Cmjohnson5
Welcome!
|
Welcome!
editHello, Cmjohnson5, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please complete the student training, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Materials
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What topic would you guys like to do? I found the concept of Media Psychology to be very interesting and it could use some more information. Cmjohnson5 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I also found the picture arrangement one really interesting; I only am aware of a few picture tests but I think it would be interesting to learn new ones that apply to psychology. Cmjohnson5 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm posting links to some articles that i think could use some work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Pennebaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-disclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect Kjyrstenolson (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys I like both ideas I also found a good one. Since our we had Chapter 3 and we all thought the psychograph was interesting I found the article and it could use a lot of work! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychograph_(phrenology) What do you guys think? K Rich MN (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the phrenology idea! Could we make that our number one pick? Kjyrstenolson (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be an excellent choice for out first. I didn't think it had much information and could benefit from more although, I don't know much about the subject. For our second choice I like media psychology but I am a little bias so let me know what you think for a second choice. Cmjohnson5 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing some research and there is a decent amount of information on media psychology. I did some digging in phrenology, there is some informantion on phrenology, but we could probably improve the media psychology one more. Kjyrstenolson (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay what would you prefer for our 1st choice For our 2nd choice? Cmjohnson5 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kjrsten, I think that we could do more with media psychology! I think we should make that our first pick and the phrenology our second pick. Mainly because we can do improvement on that one but not as much on the media psychology! What do you guys think? K Rich MN (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree! Lets do that. Kjyrstenolson (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Go with media psychology
editI looked at the phrenology page, and it seems to be a very complete article and therefore it would be hard to make significant improvements. Media psychology is an important area of psychology and a fairly recent development. The Wikipedia article is definitely a stub. Not hard to really make a difference on this one. A good starting place would be to follow the link to APA Division 46. I tried following the link and it did not work. Try going to this url: http://www.apa.org/about/division/div46.aspx , there's another link on that page to the Div. 46 website. APA people are very helpful. If you contact the division and explain your project, I'm sure they will give you some good leads. I also notice there are links on these pages to the division newsletter and other articles. J.R. Council (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys! I found a book about media psychology that I think could be really helpful for our project. http://library.atgti.az/categories/journalism/David%20Giles%20-%20Media%20Psychology.pdf Kjyrstenolson (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Perfect does someone want to do what he suggested and contact the APA now so we don't have to worry if it takes long. Cmjohnson5 (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at picking out our articles for our references portion and I found 2 that I liked. http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2015.1011341, http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2010.547833, and there is also a journal based on media psychology which I have been reading through the last few days. It has so much information about all of the sub fields of media psych. Kjyrstenolson (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
REFERENCES
I looked at our references and they are really messed up again I had fixed them last week and now some things that need to be cited are no longer cited and some information is being cited to incorrect information. When taking information from Wikipedia and copying it into "Word" to correct/proofread make sure NOT to just copy and paste back to Wikipedia because it deletes references and moves them to incorrect spots. It is hard to go back and redo research and then reconnect references when time should be spent proofreading and adding content. We also need to be careful with making sure we cite references; there are a few facts that have no references but it is clear that they are from another source. Cmjohnson5 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Media psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)