User talk:DiaEdie

Welcome!
Hello, DiaEdie, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Responding to other pages
Hi, DiaEdie,

I noticed your message at Shalor's talk page. First of all, take a breath; or take several; there are plenty of people here able and willing to help you. I'm not 100% sure if I understand your question, but let me start this way, and if that isn't quite it, you can reply below, and ask again. In your question on Shalor's Talk page, you asked:

I'm a bit at sea, here, since I don't know precisely in what context you meant that. Often, students will write their article in their sandbox, and you could respond to them on their User talk page. But I'm grasping at straws, here, because I don't know if that's what you meant, and I'm not sure how your instructor will be organizing the classwork for your class, vis-a-vis sandbox usage, and so on.

Based on what I do know generally about Wiki Ed classes, and how your class is organized on the OSU class page for Systems of Oppression in Women's Lives that you're a part of, I can see one row in the table with your name on it. But the "Assigned" and "Reviewing" column cells are empty (not only for you, but for everybody) at this point. So it could be there are no specific assignments yet, but your instructor will know for sure.

You are only just starting Week 3 of your class, and there are some links there for general guidelines on how to edit articles in different topic areas, such as Biographies, Women's Studies, and several others. Do you see those seven links for the seven topic areas under Week 3?

Perhaps you could speak to or email your instructor LK Mae about the Wikipedia assignments. It could by that they have decided on the assignments, but haven't updated the table on the course page yet, or perhaps they haven't been decided yet. The easiest way to find out, is simply to ask them. You could, of course, ask your classmates if they've heard anything about assignments yet.

So please don't freak out, just relax, there are plenty of people around here to help you. If you try to reach out to me by writing on your page below, I won't necessarily notice it, so if you want to attract my attention to your message so I can respond, then please start your message with the reply template. You should add Shalor, too, since she's the Content Expert for your class. So your reply template would look like this:. Another way to get help from somebody, is to ask your question, and add  to your message. In this case, an experienced editor will be along shortly, to help you with your question. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask below, on Shalor's talk page, or on my Talk page.

I hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DiaEdie! It looks like at this point you're really just taking the training modules and going through any of the automated process that may come up as you take them. I don't know if your class requires you to post on your classmates' talk pages, however if you are worried you can always let your instructor know that you've posted to my talk page - that would definitely count towards the talk page posting in my opinion ,so no worries on that front.
 * It looks like this week, other than taking the training modules, the main thing is to start thinking of which article you would like to edit. I have some ideas on what you could edit - if your instructor is fine with you editing film articles, I would recommend one of the following films:
 * Rape Culture (film) - this documentary film article needs to be formatted to fit guidelines and also could use some expansion. It's something that would work well as an assignment since a lot of it is going to be moving things into proper sections and editing the writing to flow a little better. You will need to add some sourcing and such, but it won't be as heavy as an article that has little to no content.
 * No Land's Song - this one is a bit more complete but does need to be edited for flow and format, as well as have some information added about its production and cast. It's something that would be relatively easy to work on.
 * GTFO (film) - this one is more like the first film mentioned - it needs some formatting and expansion, just a bit more than the other two.
 * Love Crimes of Kabul - this needs expansion and formatting
 * I can find others as well - I think that film and book articles may be some of the easier ones to work on since a lot of the formatting for this can be copied from existing articles. For example, you could copy a cast list from another article and then just edit it to display the names of the persons in the movie. Play articles like The Unnatural and Accidental Women may be easy to work on as well - stage productions often use a very similar format to film articles. The only difference is that the cast section is set up differently.
 * Let me know what type of article you want to work on and I'll help you find something that would be easier for you to work on. I'll definitely be here to help you every step of the way. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I'm glad that things worked out in the end! Definitely let me know if you need any help or have any other questions! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sandboxes
Hi! You can find other sandboxes by going to the student tab on your dashboard page. Under each student name are a couple of links, one of which says sandboxes, the other edits. You want to select the sandboxes link - this will take you to a page that lists every page in that student's userspace (ie, anything that starts with User:(username), such as User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)/sandbox). I hope this helps!

