User:Bmusician/Adoption/Dainomite

== Dainomite (talk · contribs) ==

Hello Dainomite, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! →Bmusician 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notifications are currently on.
(This means that you will be notified when you have a new assignment, or if you have additional questions to answer. If you do not wish to receive notifications, please click here.)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars

What are the five pillars?

The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.

• The first pillar tells us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and also what it is not.
• The second pillar states that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
• The third pillar states that Wikipedia is free content, and also talks about copyright.
• The fourth pillar is about civility and "wikiquette".
• The fifth pillar states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This means that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it and do not worry about making mistakes.

The Core Content Policies

The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity.

Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia.

Reliable sources

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 published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are 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 in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. 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 – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

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 issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Discussion

If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask them! My job, as your adopter, is to help you with any problem you may have. If you don't have any questions that you need to ask, your next step is to take a short test regarding this lesson. If you are ready to take the test, simply tell me (either on this page or on my talk page) and I will hand it out to you.

I read the lesson Bmusician and it's all easy to understand and makes perfect sense. I'm ready for the quiz!—  dainomite  

Okay, let's get rolling. Sorry for the delay. →Bmusician 12:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Test

Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests.

1. Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not?

   Answer: No you can't. It's a personal opinion and not from a neutral point of view. I'm assuming my best friend isn't a reputable movie critic either.

2. A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not?

   Answer: No, because it's just a fan blog with no other reliable source coroborating that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on July seventh.

3. Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?

   Answer: No, it's a facebook page >.> the KFC website would be a better source.

4. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?

   Answer: I would politely inform the individual about article ownership and link Wikipedia:Ownership of articles in the query, all the while keeping Wikipedia:Wikiquette in mind. Also try to point the new user in the right direction to help them in any way I could.

5. You have just discovered from a friend that the new Chevrolet Malibu is only going to be available in red. Can you add this to the Chevy Malibu article?　Why or why not?

   Answer: Only if you find multiple Reliable sources for to cite as references.

6. Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?

   Answer: Yes I would consider BBC as a reliable source.

7. Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?

   Answer: Yes he would need sources :p