User talk:Kafshar17
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Kafshar17, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Executive_Order_13769
[edit]Hi! Ian (Wiki Ed) is out of the office, so I wanted to give you a little head's up and feedback about your edits to the article on Executive_Order_13769. Firstly, I wanted to let you know that the article is held under sanctions, which basically means that the article is watched more closely than other articles because of its subject matter. As such, any contributions to the page needs to be written as neutrally as possible, not contain any original research, and have the strongest possible sources.
That said, I'm concerned about the sourcing you used for this. One of the sources you used was a Twitter search for the hashtag "#buildthewall". Searches typically aren't considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia because what they bring up can change and can often be easily manipulated. Also, the search doesn't back up the claim that this specific hashtag came about as a result of the specific hashtag of “#NoBanNoWall”, so this would be seen as original research. What you need is a source like a newspaper article or academic/scholarly source that makes this claim. Buzzfeed News is generally seen as reliable on Wikipedia, but isn't necessarily the strongest possible source. You're using it to back up claims of a specific number of current uses, however this number is not mentioned in the article, which was written in 2017 and as such wouldn't keep track of the specific number of people using the tag. Also keep in mind that this article is about the tag's use on Twitter rather than Instagram. At most this could be used to show that the hashtag was used on Twitter, but it can't back up claims of the tag's use on other social media outlets.
Bustle is a bit of a dubious source since it's not always seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. However like the other two sources, this doesn't actually back up the claims in the article as this article is about the specific hashtag "#GrandparentsNotTerrorists". This may be a case of you linking to the wrong source as Bustle will change their URL depending on how far you scroll down the screen as they have multiple stories that follow one after the other as the reader scrolls, so it's important to be careful with sourcing. I would definitely try to find a stronger source though. I'm leery about Mic.com. I know that when it was PolicyMic many editors didn't see it as a reliable source because it allowed users to post their own work, but I don't know if that has changed with the rebranding. I'll let Ian decide on this one.
My basic thoughts here is that this should use stronger sources, especially academic or scholarly sources. This looks good offhand. I also found this. I found these by using Google Scholar, however you'd likely find more with your college's academic databases, though. I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)