This is where I'll store all of my old adoptee's stuff. Inactive adoptees are moved here too (I define inactive as over two weeks of unexplained inactivity (e.g., not a vacation that you let me know about or planned "off-lineness". If you want to revive your adoption, let me know at my talk page, but I may not always be able to take you back right away depending on my other commitments in adoption.
Hey Clockery! Welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will read all lessons, do all tests, and ask questions relating to lessons and on the talk page where we will have general discussions not directly related to the course. Lesson one is below. Please sign here to indicate that you've found your classroom and let me know when you're ready for the first test. Good luck! GoPhightins! 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've got it. Thanks! Clockery (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A-No, I could not, because I don't know whether my friend is right or not. However, if I know an authoritative source which says so (e.g. a reputed US news bulletin) I would add it.
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A-I wouldn't add it to either, because what may be racist to me may not be regarded racist by others.
What if it received massive media coverage as being racist? Pending answer to follow up, I'm going to score this as a 2/5, but a solid answer to the follow up could bump that up.
Well, if it something like that happened, then I would add it to the article on The Daily Telegraph, and if the media coverage is sufficient, then on the article on racism. To both articles, I would add any of the articles saying that the cartoon is racial.
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A-If the article includes references and proper research, I would. Otherwise, nothing doing.
But without proper research, the writer of the article may just be making false and empty claims.
I agree; but I'm saying even if the article was well-cited, wouldn't it's thesis be trivial and lend undue weight?
Fair enough. I hadn't seen that side of the matter.
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A-FOX News may be a reliable source of information for Sarah Palin, but it may or may not be a proper source of information on MSNBC. This is because - I'm not criticising anyone - I'm not quite sure whether one news service may be reliable about other news services. If anything about MSNBC appears on FOX News, I would check it on MSNBC first.
Good. FYI- The reason I brought up Palin is because she's a news contributor to FOX News. 4/5
A-It may or may not be reliable, but I wouldn't add anything on Wikipedia unless it appears as a fact on at least two other reliable sources.
That's a good verifiability standard. 5/5
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?
A-No, because it is just about the newspaper's stance. It doesn't speak on the broader point of view.
Additionally, how would you know that the forum official speaks for the company? 3/5
You mean that the official may be using the newspaper community as a mouthpiece for their own opinion?
Right.
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)
A-Yes, because About us sections usually speak of themselves from their own point of view, not about the majority opinion.
It would depend on what type of information was going to be added..."Burger King was founded in 19xx by x" would be fine, but not "Burger King is the world leader in hamburgers". 3/5
So does that mean that we can add citations on universal facts but not on those which may be controversial? If so, I can add them as citations on bare facts but not on opinions.
No, it means for anything beyond bare-bones information a secondary source would be far better than a primary one.
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?
A-Yes, I would need a number of sources equalling to at least half of the world asserting that the sky is bronze to consider his argument (which would be pretty much impossible). However, if he finds the required number of sources (from people of diverse climates), I would be perfectly willing to include this in Wikipedia.
Total: 29/40 (72.5%)
Comments: It is at my discretion as to whether a score of 70-75% suffices to advance to the next lesson; in this case, I think we should discuss your answers a bit more. Why don't you elaborate a little bit where I asked follow up questions or asked you to dig a little deeper? For a topic as important as this, I just want to make sure you're rock solid. Good start, though! GoPhightins! 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I am going to pass you here, because I think you have the general idea, but always keep these pillars in mind when working on Wikipedia. GoPhightins! 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
Thanks a lot. I'm done! Clockery (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-This means that all editors are trying to improve Wikipedia, and to treat them as such. Also to treat others fairly and how you would like to be treated.
Right...until proven otherwise, you should assume your fellow Wikipedians are working to improve the encyclopedia. 4/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A-Firstly, apologise. Secondly, do whatever can be done to help. If possible, rewrite the entire article for him. Thirdly, if I couldn't help, ask a more experienced editor to help (like the one who's mentoring me at the moment).
Good. Also explain to him how to resolve edit conflicts if he comes across them in the future. 4/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-Rod's Mate
Yup. 5/5
3b.) Position B?
