User talk:TaliaMary

Welcome!
Hello, TaliaMary, 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) 14:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Feminism article
Hi, I wanted to give you some quick notes:


 * Avoid using point of view/judgment terms like important when writing on Wikipedia. These are subjective to the reader, so what may be important to one may be less so to the next. So for example, it would be better to state that she has been called important. The only exception would be if this is a very widely held viewpoint among reliable sources - however with this, we would need to have a very good source to back this up.
 * This looks to be an issue with the main article on Hrotsvitha as well - I removed the following content from the lead because it came across as a personal opinion:
 * Hrotsvitha's life and works are impactful as they provide a historical record with a focus on women's lives. This record leaves a lasting legacy that continues to impact people, particularly in regards to historical and modern understandings of gender, feminism, and Christianity.
 * Like with the word important, we can't state that someone's works leave a lasting legacy or that they're impactful, because that's assuming something of the reader - notably that they would share the same opinion and viewpoint as us and/or the source the claim was taken from. It could be that they don't see her as continuing to impact people, as they could see her work as too obscure to truly have an impact, particularly in non-European or non-Western countries.
 * That's why it's important to only summarize the source material - and to only summarize what is explicitly stated in the source material - and if including an opinion or viewpoint, to clearly attribute it to the person making the claim.


 * Be careful with sourcing. Not all sources are considered to be reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. In specific, I'm not sure that SciHi would be seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It looks to be a self-published source with no information about its editorial oversight or verification process. There's also no information about the author of the piece, to show who he is or his qualifications. It does have a .org in the URL, but not all .org sites are reliable either and it's not intensely difficult to gain a .org URL designation.
 * The imprint page states "However, we cannot guarantee the contents’ accuracy, completeness or topicality.", which is never a great sign since it basically states that the content may be wrong and there's no guarantee that it would be. It doesn't state this, but many places that have this also use it to mean "this could contain original research or viewpoints specific to the author, but no guarantees on its correctness". I personally wouldn't recommend this as a source.


 * Be careful of editing articles that are of Good or Featured quality, as well as articles on topics that can be controversial, as these types of articles will need to be written as neutrally as possible and use the strongest possible sourcing. If the content is removed, it's important that you discuss any removal on the article's talk page before re-adding the content. In this specific case, it's also important that you have strong sourcing that explicitly ties Hrotsvitha to feminism. It looks like it should be out there, but you want to be extremely careful with what you use.

I hope that this helps! I'm concerned that the article on Hrotsvitha is written in more of a reflective or argumentative state, as it does look to contain a lot of point of view statements that come across as written by a specific person as opposed to a neutral article. I think you have a good start there, but it still needs work on that end. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! As a U of A student who has worked with Wikipedia in class, you may be interested in this event coming up at MacEwen on March 5:

You may have heard that Wikipedia has a serious gender problem: the majority of editors on the site are men (mostly white men) and there are significantly fewer articles about women and nonbinary folks on the site than men. As you can imagine, this means that the world reflected through Wikipedia, the world's most visited reference site, is biased and inaccurate. The good news is: you can help fix this, and it's easy!

On March 5 from 2 to 8 p.m., the University of Alberta Library and MacEwan University are partnering to run an Art + Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon at MacEwan's new Allard Hall. Come for 10 minutes or a few hours -- it's quick to learn and you can make an impact with just one little edit!

There will be friendly people, yummy food, a tour of the Mitchell Art Gallery, and a panel to end the day. RSVP and share on Facebook. Feel free to get in touch with me if you need more information!

Erin O'Neil Wikipedian in Residence, Digital Scholarship Centre University of Alberta amiskwaciwâskahikan / Treaty 6 she / her

Ham1ltoner1n (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)