User talk:Russece
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Cincinnati/ENGL_1001-34_English_Composition_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Russece, 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) 17:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Potential articles
[edit]1. Women in red: Jessica Ladd, sexual assault activist, TED talk, [18], [19] 2. Stub: Fischer's pygmy fruit bat link 3. Women in red: Memory Banda, Advocate against Child Marriage, [23] 4. Cheerleading Russece (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Callisto
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for your article.
The most major note is that this needs editing for tone and flow, as it does come across like it's written by a specific person. It contains very specific opinions on the organization, such as "Callisto is designed to help reduce the number of sexual assaults, however, it is not the solution to this problem." This leads into a discussion about attributed claims and 'Wikipedia's voice'.
Essentially, when you write something like "This is blue", that's in Wikipedia's voice, whereas something like "This Person says that this is blue" attributes the claim to a specific person. Where this becomes an issue with things like the quote I posted above, is that the sentence comes across as Wikipedia posting a judgement about Callisto and saying that it isn't a good solution - which should absolutely be avoided, as Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion. I've tweaked the lead paragraph a little to kind of show an alternative to this, changing this to a sentence stating "Since its release, Callisto has received criticism for its policies towards reporting to authorities and over concerns of its database being hacked." This changes it up so that it shows that it's actually critics in the sourcing that have made these claims, not Wikipedia.
Also, when writing, make sure that you avoid the use of "you" and similar wording, as this is seen as too casual. Another thing to avoid is original research. Using the first sentence as an example, you used the Washington Post as a source to back up the claim that Callisto isn't the solution to the problem of sexual assault, however the person in the article never actually makes that claim. They do point out that there are issues, but they don't outright state that this isn't the way to resolve the problem, so by using it in this way we're creating original research by putting words in the person's mouth that they didn't explicitly state. (We can only summarize what is very explicitly and plainly stated.)
Finally, just be careful about phrasing. Because we cannot verify that any of the claims of sexual assault have actually happened, we have to write this very, very carefully. We have to state things like 'alleged assault' and use terms like 'user' or 'individual'. The reason for this is basically that it keeps things neutral while neither confirming or denying that an assault took place. There's also a bit of a movement to use terms other than victim to describe someone who has survived sexual assault, so there's that as well.
On a side note, it looks like Callisto is branching out to professional environments as well as on campuses, so that's something to add to the article. Also, I think that it would be good to have some sort of overview of the reporting process, such as what someone would enter into a report and (if the info is available) what happens with the information after that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- A lot of this is more nitpicky - I think that overall the article is good and it's honestly surprising that this wasn't already covered on Wikipedia, so I did want to say that this was an excellent choice for a topic! I can absolutely help you with the re-write process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I also wanted to let you know that it looks like your images were deleted on Commons because of copyright issues. In most cases images and media are copyrighted in a way that would prohibit its upload to Commons or to Wikipedia. There are some ways that we can use things like screenshots such as fair use, but they have to be very carefully done. I can help with this process, if you like. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for helping me with my page! I understand what you are talking about and am trying hard to meet the criteria. I am new and still learning so this is all helpful information. Once again, thank you!
Russece (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Callisto (project)
[edit]Thanks for creating Callisto (project).
A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:
The article looks good, it just needs some copyediting for cohesion and tone. Keep up the good work!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.