User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period January 2018 - December 2018. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Naegleria fowleri
HI Ryan, thanks for reaching out. :@Kingofaces43: Each year I plan on doing this through you Wiki Ed folks, and every year it just passes me by - I only teach this course in the Fall - I'll make a note to sort this out this coming summer so that we are all onboard when the fall semester 2018 starts. On the Naegleria fowleri page, the biggest problem is the overall lack of available reference material - which seems to be resulting in some circular referencing. I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks. Susan
A goat for you!
.jpg)
Thanks!
Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,
Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.
Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Troubled
From the Vagina talk page:
- "My opinion has been echoed by others when it comes to challenging your idea of higher quality sources. You have an odd idea of higher quality sources that does not align with what WP:MEDRS states. How are your above sources higher quality when you also mainly used book sources, including older book sources, and linked to worldcat.org? How is linking to worldcat.org of higher quality than linking to Google Books? And how are your sources supposed to "bring more balance and more accurately reflect the literature that is available on a topic"? Wikipedia sourcing is not based on what the WP:Visiting Scholar program recommends (if what you state about that is true). Do stop putting your Visiting Scholar program work ahead of how Wikipedia works. And when it comes to Pitt, you have been repeatedly seen as having a WP:Conflict of interest, although you have stated that you don't have one. Either way, your focus on using Pitt sources is absurd and tiresome. As for me approving content behind a paywall, considering that there were paywall sources in this article (some added by me) before you even began editing it and considering that I have approved of some of your proposed content that has been behind a paywall, your "I haven't approved of any" claim is false. Furthermore, I cited a journal source above that is not easily accessible. Your "behind a paywall makes a better source" viewpoint is one of the oddest viewpoints I have ever seen on this site. Those types of sources have caused more trouble than anything since they are not accessible unless one pays or asks someone else for access to the reference. It's why WP:PAYWALL has to advise people to not shun paywall sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. We should be using high quality sources, and this decision should not be guided by if they are behind a paywall or not. If readers want to learn more (even if an article is comprehensive and thorough), they can use google, our see also or our external link sections to find other sources. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)"
- "My opinion has been echoed by others when it comes to challenging your idea of higher quality sources. You have an odd idea of higher quality sources that does not align with what WP:MEDRS states. How are your above sources higher quality when you also mainly used book sources, including older book sources, and linked to worldcat.org? How is linking to worldcat.org of higher quality than linking to Google Books? And how are your sources supposed to "bring more balance and more accurately reflect the literature that is available on a topic"? Wikipedia sourcing is not based on what the WP:Visiting Scholar program recommends (if what you state about that is true). Do stop putting your Visiting Scholar program work ahead of how Wikipedia works. And when it comes to Pitt, you have been repeatedly seen as having a WP:Conflict of interest, although you have stated that you don't have one. Either way, your focus on using Pitt sources is absurd and tiresome. As for me approving content behind a paywall, considering that there were paywall sources in this article (some added by me) before you even began editing it and considering that I have approved of some of your proposed content that has been behind a paywall, your "I haven't approved of any" claim is false. Furthermore, I cited a journal source above that is not easily accessible. Your "behind a paywall makes a better source" viewpoint is one of the oddest viewpoints I have ever seen on this site. Those types of sources have caused more trouble than anything since they are not accessible unless one pays or asks someone else for access to the reference. It's why WP:PAYWALL has to advise people to not shun paywall sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): I'm not sure I understand, and I apologize if there's been some miscommunication between us at some point. The main idea of the Visiting Scholars program is to connect a Wikipedian and an educational institution based on shared interests. The Scholar gets access to the institution's library resources and agrees to use them to improve articles in that topic area of mutual interest. That said, there's no requirement (or even preference) for using particular kinds of links or prioritizing some resources over others. If an open access resource is just as high quality as a paywalled journal, by all means use that. If the article is better for using one link over another, go with that one.
- From my perspective, the Visiting Scholars program is about removing constraints on sources (i.e. giving you more options than you would have otherwise); if it feels like you regularly have to prioritize one source over one you would rather use, something is amiss. Again, I'm sorry if I somehow communicated otherwise. If this is based on expectations from Pitt, please let me know and I will reach out to them ASAP to straighten it out.
- In short, make the best article you can with the best sources you can; if something about the Visiting Scholars relationship is doing anything other than helping you with that, we should talk about how to fix it. That wouldn't be fair to expect of you, and wouldn't be in the best interest of Wikipedia. Let me know if you want to chat on the phone sometime tomorrow/the next day. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand either. I thought you might be interested in the discussion and so I brought some of it here. I don't expect you to do anything except to know that not all editors are excited about the Visiting Scholars prgram as others might be. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): I appreciate that. All the program should really do is give you access to sources. It shouldn't affect which sources you use -- just give you access to more of them, so that you can use the ones you want to use without running into paywalls. No need to prioritize Pitt sources over others, though (it sounds like that's what this is about, if I'm reading it correctly). In general, if it seems like either Wiki Education or Pitt is asking you to do something that (a) makes your editing more difficult, or (b) conflicts with Wikipedia best practices, the just ignore it. :) If there's ever something you would like me to talk to Ed about, let me know. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ryan (Wiki Ed), thank you for explaining. If Barbara (WVS) wants to continue this discussion at the article's talk page to challenge what Tom (LT), Rivertorch, Axl and myself have stated, and it appears that she does, we can. But WP:MEDRS (which is a guideline, not a policy) does not support her viewpoint. Neither does any other guideline or policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): I appreciate that. All the program should really do is give you access to sources. It shouldn't affect which sources you use -- just give you access to more of them, so that you can use the ones you want to use without running into paywalls. No need to prioritize Pitt sources over others, though (it sounds like that's what this is about, if I'm reading it correctly). In general, if it seems like either Wiki Education or Pitt is asking you to do something that (a) makes your editing more difficult, or (b) conflicts with Wikipedia best practices, the just ignore it. :) If there's ever something you would like me to talk to Ed about, let me know. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand either. I thought you might be interested in the discussion and so I brought some of it here. I don't expect you to do anything except to know that not all editors are excited about the Visiting Scholars prgram as others might be. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
ANI comment
FYI: "The Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater issue - Allowing an editor who is not a scholar to use an account named user:Barbara (WVS), i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Scholar is a shame by itself. The result is to give an undue weight to someone without a reasonable screening process... and to extend this undue weight to what could be written by this person. Now, some problems have appeared and we are searching for remedies. Since WE are at fault, WE should try the following remedy, called Rectification of names: the said user should use an account named user:Barbara (WVCFE) i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater. With such a reminder of her duties, perhaps this user will find her way back to modesty and efficiency. Pldx1 (talk) 4:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)"
- Barbara ✐ ✉ 21:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- That was a surprising one, yeah. Presumably based on the assumption that you're using it like an academic credential (e.g. WP:CAI). But the program's name is based just on that idea -- that on Wikipedia, people with passion and the ability to find/summarize good sources can be a Scholar regardless of whether they work in the academy. Anyway, it doesn't look like anybody followed up in that section, and Pldx1 is welcome to chat about it on my talk page sometime. Thanks for the heads up. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."
As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)