User talk:Steph at AUM
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome Steph at AUM!
I'm Marchjuly, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
{{My sandbox}} on your userpage.Sincerely, Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
This ol' ex-Alabama boy will try to help
[edit]Hey, Steph, I'm a volunteer admin here in the English-language Wikipedia (which is just one of several hundred, albeit the best known). I'm volunteering to be of any help I can in your voyage into the world of Wikipedia editing (surely the noblest form of timewasting ever devised). (I'm a freelance writer, and the son of a reporter at the Anniston Star; but when we lived in Anniston, AUM did not yet exist.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
"using ... activity on Wikipedia to demonstrate scholarly contributions and/or research"
[edit]I read your post in the Teahouse.
As a retired associate professor, I fear that your hopes for using Wikipedia as evidence of scholarly research are likely to result in disappointment. Two factors in particular come into play in this regard: 1) Because Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, it would be difficult for you to demonstrate exactly what part(s) of an article you contributed. At any point, someone else might go behind you and add to, or take away from, your contribution. 2) Many (perhaps most) college faculty members have little regard for Wikipedia with regard to scholarship.
I apologize for being pessimistic when you are obviously enthusiastic about both your academic future and your future contributions to Wikipedia. If you must be disillusioned, however, it's better that the disillusionment come early rather than later.
I hope that you will contribute to Wikipedia even if those contributions do not directly help your academic progress. I have enjoyed my four years of writing and editing on here, and I encourage you to pursue your interests as you create and edit articles. English literature is not my field, but if I can help you with questions about Wikipedia in general, please feel free to contact me. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Alas, I concur with friend Blick. The odds of ever seeing your contributions here recognized in academia run the traditional gamut from slim to none, not least because what is cherished in a scholar's own work (solid original research and synthesis) is verbotten here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Teblick:, @Orangemike:: thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it! I’m disappointed to hear that but I’m not quite giving up yet. One of my professors was granted tenure based on his academic work here, so I’m sure Wikipedia has to count someway. Steph at AUM (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)