Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson)

Main Discuss Resources Getting help

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.--William Fleeson (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of assignment

We can discuss the assignment here! Come on, everybody! Majobc11 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

hey y'all. Abj89 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I like to talk. Armsbf11 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wassup! Moonpe11 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I just created a heading here so we can use this area to discuss as part of our Week 5 assignment. Anyone have any thoughts? I'm starting to figure this out a little more... Majobc11 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I was initially pretty intimidated with this html stuff (wait, is this considered html?!), but it doesn't seem too bad... Linp11 (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, the only thing we have to have done by tomorrow is watching those videos, having this conversation, and introducing ourselves to our class ambassador? Abj89 (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope so...because that's what I did....Desasu11 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's it. Moonpe11 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I did also! Carps11 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The assignment looks good to me! Whitmb11 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should put dates instead of "Week X" because that would help us clarify due dates and such. Abj89 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss it - Check it out, it's blue. Croweml11 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Occurrence - So as I was leaving a message on Cullen328's talk page, someone else made a "conflicting edit" at the same time. I got a "conflicting changes" page which showed the actual page up top and my conflicting edit below. I had to copy my changes into the actual page above from my conflicting edit below. Heads up. It could happen to you! Armsbf11 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

First time commenting on the course page 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Velvsop (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

HiiiMsbeaulieu (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to say. Ps thanks Ben for the green color!Allexe11 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

what time is it in UTC Croweml11 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So do the articles we're considering editing/creating have to be tied directly to personality psychology specifically, or can they be related to any topic in psychology? Allexe11 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he wants it to be about personality psychology. Moonpe11 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's beautiful. Carps11 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There's two answers to this question. For the main page you write, I'd like you to write a page related to personality. For the other exercises, in which you edit existing pages, it can be anything related to the course, which includes at least Psychology as a field and even broader things, such as movies in which personality played a role, etc. William Fleeson (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaah, okay, that's good to know. I was under the impression that everything had to be about personality psychology. So just as long as there's a personality tie in, it's all good to edit/update? Moonpe11 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For the editing and updating of existing pages, as long as it is weakly related to the class, it is ok. For the new page you write, it has to be strongly related to personality. We will discuss specific pages people want to write and I am always available for questions about that.William Fleeson (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, when you are editing/updating other pages, you will probably be in the best position to edit pages related to the papers you wrote in social or cognitive last semester.William Fleeson (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For the article that we're considering editing, do we have to write a separate critical evaluation, or should we put it in the article's discussion page along with suggestions for improving it? Allexe11 (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't have to write a seperate critical evaluation. You should put it in the article's discussion page along with suggestions for improving it. William Fleeson (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

test-2-3

This is only a test :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plroseman (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of adding dates

Hey all, I started adding some dates but had to stop, because Week 9 falls during Spring Break. And then after that, we have our midterm on the 23rd. I thought about just putting Week 9 down as 3/30, but then I thought maybe we ought to discuss it first. :) Carps11 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Awesome stuff, Carps11! I'll pick up after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Fleeson (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA		3	4	11				18
FL			1	1				2
GA	5	14	27	69			10	125
B	28	178	300	295			87	888
C	28	320	1,070	1,858	1		414	3,691
Start	5	173	861	3,208		1	2,244	6,492
Stub		6	123	1,346			1,868	3,343
List	7	10	47	98	1		9	172
Category					2,879			2,879
Disambig				3	26			29
File					34			34
Portal					100			100
Project					23			23
Template		1			222			223
NA		7	41	141	677			866
Other				1	153			154
Assessed	73	712	2,474	7,031	4,116	1	4,632	19,039
Unassessed			1	12			390	403
Total	73	712	2,475	7,043	4,116	1	5,022	19,442
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 70,196			Ω = 4.82