On a side note, if you let me know which student sandboxes you're supposed to review, I can help you with the links. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Students tab
Hi! You won't be able to see the exact same thing each student sees, but you can see the students in the class and what they're working on via here. If this isn't what you're looking for, contact me via email at shalor@undefinedwikiedu.org. We can go into more depth there. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sex industry
As an editor, it is your responsibility to make sure that your edits conform to the principles of editing here. Please read the comments that have been left for you on the article talk page, and make sure that your edits read well, and are formatted and referenced properly. Thanks, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:talk page
Hi, I wanted to respond to the post on my talk page.

First things first, I reviewed the interactions on the article and talk page for sex industry. I didn't really see where there were any snarky comments made about the edits. I saw that some of your work was reverted, but it looks like the explanations were reasonable enough and there was a good faith attempt to explain the actions on the article's talk page. It's really important to assume good faith of other editors - it looks like they're trying to help out. In any case, here are my notes, which build upon the ones on the article talk page:


 * The issue with individual examples is that they're really only true for that specific person. Individual people may experience things that are common in the sex industry or they may experience things that are fairly unique to the individual. For example, while Traci Lords may have experienced some things that a minor in the sex industry would typically experience, she also experienced things that they wouldn't, given that she was extremely well known in pornography. As such, her experiences would greatly differ than someone who was say, a minor in Thailand whose parents forced them into prostitution or an adult porn star in the United States.
 * As such, it's better to have information about the most common things that people experience in the sex industry rather than individual experiences since that will give more context, information, and depth on the topic.


 * With balance, it's very, very important to have a balanced article. This means that if opposing viewpoints exist and are covered in reliable sources, they should be present in the article and the writing should not come across like it's slanted in one specific direction. I think that many would agree that there are serious issues in the sex industry that disproportionately impact women and minorities, however the article shouldn't be written to lead them to that point. Encyclopedia articles should give the reader the information in a neutral manner so they can make up their own minds.


 * It's also important that you avoid making sweeping generalizations. The example given on the talk page is a good one in that while there are a lot of street level prostitutes who are of color, this isn't always the case in other countries. What happens in the United States isn't always the standard in other countries, not even if the country seems fairly similar to the US. Something else to consider is that the population demographics are also different in other countries. So for example, the argument that street prostitutes of color have been subjected to racial prejudice that resulted in less access to resources and education would likely not be as accurate in a country where the street prostitute is of the major demographic. If they're in the sex industry in China and the person is Chinese, then theoretically their race would play far less of a role than it would if they were a street prostitute in the United States.


 * Be careful of too much specific detail in a given area. On the talk page there's mention of going into a lot of detail about pornography in specific. Keep in mind that pornography is just one aspect of the sex industry, albeit a very visible one. There's already an article about pornography and one about the US in specific, so anything beyond a general description should go in the topic specific article - in this case, the best target would be the US one. Basically, you would have a couple of sentences that are specific to the US and a mention of minorities in the sex industry, but a section on black women in pornography is too specific for an article about the general topic of the sex industry.

I hope that this helps - I don't want to overwhelm you, so I'll stop here. Let me know any questions or concerns you have - you can also email me directly if you like at shalor@undefinedwikiedu.org. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia
Hi DiaEdie, when adding content to an article, it's important to keep in mind the topic and scope of the article. In this edit today at Sex industry you added content about penalties for prostitution, describing it as a misdemeanor. This was later reverted by another editor.

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. When an article contains a geographic area in its title, for example, "Prostitution in the United States" or "Prostitution in Burundi", then that is what it is about; its scope is limited to the named area. When it does not, such as in an article like "Sex industry", then the topic spans the entire globe. As an example, labeling prostitution as a "misdemeanor" doesn't take into account other locations, where it may carry stronger penalties, up to and including a death sentence.

