User talk:Poysndi

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


Hello, Poysndi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug.(talk contribs) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your IB work[edit]

I'm just curious - are you doing this for your EE or for an internal assessment? I might have some suggestions, but depends on the answer. You appear to be a new user - go ahead and answer here and and I'll respond here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to get in touch with someone here you can just email them directly from the wiki if you and they have enabled their e-mail. I see that you have, and so have about 90% of the experienced users. There's a link "E-mail this user" in the toolbox at the left of peoples user pages

Your email address appears in the email so the other guy can respond, but the system does not disclose that email to you unless they do decide to answer. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. This interview is for my portfolio extension (internal assessment). I did a portfolio (ITGS) on Wikipedia, with the are of impact being education the issue being the fact that some schools block Wikipedia. Based on this portfolio I am planning on writing an extension on to what extent Wikipedia should be used in education, what its role is or something along those lines. The interview is 9 questions long and I believe pretty much anyone who's involved in the Wikipedia project could answer however a more experienced user might prove more a credible source for the IBO.

I'd do the following if I were you: instead of interviewing wikipedia editors, I'd interview teachers and ask why they believe wikipedia is unreliable. Then I'd interview fellow students and try to gather data on how much they rely on wikipedia. I think it would be interesting to see how those two would be at odds. Ask the students how they use wikipedia - to get facts, to study for exams, to copy/paste, to use as a basis for further research via links in the refs sections, or as a writing tool. Sorry, just brainstorming here - but I'd also ask the teachers whether they've ever considered having student edit on wikipedia and if they consider having a student's writing published directly on the web as an incentive to writing. But personally I think you're sort of on the right track - the wrong direction is to bring a survey to wikipedia. For whatever it's worth I'd add in to your report that you attempted a survey and that mostly, because people edit pseudononymously, you didn't get a good response. If I were assessing your work, I'd look to see what you attempted to do, rather than what you were able to get done. Your reflection will give an opportunity to explain your methods anyway. So you tried here, didn't get a big response, and then turned to the students/ teachers. That's the approach I'd suggest to a student, and an approach that would be fine from a assessment point-of-view. Good luck. To some extent, I don't mind answering questions if you have them. Btw - I'm assuming it's an SL elective. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way - if you press the tilde key (upper left on keyboard) four times after a post, your sig will be formatted. We require that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that teachers are the best choice which is why I interviewed a High-School teacher and a University professor however given their criticisms on Wikipedia I thought the best choice in order to assess both sides of the issue would be a person that is actually involved with Wikipedia. Actually it is a HL elective which is why we need to to this extension, in SL there is only a need for the portfolios. If I wanted to send you the questions, what would be the best way? Through here or through an e-mail? Thank you for your time Poysndi (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think their criticism is an important component to your study. You shouldn't try to skew it. I realized after asking about the SL that it must be HL for the assessment. I'd add to the questions for the teachers: do they know anything about wikipedia's policies? Have they ever attempted to edit Wikipedia? Are they aware that material has to verified with secondary sources? Stuff like that. My sense is that the students know a lot more than the teachers, you need to nail that down with your survey. Surveying random wikipedia editors probably isn't that helpful. You might try asking over at the Wikipedia:Ambassadors whether anyone will help. Just go click the talkpage and then click the new section tab at the top to start a new thread. I think there are students and professors who read that page, so you might get a better response there. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the broad approach Truthkeeper88 suggests. I originally proposed DGG because AFAICS he's a University librarian (see his profile at User:DGG) so he would be answering as more than just a contributor. The only other thing I'd say is to familiarize yourself with the mark scheme which has probably been written up by the IB in a document you can order online. You might save a lot of wasted effort by following the mark scheme closely, in particular striking the right balance between data gathering, analysis and conclusions. Pointillist (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)