User talk:EricaNewton

Welcome!
Hello, EricaNewton, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Travel(l)ing
Re your recent edit at 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash, travelling was spelled correctly. The article is written in British English as it concerns a British topic. Further info at WP:ENGVAR. No major harm done, another editor restored the original spelling. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! EricaNewton (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Week 3 Question Assignment from Kayleigh Zervos
Hi Erica! What is your dream vacation spot? Kzervosug21 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Thats a hard question to answer. I want to travel everywhere, however, ever since I was young I have wanted to go to the African savannah due to the immense amount of animals and wildlife! EricaNewton (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: 2019 Venezuelan Protests (Week 3)
Everything on this article is relevant to the topic of the 2019 protests in Venezuela. The protests are occurring due to the current presidential crisis in Venezuela and how the Venezuelan people are unhappy with the presidential elections that took place. One thing that did distract me about this article is how short the article was considering how much of a crisis this issue is in Venezuela. The article should add more in depth information about the protests, however, I understand how recent this issue is. A lot of the details may not have surfaced yet. The article is definitely up to date and has had recent activity on it, but I noticed that in some areas of the article, a citation is needed.

Though the event is very fresh and it may be hard to get a ton of information on it, however, more information could be added to this article. More information could be added under the February 2nd protest subheading. The only thing the subheading says is how protestors filled Las Mercedes Avenue in Carcus, but it says nothing else about what happened at the protest, if the protest had violence, etc. Pro-Maduro Demonstrations is another subheading that could be added to. Currently, all it discusses is how there was a pro-Maduro government protest, which, could be added to.

I did notice that the article talked about how the Venezuelan people felt about the presidential crisis, however, the article had no real, solid evidence to back up the clam. The article is very underdeveloped and it needs more supporting evidence and facts to make it a reliable source. Also, I was very disappointed in the citations of the article. First off, many of them are in Spanish, a language I do not speak. I can understand why some of the articles are in Spanish (as the crisis is taking place in Venezuela), however, I feel as though the Spanish citations should also be available in English. This is because due to me not speaking the Spanish language, I cannot tell if the source is in fact reliable or not. I also noticed that many of the links were news stories from somewhat reliable news sources. There was no solid citation of a scholar or an expert. Despite this, I understand that the issue is very new and is still developing at a rapid pace so it could be hard to gather more reliable sources, but it makes the article less reliable. Also, some of the news sources have been known to be biased, which, makes the article significantly less reliable. There is also not a variety of sources and a lot of the citations come from the same source as other citations. There is a lack of variety in the citations.

The talk page of this article is not very long or in depth. On the talk page, they are discussing how one Wiki user removed a biased infobox statement, which, over exaggerated the number of protestors and had a very biased citation with it. The Wiki user explained how they were actually shocked with the over exaggeration and the severely biased source. The Wiki user also stated how it was very important to not manipulate information about the ongoing crisis in Venezuela and to be accurate in describing what is actually happening. After a little bit deliberation over whether the Wiki user had an accurate case about removing the infobox, most agreed that the infobox should be removed, along with other infoboxes dues to the bias and exaggeration of information. One Wiki user argued that the infoboxes should not be removed, however, they were removed for (in my opinion) good reason. From what I read in the "talk" section, the infoboxes were biased and should have been removed. In class, I feel like there was more information to be discussed due to the fact that we were not discussing protests in particular.

EricaNewton (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Thinking About Sources and Plagiarism (Week 3)
Blog posts and press releases are considered are considered poor sources for reliable information for many reasons. First off, the majority of blogs and press releases are bias and opinionated. They discuss mostly what they want their audience to hear and minimize the information that they do not want their audience to hear. They have an agenda. They want their audience to support their cause, to hear their opinion. To do this, they leave out key pieces of information that would maybe hurt their cause. Another reason why blogs and press releases are not reliable is they have a major focus in mind; money. If the people won't purchase a subscription or view the ad companies paying the creator then they'd be out of business. This is an interior motive in mind while creators write their content. If their audience doesn't like it, they won't make money. Also, press releases or blogs (blogs in particular) can be severely outdated. If you find a press release or blog online, there is a high chance that either the content is outdated or the sources within that content are outdated. Even if a brand new blog post is posted, there is a chance that the facts and sources are outdated. Press releases can be sent out later than when the information new and fresh. This means that there is a high possibility of a once up to date, accurate source is no longer accurate because of new developments. The writers on blogs can also have significantly inaccurate and false information if the writer did not fact check anything or use reliable resources. They are also both marketing tools. They want their company to be noticed and recognized. This will obviously lead to more money as people will see their product/company. Blogs and press releases are just not reliable and should not be trusted as a source for accurate information due to these reasons.

There are many reasons why you should not use a company's website to gain information about that company. First off, their goal is to sell you something (products or services) and make themselves look good to get into your wallet. On the website, they will highlight their accomplishments as a company and brag about how good they are. They are going to write anything and everything that people want to hear and make themselves look fantastic. They will discuss how they are better than their competitors and convince you to use them over any other company. They are not going to mention any downfalls that the company may have had. They will showcase all the positive reviews from people, but they will not mention the negative reviews. They will not mention every specific detail about themselves because no one would support them. They are biased and opinionated because it's their website, they can be. Lastly, the information on a company's website can also be outdated. If a company doesn't edit the information on their website frequently then the information will just sit there, not changing or developing.

