 | This article is rated Start-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 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hull/Psychology of Internet Behaviour (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Hi, I'm currently working on this article as part of my univesirty course alongside two other students for the module 'Psychology of Internet Behaviour'. Any suggestions upon specific improvements would be greatly appriciated. Thanks RosieGoundrill ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently I've been working to improve the referencing, but it's a bit of a messy looking style, I think some of it will change when the content is laid out in a simpler way, I think it's all written in an academic/essay style, which I think needs simplifying so it's more concise and easier to follow! To be honest, I don't think the theory comes through too well, but maybe that's just me? Willgarman ( talk) 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I might write a bit about anxiety and uncertainty, and what differentiates the two, laying them out in two sections giving clear insight as to what they are, this might then provide inspiration for the next sections and how everything works in tandem to create the theory, what you think? Willgarman ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I am looking to make improvements to this article as well. It is my first editing an article and doing it with from those at my university. I was thinking along the same lines as you that the layout should be look more presentable. As well as if gathering more references with graphs or images to appeal to the visual aspect. I also feel there should be more research in this article emphasizing why this topic is relevant and significant. Ewaters27 ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have also find a few problems with the article and am seeking for ways to improve this article as part of my course. I think you are right Will, it is very messy. Especially the referencing throughout the text. Lavender 2302 ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The best place to get answers is at the Wikipedia Teahouse. I've posted in there myself and they're pretty helpful but it also might help to identify the issue and then look on the help section of Wiki. RosieGoundrill ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, this group is meeting in the morning now, for now it doesn't mater as long as you contribute later today. Thanks Willgarman ( talk) 09:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, we are making a duplication of this page on my sandbox, if you would like to edit it please feel free to look, critique and edit my sandbox! User:RosieGoundrill User:Lavender 2302 User:Kaolincash Willgarman ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a page # to the first citation of the first section of the article, but the page # I put in the reference was just from the preface of the reference source. Maybe a different page would be more helpful that gives a better example and support why this reference is needed for the first section of the article/ description of Anxiety/uncetainty management. Nicholasemmett123 ( talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've made some changes to the citation style as the banner suggested, unfortunately the sandbox we were working in was pulled from Willgarman's and so your tables were included in the edits. I outlined that we we're not responsible for the tables in the edit summary. You may want to make it clear which of you were responsible for the tables. Thanks Joe1992w ( talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Joe, my group has made substantial changes to the page, not just added tables. I ( Will) personally have edit considerable amounts of the intro and the scope of AUM whilst adding some citations, Sam is working on diagrams and Violeta has made the tables Willgarman ( talk) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, we are really sorry for pushing your changes as well. We thought we were just pushing the citation changes we made in the lab today. We are not going to take any credit for your work obviously and we can talk with Darren Stephens if you like, about what we should do about this topic. I do not mind working in collaboration to improve the page, I am sure everybody from my team ( David), ( Lewis), ( Uchena) and ( Joe) will agree with me, but Darren Stephens said that may be an issue. If you like we can e-mail him and ask what the best way to go about will be. Maks kv 91 ( talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Maks, I have emailed and he said we must negotiate it ourselves, it looks like we need to be more careful about each others work, work cannot be copied in big chunks without due care and consideration. Look at our history on my sandbox and credit our stuff where applicable and I'll be happy to brush this issue a side. Thanks Willgarman ( talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay guys it's all good now. I have reversed the last two changes, so it is back to normal again. Let's decide how are we going to work on this. Are we going to change topics or can both groups work on one I am not sure. Maks kv 91 ( talk) 19:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. Glad to see you co-operating on improving the article. It needs a diagram or table (you don't need to call it "Figure A": that's not part of Wikipedia style). Most importantly, it needs thorough and consistent references to reliable sources. The first few sections are largely unreferenced and they need a thorough check: do they reflect the best academic research? If so, what research needs to be cited? If not, what needs to be removed or changed? Every paragraph should have at least one citation.
- The latter sections of the article are all referenced to the same Gudykunst book. Is that enough? Are there other references that critique or examine relevant evidence? Did Gudykunst get it all right or does there need to be a note of caution? Wikipedia needs to be very careful about stating as fact things which are disputed or not broadly accepted by experts.
- Another point about Wikipedia style is that it does not use second-person language ("you", "our"). A point about people should be described as such. Lay out the facts and leave it to the reader to relate it to their own experience.
- It's a very interesting topic and it would be great for Wikipedia to have a really good article on it that you can point to as your work. Best wishes, MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Martin, we'll have a look at the areas you suggest. Willgarman ( talk) 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I am currently editing the Critique section of the article. If you would like to see the progress or have any suggestions about it, check User:Willgarman/sandbox Lavender 2302 ( talk) 09:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed the link for the Huber and Sorrentino source (22) shows it has the page numbers listed, but the page is still saying page numbers are needed. is this correct? I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansalexawiki ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure about that. It looks like we could investigate that further. Also, it looks like there are some other incomplete citations. Do you want to look into these together?
