User talk:Dr Ashton/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dr Ashton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
xyzbb1253 assignment week 3
Here is a link to articles that I edited
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Independent Study Assignment Week 3
Kierra Andrews Link to user page: User:KierraA. 4 Non Psych Edits:
Independent Study Assignment Week 3 - D. Singh
Devika Singh
Link to User Page: Devika Singh —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Link to Edited Articles: 4 Non-Psych Edits
Links to Articles Edited
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Santror#Birth_of_Santror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Accelerator_Laboratory#Beginnings:_1947.E2.80.931961 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_8_Countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplmnq3 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Links to my articles
Research article link:
Gender differences in career preferences from 1990 to 2010: Gaps reduced but not eliminated. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2d657479-1824-46d3-b17d-ce8fe94bc1dd%40sessionmgr4003&vid=7&hid=4208
(I know it is a research article because its is peer review and is a Primary and Empirical sources and its say peer review)
Literature Review: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=2d657479-1824-46d3-b17d-ce8fe94bc1dd%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4208
(I know this is a literature review because its secondary sources and its say literature review)
Also if by chance you cannot open the links I will stop by your office on Thursday with copies of the articles. (Also am sending this message at 7:50 pm on Tuesday, Feb 11, 2014)
Thank You Devika Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika Singh (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Question?
Does anyone know why my dates is off? I need help fixing it. I will try but if anyone know please help me
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika Singh (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The date's not off, I was off.
- The timestamp on Wikipedia is not local time as I thought, but UTC.
- We need to subtract five hours from UTC to get our Eastern Standard Time.
- Right now it's 10:31 AM here in NYC and the UTC is (+5 hours) 3:31 PM or 15:31.
- Today is Wednesday, November 13, 2024.
- The time is 17:08 (UTC). (refresh)
Assignment Week 4
After receiving your feedback for my user page, I've reviewed the citation link on variability as requested and corrected my Reference List. The short code was showing. I've also made some minor changes to the introduction such as adding my school/wiki link. Thanks again and I've also responded on my talk page in regards about the edits.
--KierraA. (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Assignment Week 4
After reviewing some of the feedback requested for my page I made few new changes. I started with expanding my introduction about myself and the purpose of my existence in Wikipedia. I have added my school/Wiki link and I have cited as well. I am still editing articles and trying to get a better grip on this aspect, hopefully week by week my performance and edits can be more substantial.
Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Taksim. Chowdhury
2. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is the most expected “Not” because the information is Wikipedia can be unreliable due to the frequent changes made by various individuals, where as an paper encyclopedia only has reliable sources and no add on changes can be made after the first publication. Many articles in Wikipedia can contain opinion based information and not the hard facts. In an encyclopedia information cannot be included because the information is true, this is a factor Wikipedia lacks and there for is expected by many users that they are not a paper encyclopedia. I find a lot of information in Wikipedia, almost a complete exposition of all possibilities while observing the paper encyclopedia containing the accepting knowledge regarding the subject.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought is the least expected “Not” because Wikipedia states Articles must not contain original Research. There is no reliable and published sources that exist. A website where articles are constantly changing with new information and being analyzed shows no original work. I believe this is the least expected because individuals can see that everyone is allowed to make changes, this is where work loses its authenticity. Wikipedia lets anyone create and edit articles. In a wiki, people can write pages together. If one person writes something wrong, then the next person can correct it. The next person can also add something new to the page. Because of this, originality is diminished and publication is far from its reach.
The most confusing “Not” about Wikipedia I found is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, because in many ways Wikipedia defines many objects, terms, and other resources. Though information is changed many times the definition of term is usually within the introductory part of the page of any article or term. I myself would type in a term into the Google engine and notice that Wikipedia would be the first one to pop up and I would click to get a brief definition of what it was that I was looking for.
3. Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionally and trying to not be biased towards others work.
Verifiability is people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable cited source.
No original research refers to materials for which no reliable published sources exit, you have to be able to cite reliable published sources.
