BigWorm.21

BigWorm.21, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BigWorm.21! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, BigWorm.21, 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! I have the following notes:

• The sources aren't seen as reliable on Wikipedia for various reasons, which I'll list below:

1. IMDb can be edited by random users and as such, cannot be seen as reliable. It's actually pretty easy to fabricate information, unfortunately. This doesn't mean that this information is wrong, just that we can't use IMDb.
2. Places like Biowikis.com, Heightline, and Famous Birthdays are known for being unreliable because they tend to pull random information off the Internet or from user submissions without verifying them for accuracy.
3. Tubefilter is iffy at best, as they have a lot of issues. The first is that they do allow people to advertise through their site, potentially through sponsored posts. It's also uncertain how much verification and editorial oversight they apply. At best this is a weak source. It's not the strongest source to rely on, to be honest.

The reason why this causes an issue is also because the only potentially independent source is the Tubefilter article, which has the aforementioned issues. This really needs independent and reliable sources to establish how Clery is notable. This can honestly be difficult for Internet personalities since they don't gain the media spotlight like how film and television stars do. Popularity doesn't make the individual notable on Wikipedia - it just makes it more likely that there will be coverage.

A very notable example of how difficult it can be to establish notability and gain coverage is PewDiePie. He didn't get an article until around 2013. Prior to this the article had been deleted multiple, multiple times despite him being extremely popular on YouTube and essentially the face of gaming Let's Plays in general, let alone on YouTube. The reason? At that point he just didn't have a lot of in-depth coverage despite being fairly well known and popular. It wasn't until he hit a landmark that Wikipedia considers to be notable, specifically him becoming the most subscribed channel on YouTube, especially as at that point he started gaining the coverage needed for Wikipedia. It's really just that difficult to establish notability for Internet personalities.

• The writing style is a little casual and needs tweaking to better fit Wikipedia's writing styles. You can actually use PewDiePie's article as an example of the writing style on Wikipedia, as it's one of Wikipedia's Good Articles now, meaning that it's considered to be one of the best articles on Wikipedia.

With sourcing, things like this, this, and this are decent. This is iffy, mostly because it's just so short but it looks like the Potato Song did gain her a little bit of attention, which is good since there's bound to be sourcing in there that would be seen as usable. What you want to make sure is that the article goes into depth about Clery and that the outlet is considered to be reliable. Check to see if the outlets have an article - often that's a good indicator of its reliability since more reliable outlets are likely to have articles. However also review the article to make sure that it doesn't mention something like it being a marketing company or have a lot of criticism about its reporting.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Hi BigWorm.21. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)