I have noticed a number of edits of yours at Sex industry that appear to show a bias towards the United States. To an extent, this is normal; we are all human, and all humans are subject to systemic bias of various types all operating at once, one of which is the country we know best. As Wikipedia editors, we are called upon to fight against our own biases. Among others, English Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards American and European topics and perspectives because of the editors who volunteer here.

So, as you are an editor contributing to a global encyclopedia read by people all over the world, not only in the United States, I'd ask you to keep that in mind when editing a general article that is not constrained by geography, such as Sex industry. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have bias but it does look like that. I will keep that in mind when researching articles. I did add a tiny bit of information on the Dominican Republic. I will keep that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaEdie (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @DiaEdie: I've moved your previous post because (1) it was not signed and (2) you inserted into a post made by another editor. Please do not insert comments or replies to posts made by other editors like you did here. By inserting your comment into Mathglot's, you made made it appear as if Mathglot is the one who posted I don't have bias but it does look like that. I will keep that in mind when researching articles. I did add a tiny bit of information on the Dominican Republic. I will keep that in mind., which is not the case at all. If you want to reply to a post on a talk page, the best thing to do is simply add your reply as a separate post below the one you're responding to like I am doing here or like I did with your post. Inserting your comments into another's post may unintentionally change the meaning of the post or otherwise take things out of context. You shouldn't really be editing other's post at all as explained in WP:TPO even with the best intentions except in some pretty specific cases. Wikipedia talk pages work sort of differently from many online forums; so, if it's absolutely important to insert a comment you make into someone else's, please use Template:Interrupted though even that often causes more confusion that it's worth. If you're not really familiar with how Wikipedia talk page's work and just made a newbie mistake, then that's OK; you should, however, take a look at Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for reference.Finally, please try to start getting into the habit of signing your talk page posts; the are a number of ways to do so, but the easiest is explained in WP:TILDE. Signing your posts makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when; such a thing might not seem like a big deal here on your user talk page, but it can really make things less confusing on talks page where lots of different editors are posting. A signature also helps keep posts separate from one another so it doesn't appear as if they are being made by the same person. I understood you're new to Wikipedia, but you should try and get use to things like signing posts and properly using talk pages fairly early on because it will make it easier for you to participate in talk page discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated and confused
So I feel like I am getting conflicting information. I was told not to sign my signature which I stopped doing in articles and on my talk my page. I was also told not not to start a new topic to continue from the old topic which I did. I also don't have any bias about the United States but it looks like that. I have tried several times to add information from a global view point only for it to get removed. (DiaEdie (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)).

Response 11/26
Hi! I wanted to go through the stuff on my talk page bit by bit, since there is a lot to review:


 * With signatures, you only use them in places where there would be discussion. So for example, you would use them on article and user talk pages, as well as some of the noticeboards that are on Wikipedia, such as the Education Noticeboard. You wouldn't use them in live articles, as we're not supposed to mark our work there.
 * So for example, you would use your signature on the talk page for apples (Talk:Apple) but you wouldn't use a signature on the actual article for apples (Apple). A good rule of thumb is to look at the title for the page. If it has Talk: in it somewhere, it's going to be a place where you will use your signature.


 * With your schoolwork, you'll be graded on your effort, not what "sticks" in the page. So with this in mind, even if your material is removed you would be graded the same as you would if it were still in the article.


