User:Kelseacumbie/sandbox

Thinking about sources and plagiarism:

 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * Blog posts and press releases are not neutral sources, they are normally biased sources that are influenced by the writer's personal opinion.
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * A company website may contain many facts, but it would not be considered a neutral source, a better main source would be something more neutral to the company.
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * Plagiarism is using another person's work or ideas while copyright violation is an offence against the copyright holder.
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
 * You should read your sources for information and facts, but then use your own words when you begin to write, make sure to cite your sources

Copyedits:

 * Wetumpka crater
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wetumpka_crater&diff=858184446&oldid=854698690
 * Lake Quannapowitt
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_Quannapowitt&diff=858186125&oldid=857396801
 * Simon Larned
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Larned&diff=858917334&oldid=711343359

Drafts:

 * Bibb Graves bridge
 * User:Kelseacumbie/Bibb Graves bridge
 * John Trotman
 * User:Kelseacumbie/John "Bubba" Trotman
 * Fallon Taylor
 * User:Kelseacumbie/Fallon Taylor

Featured article evaluation: Andalusian horse

 * Issues that were resolved in article:
 * This article had issues with external links, six edits were made to fix just the external links.
 * Editors had an issue with which picture to use, this topic came up multiple times on the talk page. One editor specifically mentioned that the picture should involve a gray horse because a majority of Andalusian horses are gray.
 * Number of reviewers on article:
 * This article had 12 different editors review it.


 * OK but this is all very perfunctory... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
This is an example of vandalism because the term "Evangelical Catholic" was replaced with "Jerdy is gay". The phrase "and bigger solar sun infact stupid planet" was added to this article. This phrase makes no sense and was added to intentionally interfere with this article. This is an example of vandalism because the person who edited this article changed and added things untrue or irrelevant. The first edit they made was that they changed the person's name from Harold to "Haroldygivoboubhbbh". They also edited his last name from Hardrada to "Hardy Marcy". The final piece of vandalism that was added was the phrase "drugs (ha ha ha)".
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evangelical_Catholic&curid=3566720&diff=865553774&oldid=865553390
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europa_(moon)&diff=prev&oldid=867430963
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harald_Hardrada&diff=prev&oldid=867429810

Reliability
This article states that Wikipedia is not considered reliable, it backs this claim with 8 different points. 1. The Philip Cross scandal: this point tells about an editor on Wikipedia who has edited every single day for years, they explain how that is not logical. 2. The contributor with an agenda always prevails: This explains a situation where an editor put a false quote in an article and it actually ended up in the person's obituary. 3. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority: This mentions an editor who used his authority to ban over 2000 contributors whose viewpoints were different than his. 4. Accurate contributors can be silenced: 5. The number of active Wikipedia editors has fallen: 6. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute: 7. Vandalism: this is a common issue on Wikipedia 8. Because Wikipedia themselves say so: Wikipedia's own disclaimer states "we do not expect you to trust us."
 * https://pattayaone.news/en/wikipedia-reliable-credible/

This article also claims that Wikipedia is unreliable. This article mentions how schools should not accept Wikipedia as a valid reference source.
 * https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia