User:Lizb07/sandbox

The following sandbox entries relate to this course.

The training for students article was a very informative introduction to Wiki editing. I found the whole process to be a little intimidating, but thought the videos proved to be quite helpful. While I learned several new things about Wikipedia that I was previously unaware of, I think the amount of coding was certainly among the most difficult to retain. Thankfully, the article offered several resources and references several links that I will certainly be revisiting until I get the hang of the coding. The Help:cheatsheet is certainly highly among them.--Lizb07 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Hi Liz not even sure if there is where I should be writing this but thanks for the Help:cheatsheet I guessed I missed that--Maidmarian55 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing the Dona Ana Community College Paragraphs
I really enjoyed this exercise, but found myself unsure of how to properly explain my edit. Luckily, I believe I was the first to edit the paragraph so I was able to fix the first glaring mistake in the body of the paragraph (why didn't I edit the title?? D'oh!). After gaining some confidence in the work I had done, I realized I had forgotten to sign with the four tildes so had to return to include that. I'm still not sure I've done it correctly and am anxiously waiting on the results. --Lizb07 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Wikipedia's stance on plagiarism is one of preserving the original integrity of the material being cited through the proper mediums of structuring an article. The Plagiarism article offered several sources on important topics including when and how to properly cite quotations and when it is necessary and appropriate to give credit to original materials. These materials are meant to strengthen an editors discernment regarding when to give credit to the original author, or when things need not be cited for they are common knowledge. That is, an idea that is an absolute truth not solely an individual's unique observation. Plagiarism is a serious offense and can easily be avoided, so long as proper precautions are in place. While there is currently no watch dog service in place to insure articles are free of plagiarism, they do emphasize a responsibility to all editors to avoid using other's materials improperly and repairing plagiarism when it is found. Lizb07 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
Close paraphrasing is the use of another author's creative flourishes as your own. While it may be tempting to write in the vein of another's output,it is considered copyright infringement. Authors are encouraged to keep to a simple summation of the topic being covered and to present it in a fact-based manner. Some close paraphrasing is acceptable as long as proper attribution is given in the text. Lizb07 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License, Wikipedia's materials maybe used freely. While this is true of it's articles, it's other media is not subject to the same liberties. Dealing with copyright violations can be exhaustive and often times inconclusive. If one suspects that an article contains materials which maybe copyrighted they may highlight the issue in the discussion are of the page. Other ways copyright violations may be handled include: a complete re-write of the page; the deletion of the section in question (with a note and the original source cited if possible); or the blanking of the section or article and listing it on the Wikipedia copyright problems page so that an administrator may order the next appropriate course of action. Lizb07 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Tabs
While reviewing the different tabs and their content, I have found them to be rather self explanatory. The Project Page seems to be the feature page for the article. It is where the article content is displayed. The Talk tab is where any issues with the content or relevant comments or suggestions about the article may be made. The Edit tab is where editors may submit their own changes to the article as needed. The History tab contains a record of the changes that have been made to the article. The Move tab was not featured on my view of the articles so this involved some investigating. From what I have learned about the Move tab, one can change the heading under which the article is featured. Once the article has been moved the previous title of the article becomes a page that redirects users to the new title where the article can now be found. If an article does not offer the move tab that because it is protected from being moved, however editors may submit a request to administrators to move it through the Requested moves page. The Watch tab allows editors to monitor any editing activity on an article through their Watchlist. Lizb07 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What I practiced
After using the "Search" function to find each article, I reviewed each tab on every required reading. Through the tabs, I was able to familiarize myself with the editorial process. The various tabs, especially the "Talk" tab, allowed me to see the articles in a new perspective by considering the notes of others. The "View History" tab was also very helpful, as it showed me the evolution of the articles and the various ways in which they have already been altered.

Articles I read

 * New Mexico State University
 * Dona Ana County, New Mexico
 * Thomas Branigan Memorial Library
 * Pima Community College
 * Anthony, New Mexico
 * Las Cruces, New Mexico

Finding an article to edit
While perusing the New Mexico State University article I observed several "fluff" words, meaning those that were superfluous and non-impartial, to describe certain events, namely the origin and maintenance of the "A" mountain. While reviewing the "Talk" tab for the article I found several relevant notes, but none highlighting this matter. This to me seems like an article that can stand a critical review for an edit. Also, while viewing the "Talk" tab for the Dona Ana County, New Mexico article I noticed several notes that had been made, but have yet to be addressed. I will definitely utilize these tabs when trying to find the article I will edit, as they have proven to be quite informative and help reduce the research involved in the editing process. Lizb07 (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Guillermo Kahlo's questionable genealogy
While reading Frida Kahlo's Wikipedia page, I noticed that, according to the article, her father was not of Jewish decent and was in fact Lutheran. This is the first I had ever heard of the controversy, so I located the source and found it to be just an abstract of an article published by the Jerusalem Post about a book that was written in German and has not had any other coverage or credibility lent to it. The source cited can be found here. Neither the book's author or title are ever mentioned. When I delved further in my research I found no credible links (or functioning ones for that matter)that supported this books claim. My suggestion for this edit would be to either remove the Lutheran claim completely or alter the section to read like the section below.