The quote mentioned connects the three terms neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The quote shows how the terms work within each other and they do work together. This quote allows Wikipedia’s and other users in general to understand how they can edit and what language is accepted. The quote is like a preamble of the Wikipedia constitution just some basic general information which is simple and applies to all of us, how to contribute new work and old work by obeying the terms above. This gives Wikipedia a judgment free zone while citing reliable sources and expanding new information.
Assignment Week 4
1)After feedback from our last meeting, I try exploring Wikipedia and make some changes to my account, Devika Singh. I add a few links to my introduction and add the talk page to my account as well.. This has been a great experience for me as I explore and learn more about Wikipedia as this project continues.
2)Wikipedia can be used by anyone who feels the need to share their opinion on a subject.
After reading the 16 things Wikipedia is not, I find the most expected “not” to be that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I would have thought that it contains so much information; it must have a paper backup as with the encyclopedias that had their start as the 26 or more volumes then migrated into digital media. However, the blurb states that it is a digital encyclopedia project, which surprised me.
The least expected “not” is Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From personal experience I use the Google search engine to research a word and the ubiquitous Wikipedia gives you a definition of the word. This tends to be the definition of a dictionary. However, in retrospect; a dictionary just gives you a definition whereas; Wikipedia gives definition, history and etymology.
The "not" is the most confusing me is Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. To me it would seem with the myriad articles that are posted to the site every day, vetting each and every fact would be a laborious task. Also, no matter who it might be and what safeguards are put in place, the bias and tendency to twist facts to suit the point at hand are almost inescapable even if somewhat unintentional. I’ve noticed that Wikipedia does have the option to add references, but what if those sources contain unproven facts? It’s confusing to me because of these things.
Wikipedia does provide a valuable service in providing all the information on a topic, word, event, etc and making it free and readily. available. However, its only if the rules that are listed are followed to the letter that the information can be trusted.
3)Wikipedia has 3 core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Wikipedia states that "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three".
A Neutral point of view according to Wikipedia is being able to present the facts about a subject without inserting biases of any nature. This is done to ensure that edits are fair and free of bias and judgments. Everyone must be able to read it and not be offended or feel that it is directed towards a specific culture, subset, gender, race etc. As stated in the article on this topic, “Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, not engage in them”. By achieving neutrality in their articles, they intend that it be used as a reputable source. Verifiability is ensuring reading and editing materials or information comes from reliable sources. This entails researching and quoting where possible, the sources and persons involved. This allows the reader to be able to check and confirm that materials are available to back up the claims made in any article posted on the site. This also works to eliminate the addition of original research, allegations and judgmental edits. No original research means that edits must not include any unverified facts, hearsay or unproven allegations, all sources must be cited and be verifiable. No personal reference should be included when editing. Sources should be reliable, published and supports work done. This grants the readers the ability to find supporting documentation or materials if needed. These three core principles are used to ensure that an article is reliable in its stated facts. They work hand in hand to provide the users with an unbiased, support rich, quality source of information. By providing this as a sort of general rule for editing and adding data to the site, it allows editors to work within certain confines to create a page in Wikipedia of a trusted nature.
Oplmnq3 Taksim 3 New Edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Lillard
Welcome
Hello, Dr Ashton, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are a course instructor leading a class project.
- New to Wikipedia or want to learn about best practices for Wikipedia assignments?
The training includes instructions for setting up a structured course page, with tools for tracking student work and encouraging peer review. Please also see this helpful advice for instructors.
If you run into problems or want some feedback on your Wikipedia assignment plans, try posting to the education noticeboard.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay after your assignment is finished! bojo1498 talk 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Week 5 Assignment
3B.) After looking through the readings of Respected Secondary sources,Biomdedical journals, and secondary tertiary I have gained a better understanding of what Wikipedia expects from editors and other[ wikipedians]. Based on the work we find and the new information we provide we must be careful as to where we find our information. Through verifiability it makes it easier for other readers to figure out where the information comes from. Not only does the information we provide need to have a correct reference, But we try to avoid primary sources where it is an original work of the author or an individual. The readings gave me a better understanding on which type of work would be accepted and which kinds of sources would not be in our best interest.
