On being LGBTQ+ in science – yes it matters, and here’s why (elsevier.com)
Isn't the best source due to the fact that it is from a site that co-hosted the event the paper is talking about. Does have more direct examples of some programs improving LGBTQ+ experiences in STEM.
LGBT in STEM: Progress but still many obstacles (elsevier.com)
Isn't the best source due to the fact that it is a little outdated. Appears more opinionated and need to look closer at quotes and data.
LGBTQ+ People in STEM | National Museums Liverpool (liverpoolmuseums.org.uk)
Appears to be a good source coming from an established museum for one of their groups of articles on LGBTQ+ history. Does not appear to cite sources, though for the information relating to status as a queer historical person it is understandably limited.
LGBTQ+ STEM DAY | Pride in STEM *
Not a good source as it appears to be the program's main page and can therefore be biased.
Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students | Science Advances
Very good source as it is an academic paper published on peer reviewed scientific journal site. Data only collected on people with queer sexualities and data for queer genders not taken into account.
Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM | Science Advances
Very good source as it is also from a research paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal site. Data collected on people who are sexually and/or gender queer, not just one or the other.
Women
Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency
Very good source from a peer reviewed journal. Data analyzed demonstrates the difference between approval of projects alone vs approval of projects when also assessing PI.
Addressing the Gender Gap in Research: Insights from a Women in Neuroscience Conference
Good source from a peer reviewed journal. May include bias being a conference summary rather than a research paper. Overall addresses ways that women can be boosted in STEM.
Bibliography
As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:
Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow
these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's
notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about
living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of
guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
This is where you will compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.
Example: Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980.[1]
This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Example: Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.[2]
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Example: Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.[3]
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.
...
References
^Luke, Learie B. (2007). Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
ISBN978-9766401993.
OCLC646844096.
^Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa. 144 (2): 27–44.
doi:
10.11646/phytotaxa.144.2.1.
ISSN1179-3163.
On being LGBTQ+ in science – yes it matters, and here’s why (elsevier.com)
Isn't the best source due to the fact that it is from a site that co-hosted the event the paper is talking about. Does have more direct examples of some programs improving LGBTQ+ experiences in STEM.
LGBT in STEM: Progress but still many obstacles (elsevier.com)
Isn't the best source due to the fact that it is a little outdated. Appears more opinionated and need to look closer at quotes and data.
LGBTQ+ People in STEM | National Museums Liverpool (liverpoolmuseums.org.uk)
Appears to be a good source coming from an established museum for one of their groups of articles on LGBTQ+ history. Does not appear to cite sources, though for the information relating to status as a queer historical person it is understandably limited.
LGBTQ+ STEM DAY | Pride in STEM *
Not a good source as it appears to be the program's main page and can therefore be biased.
Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students | Science Advances
Very good source as it is an academic paper published on peer reviewed scientific journal site. Data only collected on people with queer sexualities and data for queer genders not taken into account.
Systemic inequalities for LGBTQ professionals in STEM | Science Advances
Very good source as it is also from a research paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal site. Data collected on people who are sexually and/or gender queer, not just one or the other.
Women
Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency
Very good source from a peer reviewed journal. Data analyzed demonstrates the difference between approval of projects alone vs approval of projects when also assessing PI.
Addressing the Gender Gap in Research: Insights from a Women in Neuroscience Conference
Good source from a peer reviewed journal. May include bias being a conference summary rather than a research paper. Overall addresses ways that women can be boosted in STEM.
Bibliography
As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following:
Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts.
In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
Is the source independent of the subject?
Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
Is the source primary or secondary?
Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow
these special guidelines.
If you're creating a new article, consider the following:
Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's
notability guidelines.
In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about.
Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations.
Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement.
Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about
living persons. Please follow these carefully.
Wikipedia has a series of
guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully.
If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert.
This is where you will compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment. Add the name and/or notes about what each source covers, then use the "Cite" button to generate the citation for that source.
Example: Luke, Learie. 2007. Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980.[1]
This is a book published by a university press, so it should be a reliable source. It also covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Example: Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa.[2]
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source. It covers the topic in some depth, so it's helpful in establishing notability.
Example: Baker, William J.; Dransfield, John (2016). "Beyond Genera Palmarum: progress and prospects in palm systematics". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society.[3]
This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it should be a reliable source for a specific fact. Since it only dedicates a few sentences to the topic, it can't be used to establish notability.
...
References
^Luke, Learie B. (2007). Identity and secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889–1980. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
ISBN978-9766401993.
OCLC646844096.
^Galeano, Gloria; Bernal, Rodrigo (2013-11-08). "Sabinaria , a new genus of palms (Cryosophileae, Coryphoideae, Arecaceae) from the Colombia-Panama border". Phytotaxa. 144 (2): 27–44.
doi:
10.11646/phytotaxa.144.2.1.
ISSN1179-3163.