Childhood and family
Frida Kahlo never denied claims that her father, Guillermo Kahlo, was of European Jewish decent. Recently, a claim has been made contrary to this common understanding, expressing that Mr. Kahlo was actually of German Protestant decent. However, there is currently no evidence to substantiate this claim. 67.42.204.66 (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mat Hoffman Action Sports Park
Oklahoma City has a skate park named after Mat Hoffman - a famous BMX rider. The skate park is now Mat Hoffman Actionurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City Sports Park and allows skateboards, bmx bikes, scooters, and roller blades. It was named in a National Geographic Travel guide as one of the 10 best in 2009.

Refrences
Lizb07 (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)67.42.204.66 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

67.42.204.66 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Six editing ideas

 * Guillermo Kahlo- As I mentioned in my previous assignment, there seems to be some confusion as to his genealogical roots.


 * Santa Fe, New Mexico-This article makes no mention of the libraries there.


 * Las Cruces, New Mexico-There is mention of the Whole Enchilada Fiesta in the annual events section, but the links for the citations are broken. Also could it stand to be it's own subsection?


 * Rio Grande Botanic Garden-While certainly one of the most fetching points of Albuquerque, I wanted to see if anything was written about it's annual River of Lights event. However, I found that Wikipedia already has asked for a rewrite of the entire article because it reads like an advertisement.


 * Schlitterbahn-The article needs updating.


 * Rhyming Slang-This article needs help in verifying citations.

Guillermo Kahlo
I think that editing the Guillermo Kahlo article would be very interesting because it is not an extensive article and most of the sources that are cited are not credible or have a broken link. The main point the article seems to be pursuing is that Guillermo Kahlo was not of Jewish descent, but came from a Lutheran family. The article also cites a claim that Guillermo was in fact a conservative Catholic. While these are interesting claims, there is a lack of sources to back them up. The talk page is no help and features but one unintelligible sentence written under an untitled section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Guillermo_Kahlo More information is found on the Frida Kahlo talk page regarding that topic that may be helpful. However, there seems to be quite the editing war occurring over on that page, and I'd like to steer clear of that. I will also pursue the sources that Professor Smith suggested to me when I originally brought up this topic on January 28th.

The whole enchilada fiesta
While it has been a while since I've lived in Las Cruces (nearly eight years!) I remember the Whole Enchilada Fiesta being a city-wide tradition that nearly every local experiences at least once in their lifetime. With that being said, I was surprised to see such outdated sources cited for the event. Also, given the fact that the fiesta features a whole paragraph under the annual events section, I wondered if perhaps it deserves it's own sub section? The fiesta is a three day celebration which features several different activities and events. I think much can be added here. Perhaps even an image can be added to the article.Lizb07 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing the annual events section in the Las Cruces, New Mexico article
I have chosen to edit the Whole Enchilada Fiesta portion of the Las Cruces, New Mexico article. While the section does contain lots of information about the Fiesta and it's origins, the links cited are very outdated. The Whole Enchilada fiesta has been featured in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2000, but has no citation. Additionally, I wonder if perhaps I would be allowed to clean up some of the grammar and punctuation within other parts of the section such as the references to the wine festivals, and the two sentences on the Border Book Festival. While the editing seems intimidating I also think I would be able to cite some links to the wine festivals as they are completely lacking those. Both festivals operate their own websites http://www.wineharvestfestival.com/; http://www.snmwinefestival.com/; and http://nmwine.com/wine_festivals/single/southern-new-mexico-wine-festival which could prove very beneficial. Lizb07 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages
The Talk:Las Cruces, New Mexico page for the article was very active at one point (2008) but has since tapered off a bit. There are lots of suggestions and added information floating around there that have yet to be addressed with regard to the Annual EventssSection. In 2008, a previous editor claimed he had bulked it up the Annual Events section, but felt it was still lacking. There was some talk of expanding the area I had in mind so that makes me feel like I'm editing in the right direction. The talk page cites the usage of the WP:USCITY article for the appropriate structure of this section which I find very helpful. Lizb07 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Reflective essay
As a former technical writer and editor, I felt confident upon first entering this course. I was excited about learning how to use Wikipedia properly (aside from just picking it off the top of a random google search) I thought my editorial background would greatly benefit me thus making the class an easier one to navigate.