A-Rod (opening question)
Ding! 5/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-Certainly not. He might have edited before he joined Wikipedia, or he might have had another account before.
Right, you should assume good faith. (noticing a theme?) 4.5/5
Grade: 22.5/25 (90%)
Comments: Good work. Time to move on. GoPhightins! 19:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
Hey Jackson Peebles! Welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will read all lessons, do all tests, and ask questions relating to lessons and on the talk page where we will have general discussions not directly related to the course. Lesson one is below. Please sign here to indicate that you've found your classroom and let me know when you're ready for the first test. Good luck! GoPhightins! 03:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Viewed --Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A-Not unless your friend is Mitt Romney himself or is an expert in the field. ;-) However, even then, these claims need to be verified by a reputable source, such as a major news agency - preferably multiple.
Something I'm doing for the first (and maybe the last) time ever: extra credit for being funny and right at the same time. 6/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A-I would advise against posting this comic in The Daily Telegraph's article unless it has a history of racism and a section on this or one can reliably be established. This could be included in an appropriate section of the racism article, but the cartoon must be in the public domain or have similar rights available, and I would also advise one to verify that the cartoon is, in fact, racist from a third party. As always, seek input in Talk pages.
Survey says? Ding! 5/5
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A-If this were true and properly cited, it may fit into the article on cancer; however, I would discuss this on the Talk page. However, this sounds like an inaccurate claim and extensive reputable citations would be required to include this information anywhere.
Also, in my opinion, this would involve lending undue weight to the report, but since you keep coming back to discussing to build consensus, I can't dock a point for that omission. 5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A-No. Although they are major news outlets, there is a conflict of interest between Fox and MSNBC and a public opinion that Sarah Palin is supported in a biased way by Fox. If the information is germane to this, though, it may apply on a case-by-case basis. Again, discussion is the best remedy.
Right. For example, if FOX was saying Palin was the governor of Alaska from x to y and the mayor of Wasilla x years before that, then the information would probably be all right, but if it was asserting that she was an angel, it obviously would not. 5/5
A-No. There are nuances that could be considered reliable from this page, such as regulated information or a new flavor that has been added, etc., but the company's own social networking sites should not be used due to conflicts of interest.
True; always look for a press release from an official company website (e.g., [benjerry.com benjerry.com]) rather than social networking sites. Wow, even I, a notorious nitpicker, have yet to find a place to dock a point. You're doing absolutely amazing right now. 5/5
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?
A-No, not high enough ranking/in a position of official stature.
Correct; nothing from a forum is usually considered reliable and verifiable. 5/5
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)
A-Certain circumstances permit this use; however, if the information can be found via a third party, that is likely best. However, a major corporation such as Burger King should certainly have reliable information on some topics (i.e. CEO, CFO, stock name, etc.).
Again, you're pretty much reading my cognitive answer key. 5/5
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?
A-No. Such obvious patent nonsense shouldn't allow the Wiki to be bogged down with citations. Reverse the change and mention on the Talk page.
Ha! I found a place to dock a half a point...there were people in ancient times who did say the sky is bronze. To my knowledge, no one still thinks that today, but it could be a good faith contribution, in which case I'd advise against calling it patent nonsense, but would instead revert assuming good faith. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer conflicting opinions on this. I tend to lean toward the side of the argument that says if it's going to be controversial, you may as well cite it. 4.5/5
As always, thank you for your guidance. Any and all feedback is appreciated!Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Total: 40.5/40 (101%)
Comments: I've never had anyone come close to being over 100%, but you really exceeded any expectations I could have had. Granted, this is one of the easier lessons, but still, your score is impressive.
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins! I'm ready for testing! Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope you had a nice vacation. Merry Christmas! Without further adieu, here is the test:
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-Assuming good faith is not just about beginning with a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty," it is making the presumption that a user's intents were pure and good and retaining that presumption unless substantial evidence and discussion indicates otherwise. It is a concept that indicates that all Wikipedia editors should be treated well and issues should be dealt with civilly. One should assume that improper edits were accidental or misunderstandings and should go to great lengths to talk to the user in question about the edits and how to correct their actions in the future.
