User:Soni/Adopt/WorldTraveller101
Hi, WorldTraveller101. I hope you are excited about your adoption program. I know that I am. Keep in mind that is my first time as an adopter, so I might make some beginner's mistakes. However, I trust that you will be able to benefit from the lessons and tests that I have for you. If you have any questions about anything related to the program, you can post them at User talk:TheOriginalSoni/Adopt/WorldTraveller101 or on my regular talk page. You may begin by reading the first lesson, which I am posting below. Let me know when you are ready to take the test, or if you have any questions.
| Lesson | Status | Grade | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|
| One |  Done |
91.3% | Yes |
| Two | Done |
96.0% | Yes |
| Three | Done |
87.5% | Yes |
| Four | Done |
-- | Yes |
| Five |  Not done |
-- | |
| Six | Not done |
-- | |
| Seven | Not done |
-- | |
| Eight | Not done |
-- | |
| Nine | Not done |
-- | |
| Final | Not done |
-- |
Five Pillars
 |
|---|
Introduction[edit]Welcome to your adoption program. I hope that as you go through the lessons and tests, you will develop a much better understanding of how Wikipedia works and what role you can play in it. My talk page is always open should you have any questions. In your first lesson, you will cover three things: The Five Pillars, How articles should be written and Reliable sources. The informaiton on the Five Pillars was copied-and-pasted from Wikipedia:5P on May 14, 2013. Please make sure that you understand all the material before attempting to take the test. The Five Pillars[edit]The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in five "pillars":
How articles should be written[edit]The articles on Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view. Personal opinions such as right and wrong should not appear, nor should an editor make changes based solely on personal experience. To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Our readers should be able to confirm anything they read on Wikipedia by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything that cannot be verified elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original. Reliable sources[edit]Information on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. So, what is a reliable source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be one of the following: a published material with a reliable publication process, an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic. It must be regarded as authoritative on the topic you are writing about. MLB.com is certainly a reliable source on matters related to Major League Baseball, but that does not make it a reliable source for information about NASA. It is certainly possible that a source could provide accurate information on a matter that it is not generally associated with. However, the best method is to use sources that are clearly related to the subject. A source that is self-published is usually considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception, so self-published sources should generally not be used. This means that anything in a forum, blog and even most websites will be considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving. For the sake of neutrality, an article really should not be entirely derived from a direct source. Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia, so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing situation! There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here. Questions?[edit]Do you have any questions? If not, please let me know when you are ready to take the test. AutomaticStrikeout ? Test[edit]Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it really shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go: 1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why or why not?
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you believe is clearly racist. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
5.) Q- One editor thinks that Justin Verlander is the greatest pitcher in baseball and wants to say so on Verlander's Wikipedia article. Another editor disagrees and argues that the article should claim that Verlander is actually the second-best, because Scott Kazmir is better. Who is right?
6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)
8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
|
Wikiquette
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
Wikiquette[edit]WP:Wikiquette, or the etiquette of Wikipedia, is a concept that you may already be familiar with, depending how many of the different Wikipedia pages you've read. I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Questions[edit]Any questions or are you ready for the test? AutomaticStrikeout ? Test[edit]Here is the test: 1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take?
3.) Have a look at the conversation below:
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In 3a.) Position A?
3b.) Position B?
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
24/25 – You passed. I'll post the third lesson. |
Dispute Resolution
|
|---|
| Pass, as per GorillaWarfare |
Dispute resolution[edit]No matter how well you edit Wikipedia and no matter how obviously helpful your changes may seem, if you participate here on a regular basis, you are very likely to eventually end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more probable as you get into the more drama–filled areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more controversial the topic, the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through some of the different methods of dispute resolution that we have on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking. Simple Resolution[edit]If you find yourself in a dispute, I don't necessarily expect you to back down. If you believe you are right, it's understandable for you to want to stand firm. Nevertheless, you should still attempt to resolve the dispute. Here are some basic dispute resolution practices: First of all, assume good faith. Assume that the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Given them the benefit of the doubt that they are not trying to deliberately cause problems. Try to see things from their point of view and consider if perhaps you can both come to a compromise. Keep calm. Although it might seem urgent to you, a decision on the dispute can wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version, it is very possible that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Reverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors Discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay stay focused on the different arguments and their merits, not on the people involved in the dispute. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Attacks on the character of an editor are never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond, you realize that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways: 1) it will address the editor's argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor can understand; or 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusing other editors of making personal attacks, acting in bad faith, practicing ownership, committing vandalism or doing any number of other negative things will fall into the second choice from the paragraph above. If the other editor(s) are actually guilty of wrongdoing, don't make ugly accusations. Instead follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, get up and have a cup of tea. Play a game of racketball. Don't be unwilling to step away when you realize you are beginning to get riled up. Otherwise, you may wind up typing something you'll regret. Wikipedia dispute resolution process[edit]If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed at how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution. Assistance[edit]If you want someone to talk to, but not necessarily have intervene, there is an WP:Editor Assistance noticeboard. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the dispute. Third opinion[edit]You can get an uninvolved editor to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another way to get a third opinion is to look at the article talk page and see which projects are associated with the article. Then, go to the talk page of one or more of those projects and get some "expert" advice. Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP Mediation[edit]If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here: Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialize in sorting debates. Request for Comment[edit]You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community involved that you would if you tried a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor in order for the request to be certified. Arbitration[edit]I really hope you'll never have to try this. It's the last resort. The community has elected it's most trusted and willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but do your best to avoid ending up there. Reports[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can go to in order to get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]You could be acting against consensus! However, as long as you are open to the possibility and have been focusing on the disputed content instead of the disputing editors, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realize you are flogging a dead horse. Any questions?[edit]Questions about any of the above? Test[edit]This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless
1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
3.) Q- Imagine you are participating in an Articles for deletion discussion. You post your opinion and let's just say you think the article should be deleted. The creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
4.) Q- In your own words, how should you approach any dispute?
Grade and comments 17.5/20, or 88%. This is a pass; it's difficult to score too highly with only 20 possible points. Your answers were good, except for the incorrect answer about edit warring. I'd say with a quick review of the edit warring policy, you'll be set to move on to the next section. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC) |
The Marking scheme - There are three kind of marks to every question-
- - Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
- Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
- Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.
A combination of two of these marks would indicate somewhere in between the two standards. Based on all the responses to all the questions, we'll see on whether or not to move to the next lesson.
Copyright
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A perfect pass. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright[edit]Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson. Glossary[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it. Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution. So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia. Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere. Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria) In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9) Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
Commons[edit]When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias. Copyright and text[edit]So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there
So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good. Questions[edit]This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
|
Deletion
[edit]While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.
Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
- General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
- G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
- G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
- G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
- G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
- G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}
- Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
- No non-copyrighted content in history
- All copyvio content added at once by one user
- No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.
- Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
- A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.
Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.
Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.
Test for Deletion
|
|---|
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them? 3) First
4) Second
5) Third 6) Fourth
7) Fifth
|