Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/York College CUNY Industrial/Organizational Psychology

'''By convention, the most recent comments should be placed at the bottom. Also, please sign your comments.'''

Reaction Paper: First Pillar
Kierra Andrews

Week Assignment 2/17

After reading the first Pillar What Wiki Is Not, a “not” that was most expected was that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. All throughout high school and college, we are told not to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source because anyone can edit/add to articles and it may or may not be reliable. Textbooks and scientific journals are reliable and we cite in our papers all the time. In order to be a textbook, scientific journal, etc, information must be objective, generally reviewed, edited, published and most importantly a book. Wikipedia clearly states and deeply expresses that it is an “online,” “digital” encyclopedia, one we clearly cannot physically hold.

A “not” stated in the first Pillar that was least expected was that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or should not be used for strictly dictionary purposes. When you Google or look up the meaning of a word, one of the fist hits are Wikipedia articles pertaining to the word. Wikipedia explains of moving articles that just contain definitions to Wiktionary, but going through Wikipedia you can find multiple “articles” with little to no information at all, Wiktionary approved. Definitions are clearly in articles and you can look to encyclopedia articles for meanings of words and additional information.

A “not” stated that was most confusing was that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. According to Merrium-Webster Dictionary, bureaucracy is defined as a system of government or business that has many complicated rules and ways of doing. Wikipedia fits the definition. Though not government administered, Wikipedia has many policies and regulations in order to try to keep a proactive/ productive site. This “not” explains not to take the policies too seriously as if they are encouraging Wikipedians and future Wikipedians not to follow the rules, but definitely would be notifying you if you don’t follow.

--KierraA. (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reaction Paper:3 Content Policies
Wikipedia has 3 core content policies; neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. A neutral point of view refers to maintaining Wikipedia as a neutral party, unbiased, and with reliable sources. This policy is to ensure that any information stated should be backed up and cited. The content policy of verifiability refers to making sure any information/edits presented can be proven and comes from a reliable source; previously published, accredited, and directly supports the information. Verifying information prevents plagiarism or falsifying information. The content policy, no original research refers to primary works, which can be bias and may not be properly supported. The no original research policy is reliable and cannot combine multiple sources to imply a conclusion.

Wikipedia states, "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three". In order for any information to be reputable, the content must comply with these three policies. These three policies overlap one another and support each other in order to achieve Wikipedia’s mission as an online community based encyclopedia containing relevant information. The neutral point of view represents information that is unbiased and verified. In order for the content to verifiable, the information presented must comply with copyrights policies and come from reliable source. Citing original research can be biased and the no original research policy determines the quality of the sources as acceptable or not. These three content policies support one another.

--KierraA. (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What wikipedia is not
The most expected thing Wikipedia is not is Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. This essentially restates another thing Wikipedia is not, which is Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Editors should not post their opinion in any article, which should be written from a neutral standpoint, not bear the opinion of any organization or person or group even with factual references to support their argument. The least expected thing Wikipedia is not is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This in a sense reduces the amount of information one can place in an article as we are not allowed to place too much information or statistics in the edits. I do however understand the reason for not having the lyrics of songs restated as the references can be illegitimate users of copyrighted material. Fiction articles are also limited to summary like edits written in an encyclopedia manner to preserve the neutral point of view. The most confusing thing Wikipedia is not is Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. I understand that Wikipedia is a web based encyclopedia, but there are articles written about textbooks, academic journals therefore they are written in an image to liken the material that is covered in these various texts. Also the language should be for everyday readers, but are also textbooks and journal articles are written with everyday readers in mind with the addition of related jargon of course.

3 core content policies
Neutral point of view (NPOV) explains that all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Verifiability (V) explains that material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. No original research (NOR) means that Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. These three things work in unison to create articles that allows Wikipedia to structure the information it receives to attain the standard of an encyclopedia, even if its web based and edited by many editors who may or may not be an expert in the specific topic edited. By writing from a neutral point of view, verifying your edits with reliable sources that are not based on original research you allow readers to trust the information they are receiving and begin to see Wikipedia as more than just a website that just anyone can edit.

