Wikipedia talk:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/Introduction to Psychology, Part I (Steve Joordens)

Welcome to the talk page
This is a place where you can ask questions, talk about problems, and discuss the Wikipedia assignment with classmates and other Wikipedians.--WoodSnake (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC) One thing I'd like everyone to keep in mind ... this is the first time we've tried these assignments and we've jumped in with both feet (and dragging 1700 students with us!). There likely will be some issues, and we don't even know what all those issues are yet. So please keep in mind this is for bonus marks, and when issues do arise we will try our best to deal with them efficiently.

Some things you need to add
On the Project page (reached by clicking Main above), the names of the Instructor and the Campus Ambassadors should all have links to the individual person's Wikipedia talk pages. That way it's easier for other Wikipedia editors to know who to contact, if there is a problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to referencing
As no editor on Wikipedia is verifiable the references must stand on their own. For medical content is it highly recommended per WP:MEDRS that you us review articles (pubmed has a tab on the right that will allow you to limit your search to reviews). Also please properly format your references. Wikipedia has build into the WP:Edit box (just look up a bit after you hit the edit button) a tool to help you "cite". If you have the PMID, which you get from pubmed, it will do the rest of the formatting. Happy editing.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By "review articles", Doc James actually means "high-quality sources", of which his personal favorite type is the review article. As you will see at the guideline, university-level textbooks, practice guidelines, and other high-quality sources are equally welcome, and they are preferable for some purposes (basic background information, for example, should be sourced to a good textbook).
 * As in the real world (or in the ivory tower), what makes a source a good one is its appropriateness for the material you are supporting, not merely having the word "review" appear in the keyword lists at PubMed. If you're adding information about a lawsuit, a newspaper article is a far better source than a systematic review.
 * It is not necessary to use the citation templates, which many people find complicated and confusing, and which can be broken by a single typo. But it is extremely helpful if people type out a full bibliographic citation, which can be done exactly like you would type out a citation for any college paper.  Students, like all new editors, should be encouraged to do their best on that point.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks WAID! -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting it right
I just reverted and corrected a bunch of stuff by two editors that I found are part of this course. It would be great if you could watch and help each other, and try not to commit edits that aren't doing the right thing. Respect the style of wikipedia by copying the style of articles you edit, or study WP:MOS. In particular, don't capitalize things that are not proper nouns, not even in headings. And try using the "ref" formats that you find in articles until you see how to make it work. Otherwise, you're just making work for others, who will often react as I did by just reverting edits that are unclear or hard to fix. And don't leave the edit summary blank, as it makes your intent unclear when you do. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)