User talk:Kenidevlin

This user is a student editor in Tulane_University/GESS_2900_-_Spring_2020_-_Making_Wikipedia_Better_(Spring_2020) .

Welcome!

Hello, Kenidevlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --Ecs222 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of special editing rules relating to abortion

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Because you have shown interest in a highly controversial area of Wikipedia, please carefully ensure that you are following all editing rules. Reach out to Shalor (Wiki Ed) or your instructor if you run into any problems. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I have some notes:

This deals with a medical/psychological topic, so you must take the training module on medical topics here.

This needs to be revised to be more neutral, as it seems to be written from more of a casual, reflective stance. For example, the lead sentences are set up to make it seem like gaslighting is guaranteed to happen. It's better to say that it can happen and that people who have reported gaslighting have stated X and Y.

The sourcing needs work - pop culture sourcing should be avoided when discussing medical and psychological topics. The reasons for this stem around verification, editing, and sensationalism. For example, a tv show can inform but it's also designed to entertain. As such, they may fudge or misrepresent information - sometimes unintentionally - in order to ensure that they get more viewers. The same goes for even newspapers and magazines. There's more information about this here.

To this end, sites like the Atlantic and GirlBoss should be avoided. Healthline isn't awful, but it's not necessarily the strongest possible source in general. In this situation it's actually a primary source since it's a reflective piece written by a non-medical professional and as such, should be treated like a pop culture source rather than something that is indicative of the public in general.

Forbes should also be generally avoided. It's a pop culture source, but the other issue is that they have contributor posts. They have discontinued these but still have them posted. Ultimately they are pieces written by non-staff members that are not given any true editorial oversight and claims aren't verified. In this situation the source should be treated as a self-published source, which should only be used if we can verify that the person in question is seen as a trusted authority on the topic. The fact that Sarkis has a Wikipedia article is a good sign, but not always a guarantee. Her having a PhD is better, but it's still possible for someone to have a PhD and be seen as a problematic source. While the odds are that this is likely usable, I wanted to hammer home how important it is to find the strongest possible sourcing. This often means that the sourcing will be academic and scholarly sourcing, in most cases.

Be very careful with highlighting studies. Make sure that you have a secondary source for this and that it's seen as a major, notable enough survey that it warrants to be highlighted. Part of the issue with highlighting studies is that they're often very limited in who participates and as such, findings are really only accurate for that specific group in that specific location. Even with literature reviews (which is what you pulled this from), make sure that you don't accidentally misrepresent the data at hand. Also, this was a literature review and not a study.

The workplace harassment statement needs to be a bit more specific. I would instead phrase it like "Gaslighting in the workplace can be seen as a form of workplace harassment." This is more to the point, however it's still kind of vague. When is gaslighting not considered to be harassment? Assuming that it's only considered to be harassment when it's done intentionally and maliciously, it could be phrased like this: "Gaslighting is typically considered a form of workplace harassment when it is done intentionally or with malice." We need to make sure that we have a source for this, though. For example this source would be good, as it describes gaslighting as falling on a spectrum of workplace harassment.

I hope this all helps - I don't want this to seem wholly negative, as I do think that you have some good ideas here and it's surprising that pregnancy isn't already covered. To be honest, it looks like there's no section on gaslighting in medicine, a major omission, so this is something you could try to work on also while reviewing the notes. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits at Gaslighting were removed by another editor, because they may have violated Wikipedia's policy on No original research, in particular, WP:SYNTH. If you believe they made an error, or you would like to restore this content into the article, please follow up by raising a new discussion on the article Talk page at Talk:Gaslighting. Adding User:Shalor (Wiki Ed). Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mathglot! Kenidevlin, I left you several notes about your work that will explain the issues with the additions. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]