![]() | A fact from Zettabyte Era appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 March 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Qm13.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In both the Internet service providers in the Zettabyte Era and YouTube sections of the page, I have made the necessary changes pointed out by a user who had found dubious propositions in these sections. -- Qm13 ( talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am a a student editor currently studying at York University. I posted this article as a class assignment. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for changes or improvements to my article. Qm13 ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it reads like a class assignment, which in wikipedia is described as a "personal essay". As far as I can see the term comes from Cisco and has a strict numerical definition. It is not "broad concept" concept at all. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 00:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This conversation began on my talk page here. While I appreciate the position of Seattle Jörg, the substance of the argumentation for reverting the original edit does not follow Wikipedia policy. The original edit is taken directly from a peer-reviewed, published source from arguably an expert in the field. The counter provided by Seattle Jörg, while likely well-meaning, is supported only with conjecture or opinion. One should not be able to win an argument on Wikipedia with mere conjecture, when the point in question comes from a reputable external source. A more appropriate counter should also come from external sources. I recommend that Seattle Jörg provide an alternative viewpoint in the text, by also citing research, as opposed to merely deleting text that is unwanted. -- Jaobar ( talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Zettabyte Era appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 March 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Qm13.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In both the Internet service providers in the Zettabyte Era and YouTube sections of the page, I have made the necessary changes pointed out by a user who had found dubious propositions in these sections. -- Qm13 ( talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am a a student editor currently studying at York University. I posted this article as a class assignment. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for changes or improvements to my article. Qm13 ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry it reads like a class assignment, which in wikipedia is described as a "personal essay". As far as I can see the term comes from Cisco and has a strict numerical definition. It is not "broad concept" concept at all. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 00:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
This conversation began on my talk page here. While I appreciate the position of Seattle Jörg, the substance of the argumentation for reverting the original edit does not follow Wikipedia policy. The original edit is taken directly from a peer-reviewed, published source from arguably an expert in the field. The counter provided by Seattle Jörg, while likely well-meaning, is supported only with conjecture or opinion. One should not be able to win an argument on Wikipedia with mere conjecture, when the point in question comes from a reputable external source. A more appropriate counter should also come from external sources. I recommend that Seattle Jörg provide an alternative viewpoint in the text, by also citing research, as opposed to merely deleting text that is unwanted. -- Jaobar ( talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)