Three weeks ago when I selected a literature review which is related to a topic in I/O psychology and a research article related to the topic of I/O psychology I have noticed I would not be able to use my research article to apply any knowledge to a Wikipedia because it is a [primary source] and it is a form of original work so to my understanding this published material should be avoided. I have read under Biomedical journals some research articles/papers describe original experiments but normally contain previous works that are secondary and typically less reliable. The literature review article I have chosen is a better to use on Wikipedia because under Secondary source the literature review is an accepted form work. Literature reviews, including research syntheses and meta-analyses, are critical evaluations of material that has already been published. In meta-analyses, authors use quantitative procedures to statistically combine the results of studies. The literature review is a good example of work that is a good selection to source. According to Wikipedia ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews.
My literature review is considered a secondary source because it define and clarify the problems and importantly summarized previous investigations to inform the reader of the state of research. My article is a primary source which is not accepted because it is a form of original work, the research article is a primary source because it consists of statement of the purpose of the investigation, method description of the procedures used to conduct the investigation and report of its analysis. All of this is primary work done by the researcher which will conclude its own research findings. My literature review does not fall under another classification neither does my research article besides it is not advised to use as a source. Oplmnq3 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Week 5
Assignment Week 5
1. 3 additional Non-Psych Edits
1. Guyanese Creole 2. Teacher 3. Wakenaam
2. I went back and check my last edits. Two were still there but my edit to Thor (Marvel Comics) was removed. I believe that this was removed due to lack of referencing. I made the edit but did not reference my source of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika Singh (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Devika Singh (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Devika Singh
Assignment 5
three additional edits
Looking back at my edits, some were erased due to a lack of reference and varifiability. The edit on the book/added link is still there.
--KierraA. (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
PSY 490 abstract review
This is the link to the abstract we worked on
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- ok, I will email you once I've submitted it. Xyzbb1253 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Assignment Week 6
The article I helped improve was Financial Planning. I added 2 references to the page as its main problem was that it did not have references.
(Devika Singh (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC))
Week 6
The page i edited was Work Design and it was (& still is) in need of citations to reliable sources.
The I/O Assessment article:
- is not written from a NPOV
- does not have any reputable sources
- has too many sections that should be sub sections
- is missing bullets and numbered lists
- is not cited appropriately
- didn't have any discussion on the talk page
- not written in an encyclopedic manner
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I need to change the title to Job design because there isn't much material on work design (even though they are the same thing) then I can put in the Job characteristics model and some other information.
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Week 6
1.) The article which I have worked on was Employability. The introduction for this I/O psychology article was long and broad. I took a few sentences out and made it more direct and understandable. This article had also relied mainly on one source so I read through the article and found additional sources to add.
2.) The I/O Assessment article showed a few errors on their page. 1. The article is not cited correctly. 2. This article lacked the writing of an encyclopedia and was written more towards a biased essay. 3.It does not meet the needs of Wikipedia standards. 4. Links to other articles are needed as well because it is a big topic article. 5. The Article is written in a neutral point of view.
Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Week 6 Assignment
The article I worked on: Performance rating (work measurement) The article had very little informaation and was tagged as orphan. I added some more information in relation to the context and how it is related to I/O Psychology. I also added citations/varifiable refferences.
--KierraA. (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Week 6
This week I have reviewed the Article called Occupational stress. The tags on this page indicated that it was too lengthy and it also lacked additional citations to reliable sources. What I have done is added 4 citation to a reliable source. Most of my sources were a form of peer reviewed journal article. I had also taken out a few sentences that were a little unclear and had tried to make the article up to Wikipedia standards.
Oplmnq3 (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Respond to Email
Hi Dr.Ashton, I did get a message from bot about the links I made. I did make some edits. I will try to redo but I am heading to work so I would not be able to do much.