Ablood3 (
talk) 02:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-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 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hull/Psychology of Internet Behaviour (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Hi, I'm currently working on this article as part of my univesirty course alongside two other students for the module 'Psychology of Internet Behaviour'. Any suggestions upon specific improvements would be greatly appriciated. Thanks RosieGoundrill ( talk) 15:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Currently I've been working to improve the referencing, but it's a bit of a messy looking style, I think some of it will change when the content is laid out in a simpler way, I think it's all written in an academic/essay style, which I think needs simplifying so it's more concise and easier to follow! To be honest, I don't think the theory comes through too well, but maybe that's just me? Willgarman ( talk) 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I might write a bit about anxiety and uncertainty, and what differentiates the two, laying them out in two sections giving clear insight as to what they are, this might then provide inspiration for the next sections and how everything works in tandem to create the theory, what you think? Willgarman ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I am looking to make improvements to this article as well. It is my first editing an article and doing it with from those at my university. I was thinking along the same lines as you that the layout should be look more presentable. As well as if gathering more references with graphs or images to appeal to the visual aspect. I also feel there should be more research in this article emphasizing why this topic is relevant and significant. Ewaters27 ( talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have also find a few problems with the article and am seeking for ways to improve this article as part of my course. I think you are right Will, it is very messy. Especially the referencing throughout the text. Lavender 2302 ( talk) 14:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The best place to get answers is at the Wikipedia Teahouse. I've posted in there myself and they're pretty helpful but it also might help to identify the issue and then look on the help section of Wiki. RosieGoundrill ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, this group is meeting in the morning now, for now it doesn't mater as long as you contribute later today. Thanks Willgarman ( talk) 09:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, we are making a duplication of this page on my sandbox, if you would like to edit it please feel free to look, critique and edit my sandbox! User:RosieGoundrill User:Lavender 2302 User:Kaolincash Willgarman ( talk) 10:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a page # to the first citation of the first section of the article, but the page # I put in the reference was just from the preface of the reference source. Maybe a different page would be more helpful that gives a better example and support why this reference is needed for the first section of the article/ description of Anxiety/uncetainty management. Nicholasemmett123 ( talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've made some changes to the citation style as the banner suggested, unfortunately the sandbox we were working in was pulled from Willgarman's and so your tables were included in the edits. I outlined that we we're not responsible for the tables in the edit summary. You may want to make it clear which of you were responsible for the tables. Thanks Joe1992w ( talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Joe, my group has made substantial changes to the page, not just added tables. I ( Will) personally have edit considerable amounts of the intro and the scope of AUM whilst adding some citations, Sam is working on diagrams and Violeta has made the tables Willgarman ( talk) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, we are really sorry for pushing your changes as well. We thought we were just pushing the citation changes we made in the lab today. We are not going to take any credit for your work obviously and we can talk with Darren Stephens if you like, about what we should do about this topic. I do not mind working in collaboration to improve the page, I am sure everybody from my team ( David), ( Lewis), ( Uchena) and ( Joe) will agree with me, but Darren Stephens said that may be an issue. If you like we can e-mail him and ask what the best way to go about will be. Maks kv 91 ( talk) 17:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Maks, I have emailed and he said we must negotiate it ourselves, it looks like we need to be more careful about each others work, work cannot be copied in big chunks without due care and consideration. Look at our history on my sandbox and credit our stuff where applicable and I'll be happy to brush this issue a side. Thanks Willgarman ( talk) 17:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay guys it's all good now. I have reversed the last two changes, so it is back to normal again. Let's decide how are we going to work on this. Are we going to change topics or can both groups work on one I am not sure. Maks kv 91 ( talk) 19:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. Glad to see you co-operating on improving the article. It needs a diagram or table (you don't need to call it "Figure A": that's not part of Wikipedia style). Most importantly, it needs thorough and consistent references to reliable sources. The first few sections are largely unreferenced and they need a thorough check: do they reflect the best academic research? If so, what research needs to be cited? If not, what needs to be removed or changed? Every paragraph should have at least one citation.
- The latter sections of the article are all referenced to the same Gudykunst book. Is that enough? Are there other references that critique or examine relevant evidence? Did Gudykunst get it all right or does there need to be a note of caution? Wikipedia needs to be very careful about stating as fact things which are disputed or not broadly accepted by experts.
- Another point about Wikipedia style is that it does not use second-person language ("you", "our"). A point about people should be described as such. Lay out the facts and leave it to the reader to relate it to their own experience.
- It's a very interesting topic and it would be great for Wikipedia to have a really good article on it that you can point to as your work. Best wishes, MartinPoulter ( talk) 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Martin, we'll have a look at the areas you suggest. Willgarman ( talk) 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I am currently editing the Critique section of the article. If you would like to see the progress or have any suggestions about it, check User:Willgarman/sandbox Lavender 2302 ( talk) 09:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed the link for the Huber and Sorrentino source (22) shows it has the page numbers listed, but the page is still saying page numbers are needed. is this correct? I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansalexawiki ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure about that. It looks like we could investigate that further. Also, it looks like there are some other incomplete citations. Do you want to look into these together?
Ablood3 (
talk) 02:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)