So, is that your motivation for posting things you know nothing about? A star? I'm still confused about that part and it seems like you're dodging the question.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
News/talk ratings skyrocketing due to high gas prices
- Thread starter wastedtalent23
- Start date
I am adding good information.
Nothing I contributed to is going to earn a star. I'm just saying if you find an article where people who were that good made it that good, you're looking at something close to ideal.
I never explained why I contributed to the article about oil because I don't remember. The main article wasn't the place to do it, but now people are adding to the main article. As to why I contribute to the article with details about why oil prices change, that started some ten years ago and few if any people have been helping, so it has become my responsibility. There were people telling me I was doing a good job.
But how do you know?? You have no business contributing to something that you know nothing about, other than what you find on line? You personally must be an expert at something. Post about that. CTListener is spot on. You're a part of the problem.
"Myra P. Saefong, reporter & assistant editor for MarketWatch, has covered the commodities sector for more than 20 years."
Scott DiSavino "Reuters Energy Correspondent specializing in North American natural gas and power."
"Arathy Somasekhar Reuters News Agency, Senior reporter, covering energy, mining, agriculture, and chemical companies."
Pippa Stevens " Pippa is a markets reporter for CNBC, focused on all things energy."
No, I'm looking at something real and accurate from an expert. When it comes to fuel prices, you simply aren't.
Kids do school reports from information found on Wikipedia. How does your conscience deal with the fact that you post information without actual knowledge other than what you dig up from common sources which you admit may not be correct?
This is just weird and outrageous.
See this parents of school-age kids? This right here is a small example of what's wrong with the Internet.
You don't remember why you contributed to a Wikipedia article about a subject you know nothing about? Do you post about other subjects you know nothing about?
But it isn't your responsibility to post potentially erroneous information. Nobody is paying you are they?
What people? More who post things they know nothing about? I agree with CTListener; stop it please. You're just contributing to something that's already broken enough.
Disclosure: I have "contributed" to Wikipedia several times, but all have been to correct things such as verb/subject agreement or spelling errors. I was reading the bio of a soccer player recently and noticed that the heading on the paragraph detailing the year he spent with Hartford Athletic in the USL read "Harford." Having lived 18 miles from Hartford, with a "t," for four decades, I was confident that I was correct in changing the heading to "Hartford." I even took the risk of not consulting an atlas or crediting my correction.
That's the sort of Wikipedia contribution even vchimp would be encouraged to make. If some article says that the capital of South Carolina is "Colombia," by all means, change it to "Columbia." (But don't change "capital" to "capitol" unless you're referring to a building housing the state legislature.) But leave the revisions of articles on complex topics to experts on those topics.
That's the sort of Wikipedia contribution even vchimp would be encouraged to make. If some article says that the capital of South Carolina is "Colombia," by all means, change it to "Columbia." (But don't change "capital" to "capitol" unless you're referring to a building housing the state legislature.) But leave the revisions of articles on complex topics to experts on those topics.
But you did none of the research, they did.
Scott did the research, and got paid to do it. Not you.
Again, what's your motivation to take stories from reporters, and put them into Wikipedia? Shouldn't someone close to the subject be doing that?
Exactly. Make edits or contribution on something you have first hand knowledge of. Not a subject that you have zero knowledge of.
That's just wrong.
I would suggest you join Wikipedia and look at all my edits and then complain to the people there who can do something about it.
And I see your complaint all, the time but it comes from people who aren't following the rules and think because they are close to the subject, they have the most knowledge.
You just described how Wikipedia works.
Ironically, a rhetorical question is meant to only be answered by the same person who asked it, but you expected vchimp to answer it.
Just to be clear, when you add your information, you cite these sources using the <ref> tag? Because that's what makes Wikipedia work.
Ad verbatim from Wikipedia's About page:
This is usually my policy as well. However, with the right resources, you can contribute to complex subjects, or just clean them up so they flow more naturally.
But what if the information you post is wrong? And better yet, why would you post it?
I can assure you this; if I were to contribute to Wikipedia, it would be on a subject that I'm an expert on. Not do it just to do it.
That's really messed up.
Maybe because they see what you're doing could be considered fraudulent? Not in an illegal sense, but certainly from a moral perspective.
So am I to gather that you also post to Wikipedia on subjects that you scrape from other sources on the Internet without first hand or expert knowledge? If so, you see no problem with that?
Yes. Myra Saefong's name is repeated many times in the references section. Sometimes I have to find the information I'm looking for elsewhere, and the others are there too.
I do not. That's what everyone does.
They're not talking about me specifically. They're experts on the subject they want to write about who are not being allowed to do so. Ironic, isn't it?
That is inevitable, but good editors will fact-check their work at least a few times before they hit that submit button, and if they missed something, either they can correct it themselves, or there's plenty of users on Wikipedia, your mistake will be noticed shortly.
I usually do try to choose a subject I know about before editing, but that's the beauty of references. Think of Wikipedia as more of a launchpad. When you type in something on Google or Bing, usually wikipedia is the top result you get. Wikipedia provides a summary of the information, but the site offers you a way to dive in deeper of you want to. Sometimes experts can't really simplify things for people to understand. It takes Wikipedia to bridge this gap.
- Status