User talk:DMacks
| This is DMacks's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.
You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Psst
Hello. You have a new message at Ponyo's talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information and your comment :) The page is evolving, and will take a while but I'm liking how this is turning out. Take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Ethyl Sulfate hunt for sources and learning material!
I've noticed the changes on the Ethyl sulfate article, nothing wrong with the changes, and feel stupid for the formula I wrote out. Probably revised that 3-4 times. Well I want to expand on this article a bit more, but I am having difficulties in finding material on the subject of "alcohol sulfates" for lack of better terms. Have any suggestions or ideas? More than anything I'm trying to learn, and whatever I find I would like to contribute. Ticky-Tack (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The general functional group is an "alkyl sulfate" (hmm, no article about that!), for example, sodium lauryl sulfate is a major commercial chemical. I don't know much about the ethyl one in particular. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I pointed alkyl sulfate→Organosulfate (based on redirect of Alkylsulfuric acid) to same target). Looks like there is at least a little general info already there. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, DMacks
I am a teacher at LWHS in Ocala, Florida. I am attempting to change our LWHS Wiki page for today only in order to illustrate for my students the fact that Wiki is not always the best source of information due to user accessibility. I realize this is ironic since I'm not adept enough to make a change without you reverting it, but I'd appreciate if you'd let me make a change for today only to make this point in my classes.
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpmiller (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpmiller (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why should we? There are already published papers in real journals proving the fact...you're just wasting our time and resources. Why should students believe anything they read *anywhere* (especially on-line), and why should they trust one website (with a reputation for fixing mistakes and citing external sources for cross-reference) less than any other?
- Interestingly, you could spin it the other way, that even though it's open-access, it still does seem to have a pretty good record of fixing mistakes. Lots of clever teachers actually build whole lessons around having their students write wikipedia articles to help everyone learn 1) how to write to actual audiences other than just a self-contained essay for a teacher and 2) how to work collaboratively. You could explain that you can't rely on any specific item at a specific instant (because it may be the interval between a vandal wasting everyone's time and a good editor having to spend time cleaning it up), but instead look at the sources cited for cross-checking. Just because we are more correct than many other sources (including Britannica!) according to actual published studies doesn't mean you can trust "something you read on the internet" no matter what site you read. DMacks (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view--I do appreciate that. I certainly don't intend to waste your time and admire and respect the fact that you are guarding the wall, as it were, to ensure as much accuracy as can be expected from an open-access, user-generated site. For students, seeing that their school is described as being located "on the Moon" for a day is a superior attention-grabber to diving into some of the dustier specifics of the journals you reference. But your point is well-taken. As for which sites to deem credible/reliable, I think that's one of the most important skills any student or adult can develop, and I would argue that the dearth of critital thinking vis-a-vis site reliability sits at the crux of the current political climate of paranoia (on both sides). Students get more info from the web than any other venue now, so it's that much more imperative that we equip them with the skills they need to identify and confirm the primary source, gather info from multiple sources, and, yes, separate the wheat from the chaffe when it comes to reliability of a site's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpmiller (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Editing
D Macks I am getting increasingly concerned about your attitude. You are constantly deleting editing and undoing what I consider to be perfectly acceptable posting. please stop this I really do not think that you contribute anything to Wiki apart from cause distress and concern to other editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.103.64 (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
editing
D Macks I am getting increasingly concerned about your attitude. You are constantly deleting editing and undoing what I consider to be perfectly acceptable posting. please stop this I really do not think that you contribute anything to Wiki apart from cause distress and concern to other editors84.13.103.64 (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)