User talk:DannyHatcher/Archive 1

More policies and rules
Further to your message on Meta, you might want to read this for background. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Understandable, I remember someone at the meeting mention their username but I didn't write it down correctly and was looking for confirmation but it looks like I will need to wait for the next one. Thanks anywyay. DannyHatcher (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice based on my own mistakes
One of the easiest ways to get started as an editor is to find some interesting fact in a reliable source, create a reference tag for the RS you found, and usefully add the fact to a related article. From my own experience: when I started I ambitiously tried to create an article about the new president and CEO of EdX, a woman named Wendy Cebula. (I figured since her predecessor was notable, so would she be.) So I wasted a lot of time, in retrospect, because I didn't really understand notability, and most of those early edits were disappeared when my article was speedy deleted. I was quite disappointed but just kept on trying to find interesting material that Wikipedia was missing on any random topic I cared about (or heard about randomly.) Anyway, that has made editing fun for me as well as, I hope, productive for Wikipedia. I hope you also stick around and enjoy this great project. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I still need to get my head around a lot of the Lingo in the Wikipedia space, reference tag included, but I don't see myself leaving anytime soon. I have been sharing my research findings on my own website for a couple of years now and thought I could do better by collaborating with other interested editors on Wikipedia. Coming from an academic background, and self-published background, working with others, with different guidelines is going to take time to get used to but I am excited moving forwards.DannyHatcher (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I may not have the lingo right yet either, but here is something that I use a lot:

I paste a bunch of those into a text document for some topic and then blaze away filling them in, as I learn more about the topic. Here are some from a page I am working on now Who Is the Bad Art Friend?. YMMV and others probably do things in some other way. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So you are making articles by going through that list of information and just filling in the gaps?DannyHatcher (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't often create articles, tho I do have some DYKs. More often I try to improve articles that interest me. When I am doing research, I often put way too much info into the "quote" part because I am reminding myself what I thought was important. For the real article, I trim the quote down to zero or to something I think will be clarifying to the reader. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah makes sense. Yeah that is what I have been doing and thought the Feynman technique would be easy when I saw the somewhat blank page but it turns out not so much. The DYKs seem interesting. How do they fit in the Wikipedia ecosystem? DannyHatcher (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Knowledge - resources
From the SEP, this might be a good candidate to include in the Knowledge article:

Knowledge is among the many kinds of cognitive success that epistemology is interested in understanding. Because it has attracted vastly more attention in recent epistemology than any other variety of cognitive success, we devote the present section to considering it in some detail. But the English word “knowledge” lumps together various states that are distinguished in other languages: for instance, the verb “to know” can be translated into French either as “connaitre” or as “savoir”, and the noun “knowledge” can be translated into Latin as either “cognitio” or as “scientia”. Exactly how to individuate the various kinds of cognitive success is not something that can be determined solely by appeal to the lexicon of any particular natural language. The present section provides a brief survey of some of the kinds of cognitive success that are indicated by the use of “knowledge” in English, but this is not intended to signal that these kinds of cognitive success are all species of some common genus. Neither, however, is it intended to signal that these kinds of cognitive success are not all species of some common genus: at least some philosophers have taken there to be a genus, awareness, of which the various kinds of knowledge are all species, and with respect to which these various kinds may all be explained

The etymological part might be interesting... -- Mvbaron (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I will add this too my notes for sure! Thanks Mvbaron DannyHatcher (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)