Precisely. Outstanding understanding pf a longstanding (feed me some more prepositions to put in front of standing ) policy. 5/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A-What a lovely situation. The AN/I discussion is not necessarily a bad thing, though comments of incompetency are. Use the page as a discussion tool, reach out to the editor with apologies of any wrongdoing with an explanation of your intentions; obviously, the original page was created in good faith and isn't in contention here. Persistent action in being rude and overly critical should also be discussed as a separate issue, but treated the situation civilly should yield positive results (hopefully they did, in this case). An administrator can roll back edits and fix things, hopefully!
This happened to me probably two months ago, so I figured that my adoption school would be a good way to see how some other editors would handle it. I did roughly what you said, but the editor still was angry, and eventually he got blocked for something unrelated. 5/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-Assume good faith. :-) Competency is a good thing, and the presumption should be that the editor simply learned well, quickly. Edit counts are meaningless alone, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Sockpuppetry is also primarily focused upon negative uses of multiple identities; the situation does not indicate negativity. However, if concerned, the editor can always be contacted directly; if it continues to be a genuine concern, submitting an editor as a possible WP:SOCK still involves discussion and investigation and is not necessarily bad or an indication that the results will be against the user. Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a summary of when it's acceptable to operate multiple accounts. You're right, simply assume good faith, perhaps he's a computer programmer in real life...you never know. 4/5
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
Grade: 24/25
Comments: Like Tazerdadog you're breezing through this course. Perhaps I need to make it more rigorous. Well, we shall see, as the next couple of lessons are the meaty ones. Good luck. GoPhightins! 03:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to do something here that I vow to never do again to you, but I don't want to leave you in limbo in case you're done reading the lesson...I'm posting the test and the lesson at the same time. My to-do list is quickly filling up here, and I think I may need to take a day off from adoption tomorrow to address other things, so here's the test along with the lesson. GoPhightins! 03:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
Read! Will answer soon! Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
A- Vandalism is intentional damage. I realize that this is similar to the actual given definition as I recall it, but there's really no way to simplify - vandalism has a negative intent and causes an adverse effect. This is differentiated from edits that could potentially be accidentally bad - vandalism is meant to cause harm.
That's a good def. 5/5
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A- Some obvious indications of vandalism edits on the recent changes pages that were listed in this lesson included edits by anonymous users (showing up as IP addresses rather than usernames) and edits with summaries such as page blanking and page moving. While these aren't proof of vandalism, they suggest that further investigation should be taken to see if any vandalism was done. I would also personally suggest that edits with large byte changes should be looked into (especially if marked as a minor edit) and edits of potentially controversial but well-established pages should be carefully reviewed (i.e. Jesus).
All good indicators. Also watch out for edits that trip the filters and come up saying "Tag:" and then something like possible vandalism, repeated characters, etc. All of those should be investigated as well. 5/5
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A- Assuming good faith, Hello, I'm Jackson Peebles. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
would be appropriate unless it is clear that the user has a history of such actions, in which case a more serious warning might be appropriate.
Right. 5/5
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A- Personal attacks are not tolerated. I would implement This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
However, if it seems minor, I might consider reducing the warning.
It's all up to you, since I attacked you. You could ignore, level one warn, only warning, but it's up to your judgment. 5/5
A- WP:AIV is the "administrator intervention against vandalism" page and should be used in circumstances that indicate obvious spam or vandalism that occurred recently and after multiple warnings.
Precisely! 5/5
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
[3] Updated - you may need to look at the history, as I believe User:Yobot edited simultaneously with me and his edit "defeated" mine, but you'll see my comments on the IP address page and that I did revert it properly (it's hard to beat a Bot).
I think you may have misunderstood this. You need to actually revert the vandalism and warn the users in question. I don't think you did in any of these, so I'm putting my grade of this on hold. GoPhightins! 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you would be correct on that. However, I will say that it is very difficult to beat other editors to the punch. Any suggestions on how to do this? Thank you for your help! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you have Twinkle enabled? If not, that oughta help. GoPhightins! 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I did, but I think I did a better job this time. Thanks for your help, and sorry for the delay! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Jackson. I don't have time to grade now and will be headed out this weekend. You can preview lesson four which is on my main adoption page, but I won't be back til Sunday afternoon, at which point I should be able to grade it. Thanks. GoPhightins! 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case). Ready to go! Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
A-
Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ding. 5/5
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
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 specialise in sorting debates.
