Chantellerod
Welcome!
editHello, Chantellerod, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome!
editHello, Chantellerod, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Testing Hello
editHey Chantelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancapalmer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Week 2
editI chose an article from Technology in society called Urban Dictionary. Here is the link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Dictionary The article that I am reviewing is about the website called urban dictionary. It is a parody website about dictionary.com and vocabulary.com that was made in 1999 by a college student. It describes the history, application and content of this particular website. It has a smaller than decent amount of detail about history and is fairly short in length in general. Although it seems that every paragraph is well referenced, wikipedia has put a notice that this article needs additional citations for verification on the facts. This does not mean that the facts are wrong, but rather that more evidence is required to completely support it. I think that the little information provided was all relevant to the topic at hand. The history, content, and usage/application categories were relevant and necessary when giving information about this topic. Nothing really took my focus off of the topic, besides the very clear warnings at the top of the page. I would not consider this an entirely neutral article because one of the warnings clearly states that this article might contain personal research (which is often typically biased if inserted and not backed up correctly). In the article, when talking about content, it says, "This last charge is particularly concerning". This is definitely taking a position on what the online dictionary should or should not be doing and if it is right or wrong. The bias is slightly noticeable from time to time. There are viewpoints that are underrepresented because this article is relatively short in the first place. I think there should be more information about how it is funded, layout, how often things are posted, how popular it is and basically have more categories in the first place. Some of the links to the citations are from cites that no longer work. There were pop ups that said this page no longer existed, or that the content has been removed. Another one of the warnings clearly state that this article is not up to date. To know all of the correct and most up to date information is vital when doing research for websites that are constantly being updated. Overall this is not a good example of a strong article on wikipedia and I would not recommend it to be used as a reference or as an example for other writers of wikipedia (unless it is an example of what to avoid). Chantellerod (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)