Classybluepower
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/Berkeley_Interdisciplinary_Research_Group_on_Privacy_-_Coleman_Lab_(Spring) . |
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Research_Group_on_Privacy_Literacy_-_Coleman_Lab_(Fall_2017). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Welcome!
editHello, Classybluepower, 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) 08:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi --22:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Your reference-adding edits
editHello, I'm not going to lie ... when I first noticed your edit to French Polynesia, I was prepared to block your account indefinitely for spamming until I realised that you made this edit as part of your coursework. For a start, the text is taken from Wikipedia ... it even says so on the footer of the page you cited. Secondly, it's a reference from a site that isn't used on Wikipedia at all, for good reason; replacing citation needed tags with obscure websites like this is a common method of spamming on Wikipedia.
I've also reverted your edits to English longbow and History of Africa; in neither of those articles do the references that you added confirm the text they're attached to. There's no way that the former reference is a rliable source by Wikipedia standards, and the latter reference is rather ironic considering the text on your user page.
I'm pinging Locnamehn, your supervisor, into this discussion. I recommend that you don't encourage your students to add references willy-nilly to articles that are far outside of their expertise, especially when they're well-developed. If you would still like to do this, you should teach them about the perils of circular references. Graham87 11:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Classybluepower, Graham is correct that this source cannot be used. When looking at sources for Wikipedia (or any writing), always look for the following:
- Who wrote it? If there's no author attached to the piece (ie, near the title) then check the bottom of the page and/or the about page to see if there is any information about authorship. If there's no authorship information at all to show you who is writing the article and is responsible for the website, then the site is almost certainly not something that could be used as a reliable source.
- Is there any information about their editorial process? A good reliable source should have their editorial board (and ideally something about their process) posted. Sites that don't have this are likely not reliable.
- Where is the source posted? This is important for cases where people self-publish their work or publish somewhere outside of their norm, even if the person would otherwise be seen as a reliable source. The issue with the "where" is that some places don't verify the information or even provide editing for grammatical or spelling errors. Sometimes self-published work can be used as a source, but it's fairly rare.
- Do they mirror Wikipedia content? This is definitely something to be careful about, as some people will only use Wikipedia as a source or in the case of this website, just mirror the content. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, the content cannot be used to source Wikipedia.
- Does the source explicitly make the claim you want to add to the article? Sources can only be used to back up claims if they specifically state that same claim. This is actually a pretty common mistake with new users, especially if you're used to writing academic papers. It's perfectly fine to draw your own conclusions in an academic paper - it's a good way to learn - however this differs on Wikipedia, as we can only include conclusions that other people have already made.
- Graham87, please don't WP:BITE the newbie and supervisor. I can definitely understand your frustration, but please make sure that you're civil. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Always try to assume WP:GOODFAITH - I know that you mean well, but this can make it difficult to converse with each other. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Shalor (Wiki Ed): Thanks for your note; I realise in hindsight that my message was over-the-top and could have been worded better. Classybluepower, you are absolutely welcome to continue editing, as long as you are careful with sourcing (and even if you make good-faith mistakes while editing, people will be happy to help you rectify them). Happy editing. Graham87 01:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)