This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
i added the criticism section in light of recent (~5 days as of today) revelations that she uses advertising on her own blog. 66.91.204.11 ( talk) 22:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Everyone, I just wanted to let you know that my group and I have chosen this article to be the subject for our COMM 3460 Wikipedia assignment at Cornell University. We will be making edits to this page and would appreciate any advice that you have. Here is a link to our course page: Course Page. Please feel free to find more information about the project below:
Sections We Will Work on and Additional Content Ideas
Initial List of References and Sources for Additional References
Images and Other Multimedia (Sources Included)
Changes to the Organization/Structure of the Article
Division of Labor
Ric.chi ( talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just took a look at the page, it looks like you guys have put a lot of great work into the page, keep it up! If you have any specific questions on certain content you've put in let me know and I'll take a look. As far as I can tell everything checks out. Jdk243 ( talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Maryana, Quiddity, Jared, Jami, Professor Leshed, and Allen3 for all of your help, guidance, and suggestions throughout the process of improving this article. As we wrap up for our formal deadline for this project (Thursday: 10/10/13), we would be more than happy to hear of any final suggestions that you may have for us. If not, we look forward to working on this article in our spare time and working with you through Wikipedia again sometime in the future. -- Ric.chi ( talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like indiscriminate self-promotion. —Agentbla ( talk) 18:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As a part of my citation checking, today, I found that parts of this source, a now-defunct website:
was plagiarised from a The New York Times article, in particular:
The two remaining appearances of this cited source were replaced with {{cn}} tags, so that we no longer direct readers to this dihonestly generated material.
Otherwise, I would note that all three citations checked today were not properly used. In some cases, the material in the sentence to which they were afixed was not in the source at all (e.g., one source listed magazines Popov liked to read, but the source was afixed to a sentence stating where Popov had published articles), and in other cases the material in the source was misused.
In particular, I would note that this article probably contains plagiarism and too-close paraphrases (given the cases I have found of essentially quoted language without quotation marks). I would urge readers, and in particular, students, to beware, and urge editors to keep an eye out, replacing text with quotes, or doing a real rewrite of the material.
Finally, the lessor transgressional trend of source misuse is also clear, and in my view, the entire article, from top to bottom, needs to be checked for correspondence between afixed source and sentence content. I would not, at present, trust this material to any reader, and certainly not to students without the experience to understand the limitations of the current article. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Note, the extensive quoting in the article text and in the references is intended to be temporary, until the issue of plagiarism is full addressed. (The long quotes in the references allow comparison of article text to reference, so follow-on editors are assured that content appearing is true to the stated source. The long quotes in the article serve as a starting point for shortening or paraphrasing, without all the extraneous, unsourced material that appeared earlier.) Again, it is intended to be temporary, until the major issues of the article—appearance of dates and other purported facts that did not appear in the afixed inline citation, appearance of text that was clearly lifted from source without addition of quotation marks, etc.—can be resolved. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B ( talk) 05:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
i added the criticism section in light of recent (~5 days as of today) revelations that she uses advertising on her own blog. 66.91.204.11 ( talk) 22:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Everyone, I just wanted to let you know that my group and I have chosen this article to be the subject for our COMM 3460 Wikipedia assignment at Cornell University. We will be making edits to this page and would appreciate any advice that you have. Here is a link to our course page: Course Page. Please feel free to find more information about the project below:
Sections We Will Work on and Additional Content Ideas
Initial List of References and Sources for Additional References
Images and Other Multimedia (Sources Included)
Changes to the Organization/Structure of the Article
Division of Labor
Ric.chi ( talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just took a look at the page, it looks like you guys have put a lot of great work into the page, keep it up! If you have any specific questions on certain content you've put in let me know and I'll take a look. As far as I can tell everything checks out. Jdk243 ( talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Maryana, Quiddity, Jared, Jami, Professor Leshed, and Allen3 for all of your help, guidance, and suggestions throughout the process of improving this article. As we wrap up for our formal deadline for this project (Thursday: 10/10/13), we would be more than happy to hear of any final suggestions that you may have for us. If not, we look forward to working on this article in our spare time and working with you through Wikipedia again sometime in the future. -- Ric.chi ( talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like indiscriminate self-promotion. —Agentbla ( talk) 18:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As a part of my citation checking, today, I found that parts of this source, a now-defunct website:
was plagiarised from a The New York Times article, in particular:
The two remaining appearances of this cited source were replaced with {{cn}} tags, so that we no longer direct readers to this dihonestly generated material.
Otherwise, I would note that all three citations checked today were not properly used. In some cases, the material in the sentence to which they were afixed was not in the source at all (e.g., one source listed magazines Popov liked to read, but the source was afixed to a sentence stating where Popov had published articles), and in other cases the material in the source was misused.
In particular, I would note that this article probably contains plagiarism and too-close paraphrases (given the cases I have found of essentially quoted language without quotation marks). I would urge readers, and in particular, students, to beware, and urge editors to keep an eye out, replacing text with quotes, or doing a real rewrite of the material.
Finally, the lessor transgressional trend of source misuse is also clear, and in my view, the entire article, from top to bottom, needs to be checked for correspondence between afixed source and sentence content. I would not, at present, trust this material to any reader, and certainly not to students without the experience to understand the limitations of the current article. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B ( talk) 01:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Note, the extensive quoting in the article text and in the references is intended to be temporary, until the issue of plagiarism is full addressed. (The long quotes in the references allow comparison of article text to reference, so follow-on editors are assured that content appearing is true to the stated source. The long quotes in the article serve as a starting point for shortening or paraphrasing, without all the extraneous, unsourced material that appeared earlier.) Again, it is intended to be temporary, until the major issues of the article—appearance of dates and other purported facts that did not appear in the afixed inline citation, appearance of text that was clearly lifted from source without addition of quotation marks, etc.—can be resolved. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B ( talk) 05:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)