Welcome
editHello, Sk2266 and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.
Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.
Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
| This user is a student editor in NJIT/Introduction_to_Sociology_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Sk2266, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Notes
editHi Sk2266! I wouldn't consider the New World Encyclopedia a source. The page is sort of a mirror of Wikipedia's own content and while the site claims that it goes over the content, the catch here is that the site does so with a specific bias, as the authors want content that fits in with their unification beliefs. You can read more about this here. In general you should never use a source if their content is predominantly or entirely taken from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot source itself. Ragged University also has issues as a source, namely that it's about page gives off the impression that anyone can contribute. This opens up concerns about verification, as we can't really guarantee that the content got the type of editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires of a reliable source. This doesn't mean that its information is incorrect, just that it doesn't really stand up under rigorous questioning and could be easily challenged.
- A good place to look for sourcing would be your school's library and academic databases, as anything there would be considered a reliable source for the most part. (There are some exceptions, but in general most of the stuff you'll find in your library will be reliable.) I don't have access to your school library as its website requires a password, so some journal articles to explore would be this and this. Both of these look at Bourdieu's view towards neoliberalism, so they should be helpful. This should be helpful as well. As far as books go, this looks promising, as does this.
- Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb when searching for reliable sources is to look at the publication's background and editorial oversight. Are they routinely considered to be reliable? Do they mention anything about their editorial oversight? Does their information give off any warning signs that their editorial oversight is lax or non-existent or that they are operating with a bias? With websites, look for information about who is writing the content. Do they actively review the material or do they only look to make sure that it doesn't violate their terms of service? (IE, do they take responsibility for what is posted?) Is the site routinely viewed as a reliable source by other reliable sources, like well respected newspapers or academic journals? Also, do they take their work heavily from Wikipedia? If so, then this is a sign that the site isn't reliable.
- I hope that this helps! For the meantime I've removed your content - it doesn't look bad overall, you just need better sourcing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
edit
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Pierre Bourdieu, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)