Plagiarism and copyright are different for a few reasons. Plagiarism is when you copy an authors work and use them as your own without giving any credit to the original creator. This can happen in many ways including copying the author without giving any credit (unattributed plagiarism), when you copy exactly what the author write while still giving credit to the author (Plagiarism of cited sources), and slightly changing what the author wrote in 'your own words,' cited or not (close paraphrasing). Copyright is when you infringe on the rights given to an author and/or creator. This can include reproduce work, make copies of work, create work derived closely from the original piece, or display the work publicly. One of the major differences between these two is while plagiarism is an ethical rule, to copyright something is a federal law. Plagiarism is enforced in most institutions and most online forums, however, it is an ethical issue, not a legal issue. Copyrighting is illegal under the federal law and punishments can be enforced. Another difference is someone can plagiarize almost anything, but the creator has to have their work copyrighted to have the possibility of someone copyrighting it. Also, if you want to use something that is copyrighted, then you have to get permission to do so, however, even if you get permission to use the work, a person can still plagiarize the work. Also, if something is in the public domain, it can be plagiarized, but it has to be protected under copyright to be copyrighted and not plagiarized.

They're a few good techniques to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing. First, takes notes about key information from an article. Do not write down phrases from the article, just write down key concepts of the article. If you write down notes in your own words and handwriting, you won't feel the need to copy someone else's work. Do not copy and paste anything from an article. While writing a draft, use your notes as reference, not the article. After your done with your draft reread the article and pay close attention if anything is plagiarizing or paraphrasing in your draft. This will ensure that you're not plagiarizing or paraphrasing another person's work. Another good tip is understand your topic and look at many sources to fully understand your topic. The more you understand your topic, you won't feel the need to paraphrase or plagiarize. EricaNewton (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: What is a content gap? (Week 4)
A content gap is when information isn't there. A content gap is when there is missing content in an article. It is an article that needs more content to fill in the information that is not available within the article (a gap). An article with content gaps is easy to identify. Some ways to identify them are the article has little to no reliable resources, the article is underdeveloped and short, the article lacks information, the article is not updated frequently or a lot, and the article doesn't provide much information to the reader. A content gap can arise for a few reasons. These reasons include not having Wiki users interested in the article, having a lack of reliable resources to write the article, or just simply not having an idea of what to add to the article. Some ways to fix content gaps are working with other Wikipedians to search for the best resources, gather ideas, or talk about what you should write about. Also, searching for scholarly resources could help you find reliable and informed sources for the article so you could fill the content gaps.

Also, it does not matter who writes on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a resource where people can freely share information. Despite this, to write on Wikipedia, there are some guidelines that Wiki users must follow. Also, all the information a user writes on Wikipedia must be cited with a reliable source. Another thing wiki users must do is be unbiased. For Wikipedia users, that means having a neutral point of view regardless of your opinion on the topic. You must reliable sources to make what you are writing credible. Also, if there is a biased or controversial view that a Wikipedia user comes across while researching an article and they feel like it is important to put in the article, it must be balanced out with a source of the opposing side or opposing opinion. If you write a paragraph on one side, you must write a paragraph of the others side to keep the article as unbiased as possible. They also have to be cited with reliable resources. This is similar of my view of what being biased/unbiased is, however, as humans it is hard to be completely unbiased. We are not robots. When you're writing, you just have to make sure you use words and terms that are neutral so you seem as though you do not have a side that you are supporting. EricaNewton (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Exercise: Adding Citations (Week 4)
I added a citation to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty article. The citation I added was a CIA document to the subtitle "Background" of the article. The source I added was "Soviet Long Range Theater Nuclear Forces" (PDF). CIA.gov. 6 April 1978. Retrieved February 8, 2019.The citation needed to be added so I found this pdf that fit perfectly into where the citation needed to be added. The link to the citation is EricaNewton (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Exercise: Copyedit an Article (Week 4)
I copyedited the article 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash. I improved some of the language because the article mixed past tense and present tense a lot. This made it sound less professional. I also edited some of the spelling errors in the article, however, one spelling error I made someone corrected. I was confused at first, however, they nicely explained why they changed it back to what it was originally. I thought the word travel(l)ing was spelt wrong, however, the Wikiuser explained on my talk page that the article was written in British English as the article was a British article. I made four or five edits to this article. EricaNewton (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reading Check: Add to an Article (Week 5)
I added a few sentences and citation to the article Guiseppe Conte under the subheading "Prime Minister of Italy." I used the article "Wish upon Five Stars" from The Economist to add information about how Conte believes that Italy's economy will grow by 1.5%, in 2019. Despite what Conte believes, The Bank of Italy predicts that it will only rise by 0.6% in 2019. EricaNewton (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Thinking About Wikipedia (Week 6)
I think that Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is very reasonable. I think Wikipedia does a great job of making the expectations of neutrality clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of factual information and if Wikipedia aloud opinions to be added to articles, they would lose a lot of credibility. It also makes sense how they do not want people to post opinions due to confrontations that could (and would) occur due to Wiki users having opposing opinions. Also, facts are facts, but opinions don't necessarily have a factual basis.

Wikipedia can be a wealth of information and sources, however, you need to look into if what you are reading is true and factual. You need to examine the reliability of an article, when it was last updated, how much is it updated, and if the sources used are reliable. If you want to use Wikipedia as a source of information and sources, you need to 'dig' a little to see if the information you are reading is factual and reliable. Another thing is, you need to see if the article is opinionated and biased. If it is opinionated or biased, you would only be getting one side and not the other side.

There are a few sources that Wikipedia says in unreliable. Some of these include promotional sources, heavily confrontational or biased sources, sources that are considered gossip or rumors, self published sources, etc. These sources can be a problem because they do not give accurate facts about the subject. These sources are trying to convince you to buy a product or agree with their point of view. They are not informational and they could be false information.

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago it would be on paper, in a big book. The articles would be incredibly hard to edit and work with other people to build the article. The articles may become outdated and underused, which, defeats the point of Wikipedia. In 100 years, Wikipedia may look the same with more updated features. Maybe there will be a way that sources will automatically be filtered out if they are poor sources. EricaNewton (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)