User talk:Djsharma12
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Chicago/Violence_in_the_Early_Years_PPHA_35245_(Winter) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Djsharma12, 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) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback on your sandbox draft.
- Avoid taking content directly from a source. For example, you took the sentence "It is not currently included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), but many argue that addictions to the web and to Internet-based video games like World of Warcraft does indeed exist." directly from the Mashable source. This would be considered plagiarism and a copyright issue on Wikipedia, even with the source used as a citation. This plays into a second note:
- I would recommend not going into too much specific detail with the facility, as the treatment section should only be a general overview of what treatments exist. So while there's certainly justification in mentioning it and giving a brief overview of what they offer, I wouldn't add much beyond that other than some information about how they were received. (For example, have any psychologists written an article about how they feel about the facility or its success rate?) You want to avoid this portion sounding like an advert for the facility, so I wouldn't list specific cost rates, especially since that can quickly become dated.
- With sourcing, make sure that you're using the best possible sources. Be careful when pulling sourcing from the Internet, as not everything would be considered a reliable source on here. This may sound obvious, but this can become tricky when you have sourcing that for all purposes looks like it should be reliable but isn't. I would recommend that you pull from your school's academic databases first and only use the Internet as a last resort, as it's difficult to really find good sourcing for this type of topic on the Internet. A lot of it will end up being either self-published or from outlets that aren't reliable or aren't the best possible sourcing.
- Psychology Today is a pretty good example of this, as not everything published on the site undergoes editorial oversight. While PT does have a magazine, the website itself will host blogs. There has been discussion over whether or not the website should be used as a reliable source and whether or not the blogs undergo enough editorial oversight to be reliable. In this situation you're using it to cite a section that lists a specific person, Stuart Fischoff, as a pioneer in the field of Internet addiction - however the issue here is that this is a primary source and as such cannot be used to back up these claims. To really show where he's notable enough to be highlighted you need a lot of coverage in independent and reliable sources to justify highlighting him in this manner. More on this in the next bullet point.
- In order to show that Fischoff made a sizable enough impact on this specific topic you need to show where his work has routinely been cited by his peers and where he's been seen as a pioneer. Be careful of the term "pioneer" as this is generally seen on here to mean that someone was very influential in their field and made a sizable impact on how something was done rather than just being the first to do something. (Being the first can play into this some, but it's typically applied to people who make a huge impact.)
- To show this you'll need to show where his work has specifically been covered in academic sources and mention him as a pioneer. I would recommend using your school's databases. The Web of Science is awesome for this sort of thing, since you can see how often his published work has been cited. Offhand I'm not finding much that would suggest that he was overwhelmingly influential enough to justify being highlighted.
I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)