User talk:Juliric33!
| This user is a student editor in Southern_Illinois_University_Edwardsville/ENG_102_Summer_2019_(Summer_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Juliric33!, 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) 20:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing for psychology articles
[edit]Hi! I saw that you chose a psychology article for your assignment. I want you to take this training module on editing health and medicine related topics before actively working on the page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw that you used a study for your additions to the article on multimedia psychology. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results. This is especially important when it comes to health and psychology topics.
- There was also an issue in that this focused on a single study rather than showing an overall review of the research out there - this is part of the other reason why using a study is problematic. Not only are they a primary source, but they don't really give a good overview of the research. Some will have literature review sections that may be usable, but even then they won't go into as much depth as an out and out literature review would do.
- As such, I've removed the content for the time being. I just wanted to let you know why. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)