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

misplaced assignment
Reaction Paper

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is the most expected “Not” because the information is Wikipedia can be unreliable due to the frequent changes made by various individuals, where as an paper encyclopedia only has reliable sources and no add on changes can be made after the first publication. Many articles in Wikipedia can contain opinion based information and not the hard facts. In an encyclopedia information cannot be included because the information is true, this is a factor Wikipedia lacks and there for is expected by many users that they are not a paper encyclopedia. I find a lot of information in Wikipedia, almost a complete exposition of all possibilities while observing the paper encyclopedia containing the accepting knowledge regarding the subject. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought is the least expected “Not” because Wikipedia states “Articles must not contain original Research.” There is no reliable and published sources that exist. A website where articles are constantly changing with new information and being analyzed shows no original work. I believe this is the least expected because individuals can see that everyone is allowed to make changes, this is where work loses its authenticity. Wikipedia lets anyone create and edit articles. In a wiki, people can write pages together. If one person writes something wrong, then the next person can correct it. The next person can also add something new to the page. Because of this, originality is diminished and publication is far from its reach. The most confusing “Not” about Wikipedia I found is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, because in many ways Wikipedia defines many objects, terms, and other resources. Though information is changed many times the definition of term is usually within the introductory part of the page of any article or term. I myself would type in a term into the Google engine and notice that Wikipedia would be the first one to pop up and I would click to get a brief definition of what it was that I was looking for.

Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionally and trying to not be biased towards others work. Verifiability is people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable cited source. No original research refers to materials for which no reliable published sources exit, you have to be able to cite reliable published sources. The quote mentioned connects the three terms neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The quote shows how the terms work within each other and they do work together. This quote allows Wikipedia’s and other users in general to understand how they can edit and what language is accepted. The quote is like a preamble of the Wikipedia constitution just some basic general information which is simple and applies to all of us, how to contribute new work and old work by obeying the terms above. This gives Wikipedia a judgment free zone while citing reliable sources and expanding new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplmnq3 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved here by Dr Ashton (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Assignment Week 4
1)After feedback from our last meeting, I try exploring Wikipedia and make some changes to my account, Devika Singh. I add a few links to my introduction and add the talk page to my account as well.. This has been a great experience for me as I explore and learn more about Wikipedia as this project continues.

2)Wikipedia can be used by anyone who feels the need to share their opinion on a subject.

After reading the 16 things Wikipedia is not, I find the most expected “not” to be that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I would have thought that it contains so much information; it must have a paper backup as with the encyclopedias that had their start as the 26 or more volumes then migrated into digital media. However, the blurb states that it is a digital encyclopedia project, which surprised me.

The least expected “not” is Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From personal experience I use the Google search engine to research a word and the ubiquitous Wikipedia gives you a definition of the word. This tends to be the definition of a dictionary. However, in retrospect; a dictionary just gives you a definition whereas; Wikipedia gives definition, history and etymology.

The "not" is the most confusing me is Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. To me it would seem with the myriad articles that are posted to the site every day, vetting each and every fact would be a laborious task. Also, no matter who it might be and what safeguards are put in place, the bias and tendency to twist facts to suit the point at hand are almost inescapable even if somewhat unintentional. I’ve noticed that Wikipedia does have the option to add references, but what if those sources contain unproven facts? It’s confusing to me because of these things.

Wikipedia does provide a valuable service in providing all the information on a topic, word, event, etc and making it free and readily. available. However, its only if the rules that are listed are followed to the letter that the information can be trusted.

3)Wikipedia has 3 core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Wikipedia states that "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three".

A Neutral point of view according to Wikipedia is being able to present the facts about a subject without inserting biases of any nature. This is done to ensure that edits are fair and free of bias and judgments. Everyone must be able to read it and not be offended or feel that it is directed towards a specific culture, subset, gender, race etc. As stated in the article on this topic, “Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, not engage in them”. By achieving neutrality in their articles, they intend that it be used as a reputable source. Verifiability is ensuring reading and editing materials or information comes from reliable sources. This entails researching and quoting where possible, the sources and persons involved. This allows the reader to be able to check and confirm that materials are available to back up the claims made in any article posted on the site. This also works to eliminate the addition of original research, allegations and judgmental edits. No original research means that edits must not include any unverified facts, hearsay or unproven allegations, all sources must be cited and be verifiable. No personal reference should be included when editing. Sources should be reliable, published and supports work done. This grants the readers the ability to find supporting documentation or materials if needed. These three core principles are used to ensure that an article is reliable in its stated facts. They work hand in hand to provide the users with an unbiased, support rich, quality source of information. By providing this as a sort of general rule for editing and adding data to the site, it allows editors to work within certain confines to create a page in Wikipedia of a trusted nature.

(Devika Singh (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC))

Week 5 Assignment
According to this week’s readings, the two articles presented in Week 3, varies in the extent of meeting the criteria of verifiable, primary, and secondary articles. The first article presented, “Executive Perceptions of the Top 10 Soft Skills Needed in Today’s Workplace” by Robles conducted a study to determine the top soft skills employers seek. This article is primary and original research, the two content Wikipedia stress to diverge from, because the experimenter explains systematically their process of conducting their research and how they reached a verifiable conclusion. Though the article is primary, the article is peer reviewed, holds a lot of content from third-party sources, and has material that would be accepted as evidence-based.

