User talk:Anbingham

(Anbingham (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Anbingham and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. We encourage you to read our instructions for students. Your instructor or professor may wish to participate in either the School and University WikiProject or the Global Education Program. The Global Education Program is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and offers official online and classroom support through the Ambassador Program.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Narrative
I realise this is probably an educational assignment, but if we are to have a section on method it cannot be on just one approach. There are multiple and they would all need to be summarised with proper balance. Snowded TALK 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time surveying the page as we in are progress of building onto it. I appreciate your concern over the Methods section. I understand your reasoning for removing the Methods sections we had published and agree that a more exhaustive and balanced list of methods and explanations would be ideal. As my partner and I are currently in a semester long introductory qualitative course, we are unable to fully fulfill your suggestion. Would offering up an explicit prologue to the Methods section explaining that the offered information is not a complete list and will need to be added to suffice due to my partner and I not having the time to offer up a completely exhaustive list of all methods suffice? Thank you again for your time and concern. Anbingham (Anbingham (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))
 * I've responded on my talk page. It can be confusing if you post the same thing on different pages  Snowded  TALK 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi, I'm the Online Ambassadors for the Introduction to Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences (Heather Adams) class. Banaticus (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite your sources
Here's the thing about Wikipedia. Articles are (or should be) essentially research papers, written on a Master's level, not a Bachelor's level or a Doctorate level. By that, I mean that everything should be referenced, have citations, and be verifiable. Articles should not be simply a synthesis of what a student has personally read or learned (and generally free from a bibliography), or otherwise like the majority of undergraduate papers -- articles need a good bibliography, typically referenced in the article so that people know which parts of the article are referencing which material. Articles also should not be written like a doctorate paper, which would typically investigate something new or otherwise present a previously unstudied viewpoint or scientific theory. The following bit about notability (what qualifies for a Wikipedia article) also stands true for information added to an article or other article improvements:

So, when adding new material to an article, don't forget to cite your sources. Now, I know at this point you're probably thinking, "But that Wikipedia article on Justin Bieber's new album? It doesn't have this many citations." Well, it might, Believe (Justin Bieber album) has 77 different references, but sometimes "softer" articles are cut a little bit of slack (though, technically, they shouldn't be). Serious articles, though, such as articles in the sociology field, do need references/citations. Disputes in article creation/editing should generally be settled on the article talk page by an argument from authority, with each party citing sources and references, to arrive at a consensus for how the article should be edited. Also, bear in mind, you know how you're working to improve an article? There may be other people with a vested interest in also improving the article (and for most of the articles that you'll be working on, this will probably be the case). It would behoove you to reach out to them, likely by starting a new discussion on the article talk page, and work with them, as an ongoing conflict will make it more difficult for you to complete your assignment. Banaticus (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article you're working on
Regarding User:Anbingham/sandbox, the italicized bit under the Methods section. It looks like you already have a synthesis of different methods from different primary scholarly contributors to the topic. I'd remove the italicized portion entirely, as it's a personal statement, reflects future intent, and could be considered original research (OR). Mainspace articles are not the place to talk about how an article will be improved in the future, the article talk page is for that. On the talk page, I'd start a section called, "Methods for narrative inquiry" and then say something like, "The listed treatment of narrative inquiry is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible methods for narrative inquiry. It is, however, a verifiable listing of some methods of narrative inquiry." Say anything else about it that you'd like, although I'd keep it brief. Then let others respond. I don't think the treatment of methods of narrative inquiry as you've put it together should simply be excised from the article, though, as it seems like a good overview of the subject. I also like the hyperlinks going to other articles. Banaticus (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The class I was attending today needed eight people to run and there were only seven, so I'm back early -- let me know if you need some more help. :) Banaticus (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Interviewing in the qualitative paradigm
Please answer the question as to why this article should not be deleted Snowded  TALK 05:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this should have been posted at Jlmahan and NSRATBSU, I don't believe Anbingham really had anything to do with that article. Banaticus (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program: student survey!
Hi! I work with the Wikipedia Education Program, and I'm hoping to get your feedback about your experience this semester! In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it would be very helpful to hear from real program students about their experience, so we know what to change. The survey takes no more than 10 minutes, and I'd really appreciate your response!

Thanks so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)