Talk:Indiana Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help.


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Indiana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes


Information to be added or removed: I propose adding the below text in quotes to the education section of the page:

"Indiana ranked 22nd in the nation for educational performance, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2018 report. It earned an overall score of 75.7 out of 100 points and a grade of C. By comparison, the nation received a score of 75.2 or a C.

Indiana posted a C-plus in the Chance-for-Success category, ranking 29th on factors that contribute to a person’s success both within and outside the K-12 education system. Indiana received a mark of C-minus and finished 31st for School Finance. It ranked eighth with a grade of C on the K-12 Achievement Index."

Explanation of issue: I believe this text would enhance the page, adding information on the quality of the state's K-12 education which is not currently available on the page. I'm asking your consideration because I work for Education Week. I apologize if I've misformatted this or left out information you need to make a decision - I'm rather new at this.

References supporting change: this is the source I'd cite: [1] Csmithepe ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

Sorry if I'm being dense here, John from Idegon, but I don't see a separate Education in Indiana page. I was hoping this text would be added to the Education section of the Indiana page as there is other information there about Indiana's K-12 public school system. Csmithepe ( talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

  • ah, there isn't. Still oppose, based on WP:NOT and the fact that you're trying to wedge as many links to your employers website as possible into the encyclopedia which reeks of SEO. John from Idegon ( talk) 20:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    John from Idegon, I would disagree with this response. According to our policy, we must assume Csmithepe is acting in good faith. In that matter, I do not think accusing them of trying to engage in SEO-manipulation is the correct course of action. Please {{ ping}} response Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
MattLongCT, whereas you are entitled to your opinion, I don't care. Paid editors lose any assumption of good faith as soon as they show up here to edit. I do not need to assume...if they are here representing their employer's interest, they are NOT editing in good faith. If you have a problem with my behavior, feel free to report my actions at a noticeboard. That will be good for a laugh. Also, there is absolutely no need to ping any editor twice in the same edit. Now, do you have anything to offer on the substantive arguements here, or are you simply here wasting everybody's time by trying to force your view of proper etiquette on others? John from Idegon ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
John from Idegon, I wasn't aware that edit summaries ping users as well; no matter. Being mean to any user (paid or otherwise) is indefensible. We are here representing Wikipedia for whatever it is worth. We should not give anyone the impression that we are unwelcoming when they are making all attempts to simply follow our rules. There is no provision of Wikipedia:Assume good faith that makes it null for paid editors. Simply put: this user has done nothing wrong and does not deserve such treatment. ( edit conflict) Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
And just so I am perfectly understood, citing WP:NOT with no context is not a valid arguement. ― Matthew J. Long -Talk- 03:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
      • MattLongCT, please stick your royal "we". You do not now, nor will you ever speak for me. I am not here to be an ambassador for Wikipedia. I and most editors are here to provide the neutral and accurate encyclopedia our readers expect and deserve. The notion of Wikipedia as a social constraint is completely unworkable, and has been for most of this decade. I'm going to tell you this no more times: If you have a problem with my behavior, take me to a notice board. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, shut your mouth. Got it? John from Idegon ( talk) 07:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now).
The good: The source, Education Week, appears to be legit and is a publication owned by a non-profit organization. The original report, "Quality Counts 2018", can be found on the ERIC, which is a database run by the US Department of Education. So the report itself is legit as well.
Doing a search for "Education Week" + "Quality Counts 2018" brings up numerous links which would be better sources, for example:
local news - CT, NM, IA, ID, FL, plus many more - however, nothing from Indiana so far
educational org's - NJ, NISL
state gov's - WY, MD, plus many more
national sources - USA Today (Wyoming); searching w/o year brings up this article from The Atlantic (2016)
The not-so-good: However, while this is not a criticism per se, looking at your/ Csmithepe's edit history indicates that using the suggested link (i.e. the one to the Education Week website) for every US state's WP page would indeed result in many links to that website from Wikipedia (WP), thus John from Idegon's understandable concerns RE: SEO.
Other thoughts: I do think OP is acting in good faith because they have been very open about their COI, rather than trying to conceal it.
Suggested resolution: I would suggest finding and using sources similar to the ones I listed above, rather than linking to the Education Week website itself. The best sources would be large national publications like The New York Times or The Washington Post, which would likely cover many/all states, and could be used on virtually/all the states' WP pages. But state-specific reliable sources would be fine as well. Perhaps these sources could be used in combination with the Education Week link (however the EW link should not be used alone). The 2018 EW report is somewhat recent, so it may take awhile to find and use these sources, but doing so should allay concerns about COI/SEO.
Best of luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! :) Big universe ( talk) 06:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Indiana Earns a C on State Report Card, Ranks 22nd in Nation - Quality Counts". Education Week. Editorial Projects in Education. 37 (17). 17 January 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2019.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)