 * Now as far as the page goes on the sex industry, here are my specific recommendations:
 * I would post to the talk page and discuss any potential edits before adding anything live. This way if there is anything that would need to be fixed or taken into consideration, you can know about it ahead of time.
 * A lot of the concerns with the content can be boiled down to scope, that is, how well it would fit into a general article about the sex industry. Essentially, they're not arguing that prostitution isn't a part of the sex industry or even that certain groups are more at risk than others. What they're worried about is that you're going into content that would be very specific to prostitution in a certain country. This means that it would be better in an article about that specific country than in an article which is meant to really only contain a relatively shallow amount of information about a subtopic.
 * I think an example of this would be when a student takes a introductory class, they're not going to learn a huge amount of specific details that they would in a more advanced class as the instructor is only going to get the student's feet wet. The same premise is in play here, as the main article on the sex industry is only going to give a general overview. It isn't going to go into as much depth as a topic specific page would. The reason for this is that too much depth would make the page unwieldy and also cause it to put too much emphasis on a single aspect of a more specific topic, which would in turn disrupt the point of the article being an "introduction" to the more specific areas. This isn't a super good analogy, but hopefully it helps.
 * With bias, what the others are concerned about is that the sourcing is very specific to the United States. This doesn't mean that the content is necessarily bad, just that it would be better placed in an article about the United States, as each country will have its own issues and viewpoints when it comes to a topic like prostitution and the sex industry in general. For example, Thailand has a more visible issue with child prostitution than the United States does - it doesn't mean that the US doesn't have this issue, just that what each country has to deal with is very different, so what's true for Thailand won't be true for the US and vice-versa.
 * Keep in mind that even though you selected the sex industry in the beginning, there's nothing wrong with changing pages since you have content that is so very specific.


 * For the specific claim you added:
 * For those willfully participating in sex tourism is not just about sex and money. It is about other kinds of opportunities that may present itself. For example in addition to supplementing their income they have the accessibility to travel due to connections they make. Because of these connections and opportunities; any sexual or non sexual liaison is seen as a boost in their income from that region.
 * All that needs to be done here is for you to make this specific to the country that's mentioned in the source. So using the example that used in their edit summary, you could change this to read as:
 * Amalia L. Cabezas has stated that in Cuba and the Dominican Republic, people who willfully participate in sex tourism may do so for the type of opportunities that may present themselves as opposed to participating only for sex and money. In an example cited by Cabezas, in addition to supplementing their income participants may gain new connections, which give them an increased accessibility to travel. Because of these connections and opportunities, any sexual or non sexual liaison is seen as a boost in their income from that region.
 * I've tagged Ghmyrtle, so they can give their opinion on this rephrasing.
 * I've tagged Ghmyrtle, so they can give their opinion on this rephrasing.

Hopefully this helps explain what's going on - if you like, I can review your work and give you advice before you post to the article or to the US prostitution specific article. It would be no problem. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Response 11/27
Hi! As for switching pages, I would - a lot of your content is specific to the United States and prostitution, so the easiest course of action here is to just switch gears. I can help you with tweaking the writing and everything to fit into the page. Let me know what you think. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Police abuse of sex workers in the United States
Hi! I saw the content you added to the article on Police abuse of sex workers in the United States. I did want to caution you that the article needs a lot of work. I did go through with my main account and perform some general editing on the article, removing the studies sections (since Wikipedia typically doesn't do study sections like that) and also editing for flow overall. I did edit your content some as well - one of the main things I did was to add some content on how this all relates to the specific topic of police abuse of sex workers in the US. You had the info there, it just needed to be streamlined.

One of the main things to be careful of is to ensure that everything is neutral in tone - I did some editing to fix this up a little, since some of it did come across as non-neutral. It's easy to get passionate about something like this because of how awful sex workers are treated, especially ones who engage in street prostitution and/or are minorities, though.

I think you're pretty much good - if you knew of any other notable cases of police officers abusing sex workers in the United States (where there are articles for these cases) then you can continue to add them in the respective section. You may want to look through this category page to see if there are any others there, although I think that those are mostly or entirely non-officers. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Response 12/2
Hi! I took a look - my main note is that I'm concerned that some of the content is too general for the article and didn't really tie it into how the content related to police abuse of sex workers per se. I've gone ahead and taken care of this for you, so no worries on that end. The other thing is that it looks like one of the sentences was too closely paraphrased for comfort, so I've re-written the sentence. Be very careful and make sure that when you're adding material, that you don't copy material verbatim or closely paraphrase. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)