Talk:Water protectors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andigraves, Shirleythai1013.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent Deletions/Additions
As an outside observer to recent removals/additions, while some of the added information is redundant, some of it is definitely useful (“Water is Life” section, for ex., whereas those words are not really put in context anywhere else on the page, save for a few examples; brief rundown of DAPL outside of main page, info from Kyle Powys Whyte and Nick Estes, etc.). I do think it might be most helpful to add the original major additions again and then pick through what is necessary and what is not. I may try later today, but wanted to come here first so it doesn’t look like I’m simply adding something that has been removed/removing something that has been added. There is definitely useful information in what’s been added. Hobomok (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * +1 @CorbieVreccan please be less aggressive on this -- the new content needs to be more carefully intergrated, but complete reversal is inappropriate. Sadads (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, but are you going to take responsibility for cleaning it up and integrating it? Or will it sit there as a redundant section until I take it on? If the former, please revert and proceed to do the work. If not, it's not worth all the redundancies. I've just seen too many of these student project dumps lately - a whole passel yesterday - where people add whole sections then no one ever does the cleanup. So, I'm happy to have it reverted, but whoever does it is taking the responsibility to put in the editing time. :) Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes it is the end of the term in a lot of places, so I am sure they will continue. I do agree that in some instances it is good to just remove wholesale (I did the same here earlier this week). In other instances though, I think there's good information; it's just hiding because intelligent writers might be new to editing. I've got some time right now to work on this one, so no harm for me to take it on. --Hobomok (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @CorbieVreccan Yes, the content is redundant and is problematic to me in the ways it refers to spirituality, but give some space for cleanup. I hope if this is a student project the instructor will take responsibility. I'm working through my assigned students projects right now and it takes time. I also have plans to take a look at this article over the winter break (no time right now!) Thanks @HobomokSmallison (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hobomok and I have both edited since this discussion :) So this really isn't an issue anymore, that I can see. My perspective on the student edits is that way too many times, and this was one of them, they don't seem to take the time to read the existing article and sources. They have a pattern of writing up what they want to say, using citation formats that don't integrate well with the current content, and then they just dump it in and leave, never returning to fix what they've done. Oh, they will revert-war to keep their stuff in. I've seen that a lot. But I have never seen the instructors step up and correct their students' mistakes, or in any other way "take responsibility". Not once. I've seen a lot of instructors treat us like the 'pedia is their students' scratch pad.

As long as someone steps up immediately to fix it, it's not a problem. But if it hasn't been fixed when I find it, and it's making the article tiresome to read, or it's borking the citations... unless there's some really amazing new content in there I'm going to revert. My policy is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a student experiment, and mainspace is not the sandbox. So, we don't let problems sit in an article indefinitely. If you don't have time but want to work to salvage the student content later, you can always pull it from the history, rework it, and put in a new edit. That's what Hobomok did. Anyway, I bear no one ill will in this. I'm just prioritizing the 'pedia and our readers. Best, - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)