Talk:Frederick Oswald Barnett

Plagarism
I gotta believe that the material in this is lifted from someplace else. Un sch  ool  05:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word is plagiarism. The entry is fully referenced. Richpond (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I guess the intended light tone of my comment was not evident when read. I am quite aware of what plagarism is, and if I was certain of it, I would have said so.  Having said that, being "fully referenced" is no guarantee that a work is not plagiarized.  What made this stand out is that few articles are "born" in such a complete form, with this type of style.  It certainly does not have the appearance of something created for Wikipedia.


 * Furthermore, while non-web sources are absolutely acceptable, they do have the downside that very few can quickly check on them, since most editors are hardly likely to have the sources in their possession.


 * Finally, the article is not fully sourced in an acceptable way. While there is a list of references, there are no footnotes telling us what information came from what sources. Of course, this is a new article, and I'm sure you'll be providing this later.   Un  sch  ool  08:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the terseness of my response - I thought it was some smart-arse. While I certainly referred to the sources cited, the actual text is my own composition, The "completeness" is because the work is to be assessed as a university tutorial paper (perhaps rather hastily assembled because it was due today, Monday). The referencing style is the so-called "Harvard" style which we are asked to use at uni. Does Wikipedia prefer a footnote ? Because of the above-mentioned haste, I have not yet worked this out fully. I will do more homework! Richpond (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Answering questions as best I can

 * Well, first of all, I need to make clear that I am by no stretch of the imagination an authority on Wikipedia, its policies, or its procedures. I am a casual editor who contributes whenever he gets a chance, and occasionally I see things from which I learn.  And I learn slowly.

Photos
Also, I would like to add some photographs (tho have not worked out how to do that either) The intended photos are scanned from one of the source books, and thus are not my property, tho I would argue that they are in the public domain. Is this acceptable to WP? Richpond (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have photos to add, you first upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Then, after you have the photos there, you can add them to your articles.  Learn how here.  There are strict rules regarding copyright law, and you might find it difficult to get around them, but there you have it.

Original research
Okay, now this final topic I'm really dreading to bring up with you, because a) I might be wrong, and b) if I'm right, you're likely to be very, very unhappy. You may have come across editors mentioning the Wikipedia policy called No Original Research. It's something people take very seriously. Based upon some articles I've seen before, I believe that some editors might say that your article needs to be deleted because it is your own, personal work. I don't really understand the rules surrounding this, but I do remember on one occasion that an article (I believe it was mathematical in nature, but it's been a couple of years, and I've forgotten what it was, exactly) was actually deleted because the grad student who wrote it was basing it upon the research that he had done, if I recall correctly, for his masters or doctorate. He pointed to all the research he had done, but it was to no avail, as others cited no original research. Now as I recall, his article seemed really weird, and yours covers a historical figure, so maybe there's no comparison. And I certainly would never report your article as such—it looks good to me. I would recommend trying to find some online references to him, as that will help to placate those who are annoyed that they cannot from the article even confirm his existence, but it's only a suggestion; there is no requirement that you do this.

Okay, I've got to run. I recognize that I may just have spent 15 minutes typing up stuff that you already know. If so, please don't feel that I've been patronizing; my intent is only to be helpful, not condescending. I wish you good luck, the article is starting to shape up. Cheers. Un sch  ool  03:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New External Link added
I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to images and the story of campaigner Frederick Oswald Barnett.Eleworth (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)