So I was looking for articles to think about editing, and I found a great resource: Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. If you scroll down the page a bit you'll actually find a chart with lists of articles that a) are important, and b) need some help. Just browsing through the list of stubs has given me some ideas... Carps11 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks Sarah. Moonpe11 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome, thanks Sarah! Allexe11 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a chart (to the right) so you can see the # and importance/quality of pysch articles. You can click the numbers to get a list of the articles.Smallman12q (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Smallman12q. And here's a link to the Portal:Psychology page, which organizes all the information on psychology. If you browse down, you will see the list of topics organized by branch (you can also get to the portal from Carps11's link above). William Fleeson (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this is very helpful! Allexe11 (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, Smallman12q. According to Category:Branches_of_psychology, social psychology has 461 pages and personality psychology has only 1 page. But according to Category:Personality, personality psychology has 44 pages plus 5 subcategories. I'm trying to figure this out, because my students are trying to find unwritten articles. (And, I can't get these links to display correctly.) William Fleeson (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to link to categories or files, you must use a : before the namespace(namespace is "Category","Portal","Talk","User talk", etc, stuff that precedes the :). So it's ":Category:Personality", ":File:Apple.jpg", this is because adding "Category:Personality" links that page to the category, which is not what you want in this case. For more unwritten articles, you can see Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Psychology. Your observation in Category:Branches_of_psychology was correct, it listed only the page Personality psychology, not the category. I've added Category:Branches_of_psychology to Category:Personality, so now the personality category will show up in the branches of psychology category (you can check again). Categories are a little confusing at first if you aren't familiar with nested hierarchies. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you. This will definitely help the students find pages to write. William Fleeson (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Image Files

Yo so I asked Jim where he gets image files, he said that www.commons.wikimedia.org has over 12,000,000 image files we could use, just in case anyone wants to use any of those. Croweml11 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Commons, as its called, is a sister project of Wikipedia which stores most of the free images you see on Wikipedia. See Commons:Main Page. You can also use image which are freely licensed on flickr, or published by federal government sources. You can also upload your own image files.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Specificity

Please be specific on Wikipedia. When choosing topics, I don't know what to make of Density Distributions or Nature of Personality (nothing personal).Provide details/explain. Wikipedia is very broad, with a goal to encompass all topics. As such, be specific...it makes communication effective and efficient=D. Ambiguity doesn't serve us well here. Also, have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Smallman12q (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies

INFJ Personality

Personality traits predicting life outcomes

The Power of Personality (Roberts et al.), Big Five Personality and the Life Course (Soldz, Vaillant), Personality and the Prediction of Consequential Outcomes (Ozer, Benet-Martinez), The Grand Challenges of Personality and Individual Differences for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science (...?) Moonpe11 (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally unrelated: Nice picture choice! I was at LuShan (the mountain in the picture you put up) in 2007 :) Linp11 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha, sweet! It seems like an awesome place. I put it up as a joke, with the Meyers Briggs being kind of silly and all. Moonpe11 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Homework for 3/9

Hey all - I don't know if you've tried to put a bibliography in the talk page of your article yet, but if you're trying to do it by Wiki code it won't let you unless you have something to cite (at least, it won't let me do it...). Just a heads-up. Allexe11 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually tried to create the new page so that I could put the bibliography information on its talk page... but I forgot you weren't supposed to create a page until it has content and all that, so someone deleted it for me. I think I'm going to change the assignment to say "put it in your sandbox" unless anyone has any problems with that. Carps11 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I was under the impression they went here... Moonpe11 (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they do go on our own sandbox pages, but I think we should all put our topics on here so there is no overlap. PS I call Density Distributions. Sorry, guys. I'm willing to be bought off if you get to me before 11 AM tomorrow. Abj89 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Add your topic to the Articles section on the Main page :) Linp11 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Paper Length

I've looked at several Wiki pages, especially those in Did You Know and in Psychology, considered what you can reasonably be expected to do in the time available, and thought about what would make a good article, and have come to the following tentative conclusion about paper length:

Please shoot for 1000-2500 words, and 5-15 references.

Comments? William Fleeson (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Moonpe11 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Home Stretch Due Dates

Friends -- I put in specific due dates for the remaining Wikipedia assignments, and added a couple of comments. Some of the due dates are slight changes from what was there before. Please read the new due dates and comment if you have any comments. --William Fleeson (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Article roll-call

Hey all, the assignment says that we're supposed to start working with each other as well as the online ambassadors for editing/refining our articles, so I figured we could all give each other shout-outs here. So...who wants to take a look at my article? Allexe11 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at yours Xia! Desasu11 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Peagan's on Monday, looked good! Feel free to check mine out, if anyone wants. I still haven't figured out how to re-reference a citation though, so I really only have 3, not 6... Moonpe11 (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I responded with a simpler explanation on my sandbox's talk page! Linp11 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Would someone mind reading over my article? I think I'm almost ready to move it out of my sandbox, but I want to make sure I'm not making any major mistakes. Thanks!! Whitmb11 (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Some notes

I've looked over some of the drafts and have a few suggestions.

