Mchill938
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi Mchill938! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 18:18, Friday, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Edits to sensitivity analysis page
editDear Mary,
I want to let you know that I have made a change to a recent edit that you made on the Sensitivity Analysis article.
First, let me say that I have no problems with edits to the page in general, and I am not the owner of the page, even though I have made some efforts to improve it a few years ago and keep an eye on it from time to time. I think it is great if people add to and change the article to make it better.
I do however disagree with the edit that you made to the article. The reason is that you changed to it to read something like:
"Sensitivity analysis can mean one of two things:
- Fairly specific application/interpretation of sensitivity analysis [cite a couple of your articles]
- More generally agreed-on meaning of sensitivity analysis according to wider and heavily-cited literature and books
The rest of this article is devoted to the second definition of sensitivity analysis".
The first issue is that if the main content of the article is on the second topic, why do you think it is necessary to put what is a fairly specific application of SA in first? Why not put that later on in the article, where there are many other uses, applications and interpretations of SA? As you have written it, it takes the reader some time to find what SA is agreed to mean by most people and the academic literature. In my opinion, the mainstream definition should come first.
Secondly, I notice that you cite your own articles, and it is hard not to view it as an edit that is intended more for self-promotion rather than to improve the article. I don't think there is anything wrong with citing your own work (I have cited one of my own papers, but in the applications section), but it should be in an appropriate place that fits with the structure of the article, rather than in the most visible place.
If you look at the edit I have made, I have moved your paragraph to the applications section, and also put your application as a bullet point in the introduction, which fits more with the placement of other interpretations and uses of sensitivity analysis. I hope that this seems ok with you.
I know you might disagree with me on this. If you strongly disagree, can I suggest to set up a discussion on the talk page of the article and we can try to figure out a solution.
Best regards, WillBecker (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)