User talk:Psycschool
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
AfC notification: User:Psycschool/sandbox has a new comment
[edit]
PAGE) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in creating this article. Unfortunately I don't think you've put your effort into the right place. Wikipedia has articles on each of these women , and if you have sourced information which is not in those articles, please add it there. We don't need duplicate biographies in this new list. Something more like women in photography would be more appropriate: just name (linked), dates, nationality, very brief note of her main contribution to psychology. PamD 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Loking again, I was thinking of List of women photographers: the article I linked above is a more descriptive survey of women in photography. Either is a useful approach; I'm sorry but I see no real usefulness in what you have created - a set of mini-biographies for people who have full articles elsewhere, and no consideration of the role of women in psych as a group. PamD 13:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to create a central location for anyone searching for women in psychology. If a person were unfamiliar with how women have contributed to the science, and wanted to find information on Wikipedia, I thought this would provide useful navigation. My university had a class project for wiki editing and this was my project. I understand your concern and appreciate your feedback, but I thought I had presented a well written and pertinent article. This was my first time contributing to Wikipedia so I am unsure how you wish me to proceed. Psycschool (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo again. It might be "a well written and pertinent article" if it was for some other purpose, like a stand-alone introduction to a few major women in psychology as a class paper. It doesn't sit well within the encyclopedia. It would be much better if you created an overview which mentioned the key women briefly, with links to their existing articles, while discussing the distinctive role of women in psychology. You could then contribute any extra information you have to the articles on those people. It doesn't really help anyone to construct a parallel, shorter, biography of each of them. Wikipedia articles grow organically, as many different editors come to offer their knowledge, backed up by reliable sources, or their skills in re-wording things.
- You say this is a class project: Please, for everyone's sake, ask your instructor to read Wikipedia:School and university projects and comply with it. Unfortunately a lot of professors set Wikipedia class projects without thinking through all the implications for the encyclopedia, the students, and other editors, and there have been some rather messy results. What course, at which university, are you taking? PamD 19:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- And you chose to ignore the instruction clearly given in Education_Program:University_of_North_Dakota/Educational_Psychology_(PSYC_313)_(Fall_2014)#Article_banners to add a banner to the article talk page: I've now done so for you. PamD 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- A useful thing to do would be to add Category:Women psychologists to those articles on your group of 12 which don't already have it - there are some notable omissions from this (quite recently-created) category. That's one way in which readers looking for women psychologists would be helped to find them. PamD 20:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hallo again
[edit]I've replied at the teahouse to your comments there.
I've rescued the article from being turned into a redirect to the category by another editor, and I think we can make it into a respectable "list" article, but I really urge you to look at the articles on the 12 women and see if you can add anything more to them. If you add new information in this "List of women psychologists" (new name for it, reflecting better what it is), no-one who goes directly to, say, Melanie Klein will see it. It's much more useful to expand the existing articles, even if that isn't what will get you credit in your course. This is the problem we find all too often, that students are set tasks to do which don't match up with the best way for their efforts to improve the encyclopedia. By all means pass this back to your instructor as feedback! It's a pity when students end up caught between differing requirements of (a) their instructor and (b) the Wikipedia editing community.
But what I actually came here to say was:
Duplicated references
[edit]If you're re-using a reference, it's better to give it a name and then call it by name the 2nd, 3rd etc times. You can see what I've done with the Bem reference - I recommend you to tidy up any other duplicates the same way. It makes the reference list shorter, makes it clearer how wide a range of sources you've used, is generally better. PamD 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]I'd suggest you strip this list down to something like:
- Mary Ainsworth (1913-1999), Canadian: best known for her Strange Situation assessments and her research into infant attachment theory[1]
- ^ Held, L. (2010). In Feminist Voices online. Retrieved from http://www.feministvoices.com/mary-ainsworth/
etc, and then concentrate on making sure that all 12 of the articles on these women include all the information you wanted to put into this separate article: the information would be much more useful in those 12 articles. And tell your instructor I've said so! You could add to it from the other women in Category:Women psychologists and the other women listed in Category:Psychologists. And, as someone else has pointed out, you should tell us why you chose the 12 you've chosen: what makes them "prominent" rather than other women psychologists? If they're the 12 chosen in someone else's "List of great women psychologists", that's fine - tell us, with a citation, so we know who made the choice. If you've got some other criterion, tell us.
Incidentally, the Magda B. Arnold article reads rather like an obituary, has no references for the bulk of the text, and could do with some more solid sourced stuff about her work. Now that would be a useful project, to upgrade that article.
But I'm just one voice, and not an expert on psychology. In Wikipedia you hear all sorts of voices, some more polite than others, some more helpful than others. Good luck. PamD 23:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I originally had a much longer introduction to the page, but somewhere along the line it looks like someone deleted it. Maybe I could look back in my saved files and insert it back into the page? I will take your revisions seriously and continue to work on this page. I appreciate your time and assistance in editing. I make no claim at being an expert either, just an undergraduate psychology student trying to help the other women in this great field of science achieve more exposure. Psycschool (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"Infamous"?
[edit]Do you really mean to say, in the section about Maria Montessori, "her infamous Montessori Method"? If so, you really need to say why it's "infamous". (
The dictionary definition of infamous at Wiktionary). PamD 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)