User talk:Catycherry

March 2019

Hello, I'm Chris troutman. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Disinformation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Catycherry (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I added this sentence to talk about what Facebook is doing specifically to combat disinformation because their platform has been specifically mentioned so much in the context of disinformation and ways tech platforms are fighting it. The only reporting on their white paper is from Facebook itself, so I believe the sourcing mistake was made in error.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catycherry (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Was wordpress the only delivery mechanism for this white paper? The sentence you added was "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, encouraging Facebook to issue a report about the prevalence of information campaigns on its platform and steps the company is taking to combat it." Perhaps it would have been more encyclopedic to say that Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent being a platform for the spread of disinformation. I reverted your edit because the text read (to me) slanted and you cited a blog. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Catycherry (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough, yes -- I referenced it in my MA thesis after hours of digging for another platform on which it was released. That edit makes sense though, would it be acceptable to change to the below? "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of its prevalence on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent the spread of disinformation on their platform."

Also, do you have any guidance for the citation issue?

Thank you! Catycherry (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I still find your suggestion problematic. "Disinformation has once again become relevant in the public discourse again in light of its prevalence on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election." Who says disinformation is relevant? Wikipedia cannot declare that as fact. Does Facebook claim disinformation is relevant or do you, personally? Also, who says disinformation was prevalent on social media during the 2016 campaign? Maybe you believe that's true. Maybe Facebook believes that to be true; I don't know. You have evidence that Facebook has published its white paper and Wikipedia can say that, based upon the existence of same. Our content can only say what our cited sources say, with a careful eye to neutrality and verifiability. We cannot publish opinion as fact; we have to preface opinions and assertions as such, identifying who said so in what context. The sentence I suggested summarizes the issue, stating only the facts: Facebook published what, why, and about what. Your sentence pushes a point of view and assumes facts not in evidence. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Catycherry (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC) The sources on the 2016 Election page, and on the disinformation page, say it occurred during the 2016 election and mention specific instances in which others commented on it. How about the below? "Disinformation was prevalent on social media platforms during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Facebook has published a white paper, in light of the 2016 election, about what they plan to do to prevent the spread of disinformation on their platform." Catycherry (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommended articles

SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!

• WikiProject_Feminism (project page, talk page)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
153		Media democracy (talk)	Add sources
436		Propaganda techniques (talk)	Add sources
2,927		KGB (talk)	Add sources
105		Operation Infektion (talk)	Add sources
46		Broadcast law (talk)	Add sources
736		Psychological warfare (talk)	Add sources
109		Clandestine HUMINT operational techniques (talk)	Cleanup
284		Criticism of advertising (talk)	Cleanup
2,392		Histrionic personality disorder (talk)	Cleanup
703		Fake news website (talk)	Expand
720		Racial hoax (talk)	Expand
64		Chekism (talk)	Expand
284		Media ethics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
284		Black propaganda (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,015		Media bias in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
831		Newspeak (talk)	Merge
65		Data-driven journalism (talk)	Merge
104		Data journalism (talk)	Merge
179		Guilt-Shame-Fear spectrum of cultures (talk)	Wikify
156		Suggestibility (talk)	Wikify
599		Deep state (talk)	Wikify
8		Angela Barker (talk)	Orphan
2		Total Espionage doctrine (talk)	Orphan
2		Ali Mohammad Ghorbani (talk)	Orphan
104		Transfer (propaganda) (talk)	Stub
9		Roy Godson (talk)	Stub
69		Jewish guilt (talk)	Stub
33		Name recognition (talk)	Stub
36		Managing the news (talk)	Stub
12		Counter Misinformation Team (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there

elcome to Wikipedia Catycherry, from WikiProject Editor Retention
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talk page of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you.
	Policies, guidelines and peer assistance		Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.		Help. The complete help guide
	Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns.		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

An invitation

Thanks so much Gog! I'm still getting the hang of coding on here so any tips you have would be helpful. I'd love to join the copyediting community, I got started here because I love doing grammatical edits, so I'll be joining the March challenge and try to copy edit a few articles a day at least after work. Thanks again! Catycherry (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)