Once I had read through the syllabus and had actually absorbed the magnitude of the work I would be required to do for this course, I was far less confident in my abilities. I began to feel slightly overwhelmed. I hadn't considered I would be utilizing an entirely new interface, writing in an unfamiliar coding and even evaluating my peers. Though I carefully constructed my Sandbox, I struggled to understand what I was being asked to do and would spend a great deal of time analyzing my assignment. My confidence as an editor waivered towards the middle of the course, but I stuck with it and even did well towards the end!

I was excited to write in my own Sandbox, and thankfully that feeling never ceased. I felt that it was a unique opportunity to test out ideas and fine tune them before fully committing to an edit. I enjoyed perusing Wikipedia and examining various topics and learning about what I could contribute. I found that through my Sandbox I was able to express changes I thought might be beneficial to an article I cared about without drawing critical response. The Sandbox proved to be a huge encouragement to me as a first time Wikipedia editor.

Once it was time to commit to an article and begin editing them I felt overjoyed. It was finally the opportunity I needed to utilize my strengths as a writer. While I’m confident with fixing grammar and punctuation as well as constructing new paragraphs and sentences, I met my match when it came to citations. To me, it made sense to remove a link if it was broken or from an outdated article and replace it with links that were more closely related to the events in the article. However, I discovered through others editing my work that those links were actually favored over links that were directly tied to the events I was writing about. That was a real learning experience for me.

I felt intimidated when we were asked to evaluate the work of our peers. I worried about how I would diplomatically and kindly offer my opinions and edits to those who didn't really know me. I felt the guidelines for that assignment were awesome. It took a bit of the sting out of the process to offer peers two positive observations about their work and one editorial suggestion. I wondered if I would be able to graciously take the criticism or if I would feel defensive and closed off to suggestions and changes. I found it to be a simple process because of the criteria Professor Smith had set. Though at first the assignment began as an intimidating process, it proved to be a growing experience and a chance to enhance and showcase editorial etiquette within our little community.

I feel thankful to have been able to add finishing touches to the articles to which I contributed. There were several things to revisit that I only would have noticed with a fresh pair of eyes and time away from the subjects. Though I did my best when I was addressing them, there was always more to be done. I felt very privileged to be able to contribute to the hard work of others and appreciated the contributions they made to mine. The section I worked on in the Las Cruces article was a section that was dedicated to the vibrancy of life in Las Cruces. I wanted it to appeal to those who had never been and had never experienced that sort of life in the southwest. I hope that I accomplished just that in work that I did.

I feel proud when I think about the work my peers and I have accomplished within this course in such a short period of time. For me, this was a chance to really expand my editing skills. It’s deeply humbling to be able to look back at the article I contributed to and realize that it is well done thanks to so many thoughtful additions from my class and my professor. Though it may see many changes in its life, I’m so happy with the way the article has turned out and feel very thankful to have had the opportunity to contribute something to the city I grew up in, even if it is only but a small gesture. Lizb07 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Writing recommendations to improve the course
I thought it was helpful when there were videos to help clarify certain aspects of Wikipedia. I think it would be great if the professor created videos for the other steps as well. Like the Wikipedia-sponsored videos, the professor’s should include audio instructions that align with the visuals. Such an instructional aid would be very helpful, especially when completing some of the most foreign and complex tasks.

At times, while they were quite detailed, the instructions for the work were not always clear. It was difficult to determine what was expected of me in order to satisfy certain assignments (e.g. what counts as a substantial edit?) However, the professor made himself exceptionally accessible and available to his students, which helped immensely with any confusion. He also provided excellent turn-around time on grading. This assisted me to quite quickly figure out what I was doing well and the ways in which I needed to improve.

I felt that the use of Google Docs for assignment explanations was not functional. With working on Canvas, Wikipedia, and trying to follow the assignment instructions, I ended up having several tabs open. At times, this made it difficult and unnecessarily time consuming to complete the necessary tasks.

In spite of these suggestions, I enjoyed this course immensely. It was a wonderful learning experience that has helped me to appreciate the hard work and dedication of on online community that helps Wikipedia to function as we all know it. Thank you Professor Smith!Lizb07 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)