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than 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 to be certified.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
Yes. I've come across multiple instances of experienced (more so than me) editors making ad-hominem attacks at one another over conflicting edits. How should this be dealt with?
I would suggest that you gently remind them they didn't address the root of your argument. See the following possible conversation between User:JoeSchmo and User:Example (the latter of whom is a newbie, the former of whom is a rogue admin for the purposes of this scenario):
JoeSchmo, you called my edit vandalism and gave me a final warning even though my edit was made in good faith.
Shut up. If you were an administrator like me, you would clearly know that newbies don't know what they're talking about.
(this is how one should address this scenario, in my opinion) Be that as it may, my edit was made in good faith, which by definition is not vandalism.
That's how I would try to address the issue; if it doesn't work, getting another editor who you trust involved would be a good move. If you ever need any help dealing with unconstructiveness related to a more experienced editor being overly condescending to you, don't hesitate to let me know and I will deal with it. Thanks. GoPhightins! 15:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
Other than that, I think I'm ready! Jackson Peebles (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
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.).
A-
Editor assistance: An informal way of asking another (seasoned) editor of their opinion on how to deal with a situation or how they feel one should approach a topic.
Righto. 5/5
Third opinion: An informalish ("less formal," according to WP:30) way of having a third editor step in during a dispute involving two contrasting opinions and to allow them to weight in with an impartial perspective.
Affirmative. 5/5
Mediation: WP:MEDCAB no longer exists, so the only option is formal mediation. This is considered the "last step" in dispute resolution for content pages, and isn't as friendly as it sounds , but it will yield results and lead to a resolution from the committee of administrators who monitor the mediation requests.
Right. There's also one I didn't mention; for content disputes a good venue at which to sort them out is the dispute resolution noticeboard. 4/5 (-1 because not all mediators are administrators... see User:TransporterMan)
Request for comment: Another informal process, but a large-scale one that does exactly as it sounds - requests comment from users. This will draw in the input of many when publicized, in contrast with a third opinion, which is just the input of another editor. I would only use requests for comment on rare occasions, but I would use it if needed to establish consensus on an issue.
I'm going to disagree that it's informal, as there are a fair amount of rules and regs, but the rest is right. 4/5
It did seem rather formal! I was merely basing my answer off of the article, which states "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct." <ref>(January 31, 2004). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC "Requests for comment"]. ''[[WP:RfC]]''. Retrieved 2013-01--19.</ref>
Arbitration: The almighty administrators and editors who preside over the deepest, darkest, most complex issues plaguing Wikipedia. These people are elected in (very intense, from my cursory look) elections and are extremely well-trusted, verified by Wikimedia, and have numerous tools at their disposal to help with investigations.
That's correct. The elections are held annually in December; you can vote next year if you'd like! 5/5
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:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A-I'd call it edit warring. I realize that there's a three-edit rule that they haven't hit, yet, but if they stop here, they can pursue...
Right. It is edit warring; the three-revert rule is usually the threshold at which someone can be blocked, but before that it is still edit warring. You still can be blocked prior to crossing the 3RR threshold. 4/5
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A-WP:Dispute resolution! The issue isn't really explained other than that it's good-faith, so, to be honest, I would actually first make sure that they had established dialogue with one another through the Talk page and to one another, civilly. If it's a simple disagreement over a fact, it's easy to follow the pyramid down and justify one decision or another. If it's more complex, call in another editor through the third opinion process or ask for advice through editor assistance. If the issue is on a major article, maybe consider requests for comment. If the issue gets way out of hand, mediation may be necessary. If it gets way out of proportion and becomes extremely personal and heated, hypothetically it could reach the point of needing arbitration.
5/5
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, 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?
