User talk:KernelG9900
| This user is a student editor in Illinois_Institute_of_Technology/Seminar_in_Human_Sexuality_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, KernelG9900, 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) 20:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
MGTOW
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback on your additions to this page. The edits were removed by another editor, Jorm, who wrote that " Medium blogs are not valid sources and it doesn't look like Diggit is, either".
They're right in that Medium is not seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia as anyone can publish on that website. At best it would be a self-published source, as Medium likely doesn't apply any sort of editorial oversight along the lines of what you'd see in a newspaper or equivalent website. It's rare that a self-published source like this would be reliable, as in order for it to be usable we would have to be able to show where this specific writer (and his posts on this website) is routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly sources. It's rare for this to occur, to be honest. Diggit would also be seen as a self-published source since it appears that anyone can edit on the website and create a story. The issue with sites like this is that they tend to often have looser standards for factchecking and accuracy, if they even check for either of those. This means that the chances of the writer adding something that is wrong or entirely opinion based are higher, which can make a source less reliable.
Also, be very, very careful with how you phrase things when it comes to controversial topics like MGTOW. Avoid making statements in Wikipedia's voice unless it's a widely held opinion. Even then, it may still be good to attribute the claim somehow, such as "Scholars like This Person...". There are a lot of different opinions and viewpoints on this topic, so it's not uncommon for something to only be common within a specific group commenting on MGTOW and for there to be an equally widely held opinion from another group that differs.
Finally, be careful of grammar - some of the sentences looked to have errors in them, such as it's (stands for "it is") and its (the possessive form of it, such as "the lid belongs to/with it"). Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- To expand a little on the controversial part - this article is more heavily watched and edited than others, as the topic is controversial. As such it's important that the content is written as neutrally as possible and use the strongest possible sources. For example, an academic source like this looks to be would be a stronger source to pull from - however be aware that when it comes to topics like this it's important to make sure that you review the sources for any potential bias and keep that in mind. If the content is removed (as was the case here) it's important to discuss the removal and try to fix the concerns that were brought up. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- As an experienced editor I want to emphasis this. I've given you an "alert" below - this will show how careful we expect editors to be in this general area. It should be sesen as a routine administrative message, not a warning. Welcome to Wikipedia! Doug Weller talk 13:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.