User talk:Nashun Overton
| This user is a student editor in Virginia_Tech/Introductory_Sociology_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Nashun Overton, 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) 17:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nashun Overton,
I fixed the accidental page move. Do you still need help doing whatever it was you were trying to do, or are you all set now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox
[edit]Hi! I received notice that you had moved the page on institutional racism to your sandbox. When trying to create a draft to work on, remember that it's important to only copy the material to your sandbox rather than move the actual article over. You can create a copy by opening both your sandbox and the article in edit mode, then copying and pasting a copy of the article - or the specific portion you wish to work on - to your sandbox.
I also noticed that you had a sandbox page moved live, to Nashun Overton/sandbox. I've moved this to your sandbox for a few reasons.
- The first is that there's already an article on institutional racism, so there's no need to create a new page.
- The second is that the article looks to be more of an essay than a Wikipedia article and takes a very U.S.-centric approach. The content is also written from a specific stance rather than a neutral one. While I do agree that it's horrifying that the KKK is allowed to breed and spread around like rot and roaches, we can't actually have that viewpoint in an article. Things like this need to be very, very carefully phrased. If there are any opinions or specific stances in the sources, it's important to attribute it to the person making the claims.
- This should be written in more of the same language and format as the existing article.
- Wikipedia cannot be used to source itself, as it's not seen as a reliable source because it can be freely edited. Some of the other sources are a little problematic. Be very cautious when it comes to popular press sources, as they're not always the strongest possible sources. They can often be written from a specific viewpoint (as in the case of Fox News), for example. There's also the possibility that their content may not be exactly accurate, as some may report before they have all of the details and others may even fudge the details a little to make it more interesting to readers. Not outright falsify details, but perhaps make a larger leap than they should.
- Studies also pose an unique issue when it comes to Wikipedia. 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.
- Finally, when composing new material for an article, make sure that you're only rephrasing or adding material that needs to go into the article. I'm not really certain where the content in your sandbox is meant to go, to be honest.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)