Patience Jonathan.

Chimex30:

I wonder what this comparison means.At least Michell Obama speaks good English than Patience Jonathan.

donclemo:

At least Patience Jonathan speaks good ijaw language than Michell Obama

klas:

Small boy. It is you that is dreaming. Wake up and check check this

http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/News/Metro/Politics/5678614-146/story.csp



You may also read this

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-609722.0.html

gameaddict:

@shy_one: Funny, so if a student puts wikipedia as a source, u'll fail him because of your opinions of it rather than the fact that the student has failed to reference the original or root source. Very very funny. I'll also fail you as a marker then.
People who quote wikipedia should not fail because wikipedia is wrong but because wikipedia doesn't own ideas. Ideas with correct attribution given is what should be used and built upon by students rather than plain copying and pasting.
I use wikipedia not only as a lecture note supplement but also as a resource for new ideas and information amongst other things.
I believe it is lack of knowledge about wikipedia and plain bias or fear that misleads certain people as to its usefulness and validity. Learn what it can do, what it can't, use it wisely and you'll come to appreciate it.

kingoflag:

How about he cuts into the N1Billion meals and $75million renovation of his wife's "office"?

Oh, and the N500million newspapers, and the N300million silverware. Lets not also forget the fact that he blew through $30Billion in less than a year.

Oh, Oh, lest we forge, how about he reduces the number of aides he carries around with Nigeria's money and the fact that he went to Australia for a conference, ended up partying with his wife all night then forgot to attend the meeting that took him down-under in the first place. . . .

My friend sharrap and log-off because you don't even make any sense!

Should you use or cite Wikipedia as a source for an academic paper? The answer depends on your research topic. Wikipedia may be useful as a primary source on popular culture, or for subjects that have not been addressed in the scholarly literature.

The words "according to Wikipedia" occasionally appear in newspapers. Some editors' thoughts on newsroom Wikipedia use:

• The editor: John Leach, managing editor for news and digital media, the Arizona Republic and azcentral.com

• The story: In August 2007 the Republic published a story about an Arizona congressman, Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, whose background was described as "somewhat of a mystery." The piece quoted Wikipedia as well as other sources.

• The editor's comment: "The Wikipedia.com reference in the story about Rep. Rick Renzi was discussed by editors here before we used it in the paper and online, and our point in using it in the story was that the limited Wikipedia listing about Renzi shows how little was known about his background. That, however, led to a discussion about the use of Wikipedia in our stories, and we adopted a policy that says Wikipedia is not to be used as a prime reference source but could be used as a starting point in our reporting and fact-checking."

• The editor: Manning Pynn, public editor, the Orlando Sentinel

• The story: In August 2007 Wikipedia was cited as a source for an info box defining "mixed martial arts."

• The editor's comment: "The Sentinel does not prohibit its use, but Managing Editor Mark Russell explained that, in the main, the newspaper does not cite Wikipedia as a definition source, because it does not regard the online encyclopedia to be reliable. He added that the Sentinel does not have a policy regarding the use of Wikipedia but that 'maybe we should.' [Karen] Stauffer [the Sentinel's news production editor] noted that the editing desk may use Wikipedia in researching a topic but that it would never use that as a sole source. The instance you cited was a definition appended to an article written by the Sentinel's movie reviewer about the film 'Get Some,' which concerns mixed martial arts. The reviewer, however, was on vacation at the time the article was published in August, and his editor, who was unfamiliar with the subject, thought it required explanation. Of the several descriptions she was able to find, Wikipedia's was the most concise and, therefore, was used."

• The editor: Lois Wilson, managing editor, Elmira, New York's Star-Gazette

AND A NOTE ON CITING (OR NOT CITING) WIKIPEDIA :

Wikipedia falls into a "gray zone" of sources. It is a remarkable and innovative web-based project, and is notable for its breadth of information, timeliness, easy access, and largely voluntary authorship. That said, it does not (yet) fit into the category of acceptable scholarly source materials (e.g., refereed/peer-reviewed journals, books from academic presses, etc.). This is NOT to say that wikipedia articles are necessarily less "true" or "reliable" than traditional sources. Wikipedia pages are generally better than random web pages, and Wikipedia does have a rather interesting and fairly good editorial policy. But for academic papers, I would not recommend citing Wikipedia (just as I would not recommend citing an encyclopedia).

Wikipedia seems best when covering relatively non-controversial topics where its volunteer authors are deeply knowledgeable about the subject (e.g., the history of html ) -- these articles are reviewed/edited by many authors. Wikipedia is more problematic in at least two areas: (a) obscure topics (where a single author uploads material with little collaboration/feedback), and (b) controversial topics where ideological battles trump rigor and balance (e.g., Armenian Genocide ). (These latter sites are often locked  to outside editing, since such sites are often vandalized:

My advice to students: I encourage you to use Wikipedia as a quick, first stop to get up-to-speed on a topic, but NOT as a definitive or best source. Wikipedia has a stated requirement that authors "verify " their entries with sources. Use Wikipedia as an intermediary to find these primary sources, rather than using Wikipedia as an end in itself. (When a student cites Wikipedia in a paper, I ask them to instead find this pre-existing source.) In the end, I would recommend NOT using Wikipedia as a source in a student paper.

