Help talk:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Documenting your sources

Nothing about extracting information from sources

It's disappointing t hat this covers some policy matters, then technical stuff, but there's nothing about how to best use sources to get information for articles. At very least we should link to Wikipedia:How to mine a source and probably some other pages (I doubt I'm the only one who's written an essay on this).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added a Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Documenting Your Sources#Getting the most out of sources section. It's is basically a nutshell summary of the how-to page I mentioned above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

An opening that's a bit cruel?

I like this article, and can readily see the huge amount of work that has gone into it. It's a great resource. But I think it starts off on the wrong foot.

The third sentence reads, "Wikipedia's equivalent of a failing grade is to have another editor revert your edit, putting the article back to exactly as it was before you changed it."

I don't believe that's the way we should be addressing newcomers, especially after equating them with high school students in the 1st and 2nd sentences. In my online and occasional face-to-face interactions with other editors I've been struck by how conscientious, and skilled, they are. Surely the aim should be to ensure that we courteously and consistently welcome them aboard?

When I contributed my first article 12 years ago it was deleted without comment; similarly significant parts of a recent article upgrade were reverted to badly outdated content without comment. In the latter instance, I'm now sufficiently habituated to move to an accommodation of sorts; in the former it almost ended my association with Wikipedia – if it hadn't been for another Wikipedian who joined in and gave some kind advice.

The main shortcoming of the third sentence is that (especially for newcomers, I'd think) it creates an impression that a newcomer's contribution (a "failed grade") may not be valued and that arrogant behaviour from Wikipedians is to be expected.

At this stage I would prefer to find out whether I'm alone, or almost alone, in this opinion rather than barge in and change a substantive advisory essay. Would anyone like to comment?SCHolar44 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)