French
DeutschUser talk:Clovermoss
| ||||||||||||
Newbie Central
[edit]Are you a newcomer to Wikipedia? Here are some resources that you may find helpful:
- There's this video that explains some of the basics of how Wikipedia works. It's aimed more towards readers than editors, but it can give a decent foundation of some things to be aware of before you start editing. This video by an experienced Wikipedian provides more substantial advice.
- The Wikipedia Adventure. This is a very basic (and somewhat eccentric) editing tutorial.
- Do you have a conflict-of-interest? Read this guide. It's also important to be aware of an ongoing scam.
- Category:All stub articles which is organized alphabetically and by topic. All these articles could be expanded!
- This is a tutorial for what to know if you wanted to create an article. Our guideline on what is notable for inclusion on the site is a crucial part of this process.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch – advice on phrasing to avoid when editing
- This page is a glossary of different terms used on Wikipedia that can help you understand what people are talking about if you come across an unfamiliar acronym.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory – this is a list of wikiprojects. Some are way more active than others but it's a decent way to try and find groups of articles that match your interests. I'm particularly fond of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada and the associated challenge for improving articles.
- This is the perennial sources list, which can be helpful if you're not sure if something is a reliable source. If it's not on this list and you have concerns, try this noticeboard.
- The Wikipedia Library – this cannot be used until you have 6 months tenure, no active blocks, and 500 edits. However, once you meet the criteria, it is a very useful resource. There is also the Wikipedia:Resource Exchange. I have subscriptions to the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and Niagara Falls Review, if you ever want me to verify something for you. I also have access to the James A. Gibson library at Brock University.
Your Noticeboard thread
[edit]Hello Clovermoss, I obviously don't mean to imply bad faith or anything, but your recent NPOV noticeboard thread on parental investment had me concerned. This seems to be a claim that is absolutely central to evolutionary psychology and can be found across thousands of solid RSs. I don't think it's a good idea to make an open-ended appeal like one might with GENSEX topics more generally. This really is hard science. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- The language is quite clumsy, but not in an unduly POV sort of way, is it? One might speak of "biological females" I guess. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- My concern was not from a GENSEX perspective. I'm a cisgender woman and I think it's entirely reasonable to place this on the NPOV noticeboard. It's just straight up weird to say stuff like this in wikivoice. At the very least WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But generalizing people's behaviour (especially the way it is in that article) is really questionable. It's literally saying that women are only attracted to men with resources as if that's some unquestionable fact. It's important that stuff about humans is handled more delicately. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, language sure isn't ideal, but that's more of a CIR than POV issue I think. "Ressource" has many meanings though. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's very much less than ideal. For example, I have no interest in ever being a relationship with anyone so it's clearly incorrect to state that all woman act a certain way and have specific motivations for their sexual attraction. It's eerily similar to claims made by those in the Manosphere. I think starting a noticeboard thread is very much justified and there's definitely WP:DUE weight issues. As another editor has already stated
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
. If you would like to dispute this, I encourage you to comment at the thread itself, because I'm not removing it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's very much less than ideal. For example, I have no interest in ever being a relationship with anyone so it's clearly incorrect to state that all woman act a certain way and have specific motivations for their sexual attraction. It's eerily similar to claims made by those in the Manosphere. I think starting a noticeboard thread is very much justified and there's definitely WP:DUE weight issues. As another editor has already stated
- Yeah, language sure isn't ideal, but that's more of a CIR than POV issue I think. "Ressource" has many meanings though. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- My concern was not from a GENSEX perspective. I'm a cisgender woman and I think it's entirely reasonable to place this on the NPOV noticeboard. It's just straight up weird to say stuff like this in wikivoice. At the very least WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But generalizing people's behaviour (especially the way it is in that article) is really questionable. It's literally saying that women are only attracted to men with resources as if that's some unquestionable fact. It's important that stuff about humans is handled more delicately. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)