The second article “Factors Affecting the Acceptance of People with Disabilities at Work: A Literature Review,” is considered secondary because it takes into account of many other studies. These studies identifies the factors affecting acceptance for the disabled in a regular workplace in order for the authors to conclude that there is a gap in understanding the term acceptance and its relation to the employment of people with disabilities. All the other studies presented in this article came from a published accredited source such as scientific journals and no information was bought out as random thought.

Both articles used up-to date content, was written in a neutral point of view; presenting argument for both sides in the study, and provided a coherent and reputable conclusion, making it verifiable. Though these articles had qualities of both secondary and primary criteria, contained opinion/original thought as well as factual evidence, it was evident in seeing which Wikipedia classification these articles fell under.

--KierraA. (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Assignment Week 5
Throughout the reading Respected | Secondary Sources, | Biomedical journals, &| Secondary and Tertiary Sources ('biomedical articles' is the closest match on Wikipedia to Psych articles), it is stressed on the important of ensuring that all information used by Wikipedia   must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources that are accurate.

In a primary sources, as we discussed in class meeting and in the reading, it is the authors original work and personal experience Secondary sources are summary or interpretation of primary sources. Tertiary sources are summary of both primary and secondary sources. However,Wikipedia state that, articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources but should not be misused.In a Wikipedia article, verifiability is used to ensure information are reliable and have a neutral point of view. Its check work done on Wikipedia.

According to week 5 reading, looking back at my peer reviewed article, “Gender differences in career preferences from 1990 to 2010: Gaps reduced but not eliminated”; the sources are primary and original work that has been peer- reviewed which verifiability check to ensure. However, after reading about primary source and the Wikipedia policy, it is only used to verify or make statements. My literature Review article it used secondary sources, which are Wikipedia accepted. All sources were scientific journal and are in content with the Wikipedia policy.

After week 5 reading, I now have a better understanding what sources to use when writing a Wikipedia article. Article should have reliable accurate sources, have neutral point of view, and should be verified when making conclusion.

(Devika Singh (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Assignment Week 5
3B.) After looking through the readings of Respected Secondary sources,Biomdedical journals, and secondary tertiary I have gained a better understanding of what Wikipedia expects from editors and other[ wikipedians]. Based on the work we find and the new information we provide we must be careful as to where we find our information. Through verifiability it makes it easier for other readers to figure out where the information comes from. Not only does the information we provide need to have a correct reference, But we try to avoid primary sources where it is an original work of the author or an individual. The readings gave me a better understanding on which type of work would be accepted and which kinds of sources would not be in our best interest.

Three weeks ago when I selected a literature review which is related to a topic in I/O psychology and a research article related to the topic of I/O psychology I have noticed I would not be able to use my research article to apply any knowledge to a Wikipedia because it is a [primary source] and it is a form of original work so to my understanding this published material should be avoided. I have read under Biomedical journals some research articles/papers describe original experiments but normally contain previous works that are secondary and typically less reliable. The literature review article I have chosen is a better to use on Wikipedia because under Secondary source the literature review is an accepted form work. Literature reviews, including research syntheses and meta-analyses, are critical evaluations of material that has already been published. In meta-analyses, authors use quantitative procedures to statistically combine the results of studies. The literature review is a good example of work that is a good selection to source. According to Wikipedia ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews.

My literature review is considered a secondary source because it define and clarify the problems and importantly summarized previous investigations to inform the reader of the state of research. My article is a primary source which is not accepted because it is a form of original work, the research article is a primary source because it consists of statement of the purpose of the investigation, method description of the procedures used to conduct the investigation and report of its analysis. All of this is primary work done by the researcher which will conclude its own research findings. My literature review does not fall under another classification neither does my research article besides it is not advised to use as a source.

(Oplmnq3 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

Week 5 Assignment
After reading the the policies on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources I have realized that the articles from academic journals are not what we should be using but instead literature reviews. Primary sourced information such as journal article are very specific in their nature and due to the systematic review of literature review that analyzes a lot of information based on a specific topic, secondary sources are what we should be using to edit Wikipedia because they collected and analyzed a substantial amount of information on the topic. Verifiability of the journal article i chose is good as it it came from a peer-reviewed journal and the literature review explains the topic via analysis of various articles and provides a research guide based upon the analysis.

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

490 Abstract
 PSY 490 editors  

'''the link below is what I've been working on for the Abstract. You may edit it or play around with it if you like'''

[Course Abstract]

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)