Wikipedia's policy on user pages
"User pages are administration pages in the User and User talk namespaces that are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, as well as facilitating interaction and sharing between users. User pages are mainly for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content."
Journal 2021 Jan-Feb edit
This is a page in the user namespace for Cohutta Blue. This journal is my personal tool for learning about Wikipedia editing, organization, page navigation, and markup.
Random thoughts
Wikipedia is not generally intended as a space for journaling. Therefore, is it acceptable to keep a journal in the Wikipedia user namespace if the journal is about the user's own process of learning Wikipedia? A journal
- helps this particular user organize her work on Wikipedia
- fits into the category of limited personal content
The user shall now begin a journal on her personal path to Wikipedia learning. My journal writing will be neither neutral nor objective, but highly subjective.
Define "limited" in regards to Wikipedia's policy on "limited personal content" in the user namespace. Does it refer to
- a limited number of pages in a user's own space?
- a limit on the amount of storage a user's space takes up on the server?
- a limit on the quality, quantity, and substance of a user's thoughts on Wikipedia learning?
Can a poor decision maker improve her ability to decide on such things as notability of an article, proper categorization of a subject, etcetera? Thoughts, please:
- Yes and no. Wikipedia's markup makes it easy to change one's mind on, say, whether one wants to change formatting, move content to a new section, subsection, or page and other matters. This ease allows for an infinite number of decisions to be made. The concept of "infinite" capacity here could pose a problem, but "ease" could facilitate improvement.
(If the user does not improve her ability to make decisions, she may create one hot mess in her user space.)
Are weasel words ever acceptable? Possible answers:
- Weasel words are never acceptable.
- Weasel words are sometimes acceptable.
You just used a weasel word!
I have learned
- A page might look good on mobile, but look bad on a PC desktop (formatting issues). My userboxes displayed differently on the desktop, caused by improper markup of images.
Possibly I misunderstood some markup properties, or made typos in the code. (This problem occurred with userboxes, tables, etc.) Markup! Sigh, flashbacks to my 20-year struggles with HTML code, CSS, and the like.
I also experienced problems with line-breaking properties that turned out to be relative to display size (looked good on mobile; looked bad on desktop). I used Wikipedia's minimalist-table template to resolve the problem.
I think it is not Wikipedia markup which confuses me; rather, it is something to do with site organization and navigation. But I have improved.
You can use cc0 image files from Wikimedia. Research the procedures for adding, linking, and tagging media files.
Subjectivity versus objectivity edit
My early insight on neutral point of view (NPOV):
My first thought was to call this a compendium because I like the word and am prone to tongue-in-cheek exaggeration for stylistic purposes. While this is acceptable in subjective essays, it is not advisable for Wikipedia articles. This is not a proper compendium. It is rather a short list.
This brings me to another point. Often I find slightly irritating passages in existing Wikipedia articles, but I can't formulate a precise reason for my annoyance. Sometimes the problem is due to one of the finer points of grammar, but I suspect that the usual reason has to do with style. Some articles include flourishes of language more suitable to a magazine or a subjective essay than to an encyclopedia. At times, the language makes me suspect that the writer has plagiarized another writer (perhaps unintentionally) or has become emotionally invested in the article at hand.
Finer points of NPOV
Reading Wikipedia's guidelines, it does appear that subjective opinions can be quoted. They should be balanced.
My understanding of this is that is good to say: On the topic of trees, X said, "I love trees. Trees are amazing things. They provide beauty. They replenish the air."(reference) However, Y said, "I hate trees. The pine beetles eat them and cause them to die. Last week a dead tree fell on my house."(reference) The New York Times provided this fact about trees: when healthy, trees are green. The Times cited the director of Central Park's botany program in this matter. The director is quoted as saying, "We have been striving to keep our trees green and healthy. We agree with X. As to Y's statement, it is partially true. Dead trees can fall and damage property. The solution is to treat trees before they become too unhealthy. Trim dead branches and cut dead trees on the property. Overall, trees are a good thing." See also, related: Plants.