1. Citations. Provide citations when you can. If you notice, Wikipedia:Featured articles have a reference for nearly every sentence.
2. Add wikilinks. These are the blue links that appear when you add a pair of double brackets. For example: psychology. These allow clueless/interested readers to learn more.
3. Structure. Wiki articles are not essays. You do not need always need to use "in addition", "lastly", etc.
4. Coverage. Your article should reflect your article topic (which is the article title).

I'll offer most extensive reviews these weekend if I have time. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.Smallman12q (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks for all the help Smallman. Moonpe11 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Smallman12q. I was worried that I was over-citing, but it looks like that's a good thing. Linp11 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing the same reference multiple times

For multiple references to the same footnote, the first time you cite the reference, use

<ref name=CITATION NICKNAME>WHAT YOU WANT IN FOOTNOTE HERE APA STYLE</ref>

then each time you recite, you can just type

<ref name=CITATION NICKNAME /> Linp11 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving my page

I moved my page to the main space, but it's unsearchable and it has this error at the top, "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the User sandbox template." I went in and deleted the user:sandbox thing that was at the top but the error is still there. Anypne else having this problem? Moonpe11 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, figured it out. Moonpe11 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The banner for this class is not showing up at the top of my article for me... Does it show up on yours?? Linp11 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

...Ohhh, that's because the banner is suppose to be placed on the talk page, duh. Linp11 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

DYKs

Some students either were not informed of the criteria for DYK or were inappropriately guided to articles. One article would have required an expansion of approximately 16,000 words in order to get to DYK length. Of the articles I reviewed, not a single one was close to being ready for DYK. Beyond that, with one exception, no one has responded to feedback yet. I'm not the only WP:DYK reviewer who is not getting responses back in a timely manner. As I and others are volunteer contributors and we're not being paid to be teaching assistants, this is frustrating. Students are being asked to engage in Wikipedia culture and either are being given improper assistance or are NOT following directions. Most of the articles will require major rewrites before they can be eligible for DYK. These reviews take time... and we are doing the work by helping students... and the students are not holding up their end of the bargain. (At the same time, they burden the system because none of the students submitting DYKs have reviewed other DYKs themselves. This should almost have certainly been done BEFORE the students wrote their DYKs to demonstrate that students understood the criteria the community would judge their own work against. Because yes, frustrating and annoying to have a whole classroom full of work where not a single article looks like it will get through DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear reviewing our articles has been so frustrating. I didn't realize we were all so off base in how we were writing our articles. Playing the ignorance card isn't one I typically like to use but this is all very new to us and we're learning as we go along. I'm pretty sure I speak for the rest of my class when I say that I believe wikipedia to be a great resource and I use it multiple times per day, and I would never want to do anything to damage it. Moonpe11 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Laura, I just want to let you know some of the other conversations we've had. Back during the PPI, we worked closely with professors who reviewed students' articles before having them submit for DYK. It wasn't ever a requirement, per se, but a lot of students took this opportunity. Naturally, this resulted in a lot of great DYKs, but it also meant some students were submitting despite a failure to meet minimum requirements. Professor Fleeson was operating under a similar timeline/assignment, and he did review student work before they submitted to DYK. I believe they were focusing mostly on minimum requirements (length/expansion by 5x), which it seems a lot of these articles do meet.

I think the bigger question here is whether each article should have their own page or should be combined. Obviously, that's not for one person to decide, so I can't really comment on that. I'm sorry the DYK queue has gotten quite long, but another editor commented to me (on the Ambassador Talk page that we can simply remove them from the queue. I know your limited capacity to review all of these articles makes it extremely frustrating, but please remember that these students are new editors (and very smart students who are contributing good content and have the potential to continue doing so). As you know, no article starts off being perfect, but most editors submit to DYK once they think it's pretty good (and meets Wikipedia policies). The students are definitely innocent in this situation, (as indicated above by Moonpe11). Can you give us some feedback on what we can do differently next semester? If the main thing is "suggest DYK is not a requirement but then encourage specific students after reviewing articles", then we will continue having that discussion. Perhaps another suggestion is that Professor Fleeson/his Campus Ambassador also talk to students about peer reviewing DYK? You said something about that above, but I'm not sure what the protocol is for that. I can definitely try to put together clearer instructions to distribute to professors, if that's the case, and hopefully we can prevent this miscommunication in future semesters. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal Reflection or Essay

We have discussed at length the meaning of "personal reflection or essay", but I thought I'd put the link and text here for your easy access. "3.Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles." William Fleeson (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)