Talk:Traffic psychology

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Comments in 2004 and 2006

This has the look of a cut-and-paste from a finished document, but searches on Google and Amazon have failed to find any matches with existing works, so I'm leaving this here for now on the assumption that this is the poster's own work. -- The Anome 10:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, The Anome! I actually did find this "article" from another source from a Google search. It was all basically copied and pasted. In my second sandbox, I am attempting to re-do the entire article as part of my senior lab project.S. Henry (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was "signed" in an earler edit as follows:

--141.30.182.42 08:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Jens Schade

suggesting that it is the work of Jens Schade, who is one of the academics in this field. -- The Anome 13:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the past weeks several links have been added. Some are really of a good value, others arn`t that good. E.g. links to German language sites are not helpful (please add in the German wikipedia directory). In addition I am not happy with some added sections like "Applied Science - Exemplary illustrations" (all links are to German sites) and "Encyclopedias, Information Services, Statistics" which are not really traffic psychology sites. So, I`ll make some changes. Don`t feel offended I am open for discussions if I deleted a link which others may see still useful Jens Schade 10 Mar 2006

addresses

Mention that trying to figure out how to get to addresses could be considered on topic. One hopes logical house numbering will prevail. --Jidanni 2006-04-15

Modifying through APS Initiative

I will be working with this article for about a week as part of my senior laboratory at Clemson University. This is my first attempt at a modification. Any suggestions or feedback is greatly appreciated! S. Henry (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lova Falk, I am having a bit of an issue with this article. I think I have bitten off more than I can chew. I found a page from a Google search where this article has basically been copied and pasted. Do you think it is a good idea to totally do the article over? I have begun this process in my Sandbox2: User:Smhenry87/sandbox2. Thanks! S. Henry (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smhenry87! I guess you mean wiping out the current article and replacing it with your own text? I don't think it is a good idea. You are new to Wikipedia and will probably make lots of mistakes - against style, manner of writing, sourcing, etc. It takes time to get to know Wikipedia, and learning by collaboration & discussions with other editors. There is a huge risk that after you have written a whole new article, there is so much cleaning up to do that nobody has the energy for doing, so your article is simply reverted, which would be a waste of your good efforts. So instead I strongly advice you to chose a few sections that you either will improve or write from scratch and add them to the article. Friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 09:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smhenry87, Lova Falk, and others: I am also part of an APS Initiative group that has been assigned to modify this article. It is part of the same/similar assignment for an Experimental Psychology lab section at Florida International University. Our proposed changes primarily include verification/revision of references and the extension of sections of the previous article. We are currently undergoing the verification/revision process for the sections of Behavior and Accident Research and Counseling. We are also working to propose the addition of a Psychological Processes section. This would theoretically include information of cognitive tasks such as attention, decision making, planning, etc. We have begun researching/writing on attention, decision making, and neurological processes as well. Our individual sections are being edited in my sandbox User:Giribarne/sandbox/assignment I imagine we must work together to reach an appropriate compromise regarding the references, the sections to be edited and what the article topics will include. Looking forward to our collaboration. Giribarne (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan. I have found that this article is written word-for-word from another source. Have you been able to locate that as well? In my sandbox 2, as linked earlier to Lova Falk, you can see where I have basically tried to re-do the layout of the article, but I do plan on using the same information from the original article, but not verbatim.S. Henry (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you both work on the article from the same sandbox? Lova Falk talk 17:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lova, I have not heard back from this group that is also working on this article.

Smhenry87, we have been encouraged to collaborate with you on this article by our instructor. In order to facilitate this, we would like to know what your assignment requirements are and what sections you plan to expand on for this article. As previously stated, we are working on the expansion/creation of Behavior and Accident Research, Cognitive and Neurological processes, and Counseling. We have verified both our information and new references according to Wikipedia guidelines. Our grade will not be affected by your assignment, so our only concern is to make sure that our information is implemented into the final page. Please give us feedback on how we can combine our information as far as structure and sections will go.

Thanks Giribarne (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giribarne, thanks for your information! I have been on break, too. I haven't really looked at anything in about a week. My basic requirement is to initially add around 2,000 words to the article, then condense and edit. We do not have a minimum requirement for the final amount after proofreading and editing. My information from my sandbox has been graded and approved for uploading to Wikipedia by my professor. At this time, I am still working on other sections. Somehow, the additional information I had added got wiped from my second sandbox, but I am slowly getting it back together. I will go ahead and upload what I have. Please feel free to modify it. For my second grading of this article, I would like to add information about research like studies involving driving simulators and visual accuity.

Thanks! S. Henry S. Henry (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giribarne, if you see this, I have added what I am working on to my sandbox. Please check it out when you have the chance. I don't think it's a very good idea to work on the article together in the same sandbox, as my grade will reflect only what I have done up to this point. I'm sure the situation is probably the same for you and your group. If you would like to begin a joint workspace in a separate sandbox (perhaps my sandbox 2), that is fine. Just know that I will be wiping it clean when my next article modification is due.

Thanks! :)S. Henry (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smhenry87, I will be meeting with my group tomorrow. I have been on break and have not had the chance to sit down with them and discuss how to proceed. Our situations may be similar, but I would bring up the contents of this talk page to your professor in case our similar assignment should conflict with how you will be graded. Either way, I believe the final live page should be a combination of all our efforts and it would be most efficient to make that happen in a separate sandbox.

I will continue to inform you of our resolutions. In the mean time, I hope that we can try to facilitate the future compromised combination of information by working on separate sections (so that our information does not overlap). I imagine we will definitely have to work together to finalize the overview/introductory section.

Best

Giribarne (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ariera90 (talk) a member of Giribarne's (talk) group. I have created the Neuropsychology section and added the accompanying references. Ariera90 (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) ariera90 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Florida International University/Advanced Experimental Psychology Lab (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Fiupsychology (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

The text below is copied from Lova Falk's talk page in order to keep discussions about this article in one place:

Good morning, Lova Falk!

I guess I should clarify that I didn't intend to use just "my own words" to re-do the Traffic Psychology article in my sandbox2. The original article is taken completely from here: http://vplno1.vkw.tu-dresden.de/psycho/download/ttp3_0.pdf

I did not want to edit a plagiarized article, so I thought wiping the slate clean (just for my sandbox and grade) would be best for now. I sent my sandbox 2 link to the group that is working on the same article to get their input. I also spoke with my professor who told me to go ahead with what I am doing since I have been working with the article for weeks now.

I intend to use the article linked above, but not verbatim. Any more input?

Thanks!S. Henry (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Stephanie! I had no idea such a great part of our article was plagiarized. Good catch! I'll wipe those parts out for you, so you can start more or less from scratch. Lova Falk talk 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did check who copied from whom, and when looking at the history of Traffic psychology, the very first edit is (apart from three words) literally the same as the pdf. If the edit window is opened, it is clear that the whole article simply is copied into Wikipedia. Lova Falk talk 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon wiki Community. I just added an edit of behavior and accident research. You can see my notes on my edit post. Thanks

Bcuad21: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcuad21 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two assignment modifications

Hi, Giribarne and ariera90!

I have been approved to upload my modifications (which were to the first version of the article), but see that you guys have already uploaded your own. I will try my best to fit in the information I have into what you guys already have.

S. Henry (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Traffic psychology

Comments in 2004 and 2006

addresses

Modifying through APS Initiative

Copyright violation

Further reading subsections

Relevant journals

Encyclopedias, information services, statistics

Research organisations, online resources

Two assignment modifications