It is also important to keep sources separate. Do not combine two sources to make a new point. Instead, let each source speak, follow up each with a reference. Let a third or fourth source make a statement about the topic.
Advocacy and inflammatory statements should be covered as opposing opinions or controversies, if possible. That is just my understanding of it. I need to read more.
NPOV on myths and legends edit
From King Arthur
The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.
- reawakened interest in a myth or legend
- public interest in the legends
- revival of interest in the legends
- continued through the 19th century and into the 20th
Possible neutral statements: In sources a, b, c, d, and e mention the moon-eyed people are mentioned in relation to Fort Mountain. Source j mentions that indigenous people built ruins at Fort Mountain. Jane Smith says that indigenous people, who lived in the appalachians before the time of the Cherokee, built the ruins at Fort Mountain.
In sources f and g, the moon-eyed people are mentioned as an unknown race pushed out of the region when the Cherokee came into it.
Source n says that the Cherokee replaced an earlier race of unknown people, and further suggests that some of the people stayed and were assimilated into the Cherokee race.
In sources h and i, the term "moon-eyed people" does not occur. Source h mentions "an ancient white race predating the Cherokee." Source i tells of an ancient race of people dho lived in the appalachian mountains, but does not give any racial characteristics or other descriptions of the people. Source j speaks of an indigenous race of people, who lived in the southern appalachians before the Cherokee and built the stone wall on Fort Mountain. Source k writes about "moon-eyed people who lived before the Cherokee, but she places them in Ohio. She does not mention Fort Mountain or the appalachian region.
Sources a, b, d, e, and f are newspapers in Georgia.
- Visitors to Fort Mountain State Park may read about the old stone ruins on historical markers and in literature about the park.
King Arthur
and T. S. Eliot alludes to the Arthur myth (but not Arthur) in his poem The Waste Land, which mentions the Fisher King.
has a reference.
Some ancient writers viewed Atlantis as fictional or metaphorical myth; others believed it to be real.
has a reference.
Other early Christian writers wrote about Atlantis, although they had mixed views on whether it once existed or was an untrustworthy myth of pagan origin.
has a reference and continues with examples in the following paragraph.
Topics for further study
Could this be a section: More about sources? None of the sources mentioned in the article can be said to prove or disprove the existence of moon-eyed people, nor would they be accepted as reliable subjects concerning facts about the moon-eyed people. The existence of published sources on the topic of moon-eyed people, as well as the fact that visitors to the region see tourism brochures or may read travelogues, does help explain how the stories became known.
Understanding the lede edit
Lede is a publishing-industry-specific term for lead (lead paragraph). For this journal entry on understanding the lede, I have used the article "Moon-eyed people" for my examples.
Project goal: Revise the moon-eyed article to shorten or divide into appropriate topic, with an eye to NPOV.
Start with the lede:
WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
My take:
- Identify topic
Problems with topic Attempts to identify the topic of this article have proven to be highly controversial in the past. It would be wise to read the talk page before tackling the subject. Any attempt to reclassify the "moon-eyed people" as something other than Cherokee tradition is problematic. The issue turned into a minor war; the two users have been banned (not sure if the banning is related to this discussion). As I see it, classifying the topic as Cherokee tradition is equally problematic, and could be considered "cultural appropriation." One hundred percent of the sources quoted in this article are of Euro-American origin, though all of them attribute the Cherokee as originators of the legend; some in a general way, and some, specifically (the most specific being a reference to a Sevier letter attributing one story to Oconostota--who actually speaks of a white race; he says nothing of "moon-eyed" people).
