Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Davidson College/Cognitive Psychology (2013 Q1)

On automatic creation of reference templates

I copy here info given to students in the deep dyslexia article since it can be useful to most groups:

You might not know that you can automatically create references from scientific journals by inserting the pubmed number (pmid) or digital object identifier (doi): go to the editing toolbar, click cite, click templates, click cite journal and insert either of the two identifiers in its appropiate place, and voila!: you have your citation. It has the advantage that it reduces errors (although it is better checking since sometimes it makes some mistakes) and also gives a link to the article abstract direcly when you go with the mouse over the inline citation or at the reference at the end of an article. For example in the case of Jones-1985- article Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication just by inserting its doi (10.1016/0093-934X(85)90094-X), obtained from either pubmed (pmid:3971130 see [1] or the publishing house abstract to the article (See [2]) I get (in this case using doi): . You might notice that gives an error in the year that you can easily fix and have: . I am not sure if I have explained myself adequately but these kind of things make editing muuuuuuuuuuuch easier, so if you did not really understood my explanation please ask.--Garrondo (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I have seen quite some editing plans for different articles, and almost all sources you students mention are WP:primary sources, that is, results of single studies. However, Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A tip for talk pages

While in articles modification of previous editions is how wikipedia improves in talk pages is not really common to modify comments since then people are unable to follow what has happened. Whenever you write in a talk page do not change what you find: instead write a new comment below so the talk page has chronological flow.--Garrondo (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also: interact, interact, interact.... and interact!!! When somebody posts a message for you, answer to it directly in the article page or in the user talk page, say thank you as much as you can, and if in doubt it is always better to ask.--Garrondo (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Best regards to everybody.--Garrondo (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)