Thanks for feedback Have a good day!!!
(Devika Singh (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC))
Response to Assignment Week 6
Yes, I linked 5 other wiki articles related to the orphaned article Performance rating (work measurement) including a link in I/O Psychology article.
--KierraA. (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Week 7 Assignment Industrial & Organizational Assessment
Here are links that I added to the Industrial & Organizational Assessment page.
These are 5 links that I linked {{Industrial & Organizational Assessment]] to other Wikipedia articles.
Oplmnq3 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Week 7 - links
links to the I/O assesment page were placed at the following:
- Industrial and organizational psychology
- Personnel psychology
- Personnel selection
- Personality psychology
- Psychometrics
- Psychological testing
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Assignment Week 7
This week I continue working on Industrial & Organizational Assessment page. First I look to see what the others are working on and try to improve the article.
Here are links from other articles that I link to the page:
Behaviorally anchored rating scales
ALSO I links the article to other Wikipedia articles. Here are links:
I will be working on citation and references to help improve this article.
(Devika Singh (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC))
Week 7
Links in other pages to I/O Assessmemt:
occupational safety and health
assessment in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Links within Industial & Organizational Assessment:
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Inc
--KierraA. (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! :D --KierraA. (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Links to Sources
Dr. Ashton I added the links last week when you had told me to fix them. It is on your talk page. The most recent sources I found for the I/O assessment the 4 peer reviewed sources to make the page better I have added to the I/O assessment talk page. Oplmnq3 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
KierraA. has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Yummy!!!!
Thank You for the cookie
Devika Singh has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Assignment 3/31
Hello Dr. Ashton,
Here's my contingency plan for my article over the next few weeks located in my sandbox; link on my user page. Also I've changed the title of stub: Employment (disabilities).
--KierraA. (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank You for the cookie
Oplmnq3 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Oplmnq3 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
5 Improvements of Stub Article
Dr. Ashton, after reviewing many ideas to figure out what I need to do to have my article accepted by Wikipedia are a number of thing such as,
1.) Connect the idea of "PAQ" to other Wikipedia articles. (Other Human resource and Job analysis concepts tie in with the method of PAQ so I should expand on involving some terms on the appropriate pages.
2.) Find my peer reviewed articles and studies to show that PAQ is a important method not only utilized by I/O Psychologist but other hiring departments.
3.) I want to attach a link with a PAQ Form but that has been deleted because of Wikipedia regulations, So I will attach more links to give an example of a PAQ template.
4.) Updating and showing new organizations that use PAQ in their department (example, Yahoo, Google, Other big named fortune 500 companies to show the popularity.)
5.) Keep adding appropriate context to keep the pages competitive edge.
Outline of Stub article meeting Goal
- Within the midway of April my goal is to keep the article stable with other articles. (Having the freedom of writing almost anything to improve an article can also confuse readers by putting work that is not in comparison to the article.)
- I would like the quality of my writing to improve and be well written.
- Keep a sharp appropriateness of the images provided with the article. (I had an issue posting a template of Position analysis questionnaire I need to find the correct context in posting an image to show others what the PAQA method is asking for)
- I want to expand the article by adding other Wikipedia links to my page. The more links added gives it more of a chance other individuals/wikipedians can have the opportunity to review my article and post comments on the talk page.
Position analysis questionnaire[1] Oplmnq3 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's about 1/2 way there. You've talk about the content side of things, but what about the Wikipedia side of things? That is:Template:GATable What about 3a and 3b?
Dr Ashton (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Stub
5 improvement needed for my stub Employee Morale
1) Make sure its verifiable and written in a neutral point of view
2) Link it to other article and link other article to it
3) Make sure it cover the main aspect of the topic and avoid unnecessary details
4) Clean up is needed, I need to proof read and work on organization.
5) Ensure its Stable and Proof read to make sure its well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika Singh (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Week 10 (4/1): Read Good Article and add reliable sources to my article stub.