Another problem was resolved years ago when someone split the article, moving all things "Madoc" to a separate article. The talk page still identified problems of synthesis: article jumped around from moon-eyed people of one state to another and even to those of Panama. My feeling is that the refs to Panama may have been synthesized by published sources (e.g., GA Park brochures) in the past. My understanding: WP should not be guilty of "syn," but WP may quote those who have "synned." Once synthesis has occurred in a published article, particularly if it has gone out over the wire and been picked up by papers nationwide (US), readers will synthesize the published matter to form their own perception of the topic, then go forth publishing their perception. But the previously synthesized version is part of their perception. So, wouldn't Wikipedia's job here be to provide, in a balanced manner, without commentary (1) original or earliest known publications of topic; (2) followup publications, including any synthesized from "1"; (3) concensus if found (publications that discuss or analyze "1" and "2" and present conclusions on the topic).
Where scholarly publications are found, they probably should be presented first; but on the topic of moon-eyed people, none are immediately forthcoming via Internet search (my only avenue at the moment).
- Avoid niggling detail
In the lead (as well as the first section following it, I'd say). Don't get bogged down in a discussion of sources, and don't go in depth on any sources; that is, don't pick up a minor summary point and go off on a tangent that leads into a maze of minutia. In-depth treatment of any sources should become separate sections.
WP: The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.
The concensus of WP editors on the notability of this topic is (from my recollection) that it has been mentioned and debated in a number of newspapers, books, and state park materials; the topic exists, is still bein disseminated in mainstream sources, and is not going away anytime soon, regardless of the seeming lack of scholarly sources on the topic.
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
WP: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
Source each fact about moon-eyed people as stated. It is not necessary to source obvious, easily verifiable facts (such as, that the appalacian mountains exist, or that Alabama is a state. I would add, keep links to other WP articles to a minimum, linking only those words that a reader might likely be puzzled by or curious and want to know more about (e.g., "Prince Madoc").
A specific Instance
I was working up a rather disorganized draft on grounds in art. This refers to the layer painted over the substrate and sometimes over a primer layer. It includes descriptions of surfaces, supports, paint mixtures, application methods, chemistry, and conservation concerns. Thankfully, some other smart soul took this topic up; I don't know if I asked him to do it, or if he just happened to write up an article on the same subject I like.
Anyway, the live article includes a specific art method in etching. It is an instance of the term "ground," as used in a particular field of art, but it's really not the same kind of ground at all. Herein lies my quandary. I don't know who to ask or where to find opinions on the matter. I don't know whether it belongs in the article where it now exists (it is cited); or whether it belongs under "Related" topics; or whether it is, indeed, completely unrelated (because it is not the same thing). I really don't want to put it on the talk page, but maybe that would be the best place to put it. The village pump would be useless, I think.
The questionable or doubtful topic is the term "grounds" as used in etching, a method of printmaking. Refer to [*[Ground (etching)]*]: The ground as described in this topic acts as a barrier between acid and metal. It's used in a similar way that latex rubber would be use in sandblasting. The artist does spread resin on the metal plate and draw into this ground using a sharp tool. Since resin has been removed by the sharp tool, exposing the bare metal, the acid then eats into the metal where the lines have been drawn.
However, the resin ground does not appear at all in the finished art—neither as a physical element nor a visual element. The ground, here, merely acts as a barrier to the acid during the etching process. Once the metal plate is etched, the resin ground is completely removed from the plate. The plate is then inked and printed. The image is pressed onto a sheet of paper that is usually not prepared with any special ground; that is, it is not covered in paint or wax or anything.
There are instances when an artist might choose to apply a ground to printmaking paper before printing the image; one might sponge light-colored printer's ink onto the paper or onto the background portion of the drawing on the plate itself before printing the image. That would be a case of using a ground as a visual or aesthetic element of the print. In that case, the ground would be relevant to the current topic, but it would have nothing at all to do with the prior preparation of the plate with resin.
I'm confused by the current referenced statement in the live article, which includes the term ground, in etching, as a specialty ground. To me, the use of ground in etching that respect (as a barrier between acid and plate) is in the wrong category. It's not something applied to a surface or substrate to become part of the finished art, either as a background or color scheme, or as an absorbent layer.
I don't even know if this is a distinction made by experts in the art world. I just know that, for me, as an artist, it's two completely different topics (two different meanings of the word, ground, in art).