The New York Times Magazine this weekend features a profile about three generations of the comedic Elliott family. But one aspect of the writing of the story seems a bit funny :

Before you rail on the Times for hypocrisy or a loosening of its editorial standards, take a look at the chronology that got us here. This isn’t actually the first time the Times has cited Wikipedia as a source. Paul Krugman referred to the site as a resource for a 2006 column. Yet no news story, to my knowledge, has included Wikipedia in its reporting.

That doesn’t mean the writing wasn’t on the wall. A 2007 Times story documents how often judges turn to the “collaborative online encyclopedia” as a source in their decisions :

That was clearly not done here — indeed, the fact cited is just that, a fact, independently verifiable (and presumably independently verified). But beyond that, per Posner, it’s not surprising to discover that Times reporters might rely on Wikipedia for research for their articles. In fact, if a reporter were to discount the site in the name of journalistic integrity he or she could face scrutiny for overlooking potential information or leads. For an article about the Elliott family of comedians, writer Ed Zuckerman couldn’t possibly have imagined a better Web site to learn the basics about his subjects than Wikipedia.

Here’s the difficulty that arises, though: Often the site will provide the most succinct and digestible way to describe the topic at hand. That seems to be the case for Zuckerman when he cited something as innocent as “a comedic lineage that spans across three centuries.” Is an attempt to put that sentiment in alternative terms worth the risk of sounding lengthy, clunky or confusing?

Rather than just borrow Wikipedia’s language – or try to package the message some other way – Zuckerman makes the right choice in citing it to the page where he found it. Unless there’s a NYT policy against this specific practice (which there doesn’t seem to be), Zuckerman acted ethically and responsibly. If there needs to be a larger and longer discussion about whether the Times should permit its writers to use Wikipedia at all, that has no bearing on how Zuckerman covered this particular piece.

What’s complicated about Zuckerman’s decision, however, is the fact that you can track down the user who made this change on Raymond Knight’s page. A click of the “history” button reveals his user name as “Woohookitty” and the date (January 2, 2009) he edited it. His profile page says that he’s the eighth-best Wikipedia user in the system, according to number of edits to the overall site. He also appears to take this work seriously, saying:

While there’s no other identity attached to Woohookitty’s profile, this should be enough to warrant recognition for his contribution to Zuckerman’s research. He sounds as credible as you could wish under the circumstances. If citing Wikipedia as a source becomes standard procedure, we should go to the effort of crediting those who wrote the material being quoted. Reliability aside, attributing something to Wikipedia is akin to citing a forum, message board, or other online discussion. There’s a person behind the post, edit, or suggestion who deserves the pat on the back, not the site that made it possible.

Do your research properly. Remember that any encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an ending point.

An encyclopedia is great for getting a general understanding of a subject before you dive into it. But then you do have to dive into your subject; using books and articles and other appropriate sources will provide better research. Research from these sources will be more detailed, more precise, more carefully reasoned, and (in most cases) more broadly peer reviewed than the summary you found in an encyclopedia. These will be the sources you cite in your paper, There is no need to cite Wikipedia in this case.

An encyclopedia is great for checking general knowledge that you have forgotten, like the starting date of the First World War or the boiling point of mercury. Citation is not needed for fact checking general knowledge.

Some details, such as the population of Canada, can be found on Wikipedia, but it is best to verify the information using an authoritative source, such as the CIA World Factbook.

A very obscure detail, such as the names of the founders of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, might be very hard to find without the aid of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ideal in these situations because it will allow you to find the information, as well as sources which you can research to confirm that information. In any case, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the source provided; you should certainly look up the source yourself before citing it. If there is no source cited, consider a different method of obtaining this information.

Use your judgment. Remember that all sources have to be evaluated.

Wikipedia is not a replacement for a reading assignment by your professor.

If a book is in your university library or published by a reputable university press, or if an article is in a standard academic journal, that means that several professors at some point have considered the information and considered it worthy to publish.

Sourcing a website is a game of chance. Unless you know that the site is run by a respected institution, or if you have verified the information from other (reliable) sources, it is probably a bad idea to cite it.

While reading Wikipedia articles for research, remember to consider the information carefully, and never treat what is on Wikipedia as surefire truth.

It is the goal of Wikipedia to become a research aid that all students can trust. If you, in the course of your research, find that there is misinformation on Wikipedia, look over the basic guidelines of Wikipedia and especially what the community considers a reliable source and please consider editing the article (and even creating an account) with what you have learned. This is a part of how Wikipedia wishes to attain its goals.

ONESS:

When will we stop the sarcacism and appreciate what we have and seek ways of making it much better for our comfort. Nawah oooo Nigeria people!

A very detailed discussion can be found here: http://www.yorku.ca/mack/phd.html and wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law

What strategic or pivotal role does Michelle play that Patience doesn't?