Week 11 (4/8): Read over stub and add or take out relevant information
Week 12 (4/15): Add links to article
Week 13 (4/22): Add article to other article
Week 14 (4/29): Do a review and check again to ensure the article meet the requirement for good article.
Week 15 (5/6): work on correction and feedback from professor and peers and submit article
Week 16 (5/16): If deny fix correction and resubmit.Not sure which day is presentation and what needed to be done for it. Work on presentation
Week 17 (5/20): Presentation but not sure about date.
This is my plan, however it can change depending on feedback from professor and my progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devika Singh (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is vague and general, it could apply to any stub article. Specifically, what do you need to do to yours? Dr Ashton (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Response to Today's Assignment
The original title was "Workplace acceptance (disabilities)" but "employment(disabilities)" seems like a better fit considering the information I have already provided and working on
link to plan and 5 improvements: Sandbox
--KierraA. (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Article outline
[Here is the link to the sandbox]
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Team Effectiveness vs IPA
I was going to doing it but I didn't want to 'edit war' over which one I should do. So can I do it?
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
50 words reflection
Working on the Wikipedia article gave me a new appreciation of this particular resource. I created a page on Employee Morale, learning to add links, citations and page development. Employee Morale deals with worker satisfaction and its effect on a business. My research in Independent Study Assignment really granted me a lot of knowledge creating and editing Wikipedia. Overall it was a fun learning experience.
(Devika Singh (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
This Month in Education: April 2014
Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Assignment 4/23
I've also emailed you the paper encyclopedia articles. Hope you enjoyed your Spring Break!
--KierraA. (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Link to Sandbox
Pros and Cons of Employee Morale
(Devika Singh (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
Paper article
As I review other articles relating to the topic of Position Analysis Questionnaire, there are many other articles with other questionnaires but not as specific as PAQ. According to other Questionnaire links in Wikipedia most of them are used within Human Resource but PAQ has been indicated that is highly in use with in Industrial and Organization psychologist. Very similar questionnaires are as to IPA Individual psychological Assessment and the term Questionnaire when typed into the search bar gives us only questionnaire which is shown to collect many analysis responses. Psychological assessment is pretty broad but shares a fair amount of information as Position Analysis Questionnaire.
Connected matters do offer required background between PAQ and other related topics, such as data; and how useful this questionnaire is in result of obtaining accurate information. This information is not approached in other Wikipedia articles. My article has been set in stone to provide the information of accuracy
There is not a lot of sources that are being utilized or constructed within my subject. There have been studies but not any new ones to the knowledge of PAQ or other peer reviewed articles. The issue with this is that more new tests for assessments and hiring are being produced and many organizations have their own approach where human resource and I/O Psychologist take in their method instead of PAQ. Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
assignment for inclusion criteria
Assignment
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Moving Content
Dr. Ashton, though my PAQ encyclopedia was unconvincing I have decided to take another approach. I have went on a couple of Wikipedia articles and I have applied a category of Position Analysis Questionnaire to some of the pages which I thought would be an excellent idea to have others notice what PAQ is. For example I have added a few more sentences to what PAQ is under Job analysis I have also went to the Questionnaire page and added a few sentences and quick links. I added PAQ to the Job Interview page under different models. The more I expand the more likely I would have the help of others understand where my interest is coming from. Connecting this effective questionnaire to pages so individuals can see it is a great method to use for businesses that would like to predict work behavior and find the best employees and applicants. With that being said. I am adding PAQ top the appropriate pages where it can be some what of good information and to help expand other Wikipedia articles. I am also thinking about starting a new page for Wikipedia called "Work Anxiety' I am trying to find more peer reviewed sources but I am limited to only anxiety disorder but I will be digging for more information to the best of my ability.
Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This Month in Education: May 2014
| |||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Submission for good article status
Dr Ashton,
I have submitted team effectiveness for a good article nomination.
Respectfully,
Xyzbb1253 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This Month in Education: June 2014
| ||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)