User talk:Cableknitpower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Cableknitpower, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Novangelis (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Gender[edit]

Yes, I think the issue you've raised (re: who is editing Wikipedia for the most part, and how this may or may not further exacerbate the concerns we already have re: knowledge production and knowledge management) is one that will definitely come up in INF 1001 as we proceed. In the meantime, check out Criticisms of Wikipedia (and Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia more specifically) and feel free to make edits if you have something to add based on the research you're mentioning. As for the two CA's working on this course being male, that's a coincidence, of course; however, I do recall there being more of us in the training (not sure how that relates to overall numbers re: the program).

Michael Dick 10:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi Cableknitpower!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WAP assignment[edit]

Please only insert notices on talk (discussion) pages, and only where they are appropriate. I have had to revert your edit at Library and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. If unclear, please ask for assistance at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


James Bamford[edit]

I would like to add more about James Bamford but most of the sources that I can find are interviews ( NPR) or reviews of his books (same criticism of bias) or articles that he has written. Credibility seems to be an issue.

In his article for the "Rolling Stone," Bamford accuses John Rendon of hatching a PR campaign to justify the US invading Iraq. He explains that Rendon, a leader in the strategic field known as "perception magaement", manipulates information and the news media to achieve his desired outcome. Bamford gives details of how JUdith Miller of the NYTimes was duped into believing "credible sources" confirming Weapons of Mass Destruction. ( I recently watched the documentary Front Page of the NYTimes in which Judith Miller discusses this incident.) I didn't inlcude this in the Wiki article because Bamford is making accusations against Rendon. This isn't allowed under the Wiki guidelines for BLP ( biographies of living persons.)

In an interview Bamford calls himself an expert on the NSA ( National Security Administration.) He sees himself as a whistleblower on the NSA's lpractise of eavesdropping without warrants. He also is critical of the US governments practise of data mining.

I did not add much to this article excepts facts because much of this article had been reverted because of copyright violations.

In Wikipedia's guide about writing articles on living persons, there is a warning that one should not write articles about oneself. I couldn't decide if writing an article gleaned from interviews fell into this grey zone.....

Cableknitpower (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I looked through your sandbox and it looks pretty good. I'm not sure what is it you need help with. Could you be more specific? —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi! In response to your question: reviews of his books are reliable sources for how his book was received, if that makes sense. Things can be considered reliable in one context but not in another. As for interviews with him, those are perfectly fine-- however, they don't help establish notability (that is, why he is important enough for an article) unless there is also some commentary on his significance. The notability guideline for people is here, and a quick summary of the type of source that is needed is this page. Given you're working on an existing article, however, notability is much less of a concern. A couple of comments on your edits:

  • Working on a preexisting article has its cons too-- you've got to integrate your work with others'. You've currently just copy-pasted a block of unreferenced text into a rather strange place in the article; it would be better if you weaved your new information into place with what's already there. In essence, watch out for repetition and flow.
  • Secondly, do take care to avoid journalistic writing. By that I mean commentary like "the highly secretive National Security Agency" or " super-secret agency... quite concerned". The NSA is the NSA: readers can make up their minds as to its significance. Likewise, his publishing information about them can be worded in less emotive words than "unveiling".

That's about all I have in the way of feedback! You've done quite well to get this far-- it took me a year of watching and learning to add any major content to an article (and even then it was a struggle)! Sorry if this is a bit overwhelming, do reply here or on my talk page, or email me if you have any further questions. I'm currently a bit busy, but I'll do my best to help out!

Great job, again, and happy editing. sonia♫ 06:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)