Content deleted Content added
Line 446: *Hello, Professor. I apologize for the wall of accusations that you have been met with here. You were operating in good faith. You and your students just need to be educated on the difference between a Wikipedia article and a term paper. A Wikipedia article does not express opinions, does not reach a conclusion, does not have an introduction explaining what the writer is going to say - none of that. A Wikipedia article only reflects what is has been given [[WP:42|significant coverage by independent reliable sources]]. No [[WP:synthesis]], no [[WP:Original research]], nothing from the writer at all. And of course no opinions. Having said that, let me say that my first reaction on looking at the article [[Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration]] was that as a Wikipedia article it was terrible. But then I looked again and realized that it was well researched, very well written, and provided a good framework on which to build a Wikipedia article. In fact, it was by far the best student-written submission I have ever seen here. It just needed work. So several of us, particular TonyBallioni and myself, have done a major rewrite on that article to remove the copyright violations (direct copying is an absolute no-no and your students should know that), and to eliminate the "student essay" character of it and convert it to a neutral encyclopedia article. Your students might want to compare the current article with the version before we started in on it; it would be instructive for them. Thanks for reaching out to the community here, and I hope future efforts from you and your class will be welcomed as fully encyclopedic material. If you want to discuss my comments further, you can talk to me at [[User talk: MelanieN]]. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 01:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC) :Hi again...the entire revision history has been deleted. The record seems to indicate 2 potential copyright violations in what was quite a long article. Hard for students to review their work under such circumstances. I've asked the editor involved to revert. If you can join that call, we'd all have a better record to learn from. --[[User:EJustice|EJustice]] ([[User talk:EJustice|talk]]) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC) ::Thanks for your work on this article. I'll make sure the student editors take a look. We are finding that material related to women, indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material both at the full-article level as well as sub-sections. And the students are, by now, well-trained in sourcing strong material for points about these communities. So deletions rather than suggestions for additional sourcing seems unreasonable. As you run across insufficiently documented statements, please point them out since there's so much good stuff for people to bring to bear on issues that affect low-income communities and communities of color and are under-documented on Wikipedia. Thanks again! --[[User:EJustice|EJustice]] ([[User talk:EJustice|talk]]) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC) :::Can you give an example of the women's studies articles you are talking about? One of the areas I edit in is women's history. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk]])</span></sup> 12:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC) | |||