A-You put your discussion on there, and his reply would be public. Those pages are well-monitored, but I would still ask an administrator to address the situation; I don't think that any editor should be attacked for good-faith edits and opinions, but I wouldn't feel comfortable tagging the assaulting editor myself; I'd put it on a noticeboard and/or contact an admin directly. I wouldn't continue the discussion on the articles for deletion page unless it was on the topic of the article.
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
A-I actually really liked it. I know you probably wanted some constructive criticism here, but I'd keep it the way it is. It's easy to remember and the bottom line is quite funny/entertaining. If I had to change one thing, though, I'd combine the top two. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I actually didn't create the pyramid, but I like to get some thoughts on it. It's based off of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. 5/5
Grade: 36/40 (90%)
Comments: You seem to have a decent grasp on dispute resolution, so I'm going to give you a bonus challenge assignment. Go to WP:3O and read a dispute and post here what you're third opinion, were you to provide one, would be. GoPhightins! 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
[[9]] [[10]] [[11]](There are no current disputes, and all of these links are components of the same one.): My opinion is that the list should be removed (it was), which is interesting because the initiating editor felt differently. This seems to indicate even further that the process is impartial, which pleases me. I determined (independently, though I have looked at the conclusion since) that the list should be excluded, as the information was too trivial to be included the article. If they aren't trivial, references establishing notability should have been included. The other editors added that the guns weren't specifically referred to in the movie.
You're more than half way there! Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.
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.
If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
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. 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.
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
Broad questions
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
A-Unsourced Biographies of living people (it's the only one that Twinkle indicates) or noncontroversial deletes that are not urgent
Righto. 5/5
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
A-The article still needs to be tagged for deletion if it was merely blanked, and the part "without an edit summary" is also bad. I would write something on a talk page expressing that the creator deleted it (to save people the trouble of checking the history). I would then tag the user to ask him/her to please include edit summaries. I'm not sure the item about not deleting templates applies here, as they did blank the article (though it still may need to be "deleted". If they were trying to avoid being marked a vandal (they probably didn't because Twinkle does it automatically), then I'd still tag them.
WP:CSD#G7 applies here; we can assume he wanted it deleted. 4/5
3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
A-The creator could very well add content that rectifies the situation for A1 and A3. Waiting is a good practice that allows a creator time to fix what may have been an accidental poor creation.
A-I had one of these yesterday. Cute, but gone. I would go with CSD A7 Unremarkable person rather than vandalism, as the edit wasn't malicious, so to speak. By the way, these scenarios are fun.
It's always good when the course can be fun! And you're right on. A7 is the correct answer here. 5/5
A-Seems like a test, to be honest. CSD G2 (test) or G1 (patent nonsense), in my humble opinion. I'd check the user's history, too, and the page, to see if they're actually a vandal.
A-Okay, this article is way too short and unorganized, but the individual doesn't seem unremarkable. However, there are NO references, so I would do a PROD for an unsourced biography of a living person.
WP:BLPPROD is an option, however if you have a few minutes on your hands, a google search might turn up some refs so that, if the person is notable, the article won't be deleted in error. 4/5
A-Ugh. Good intentions, bad article. AfD Society, and I'd tag it with every maintenance tag that I can find, or, if I were knowledgeable, I'd fix the problem myself. Who knows, this may be a good article to redirect to a bigger page!
Well, you should avoid tag bombing, if possible... tagging it is a good idea. 4/5
Grade: 32/35 (91%)
Comments: You continue to impress me. Next lesson coming at you. GoPhightins! 22:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
A-I started editing Wikipedia because one day, when I was in middle school, a teacher criticized Wikipedia for being inaccurate and pointed out that a date of death for a famous scientist was wrong on Wikipedia. So, I fixed it. I then developed an odd fixation on correcting grammatical errors, and that's where my focus has been, since. I really enjoy catching vandals, too (and at one point, I myself was guilty of making a page that violated WP:Notability about my girlfriend, though I beg to differ), I just wish I was quicker.
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
A-My username is my real name. I don't like when people use anonymity for bad reasons (i.e. flaming YouTube comments, etc.), so I like to use my real name when possible. Of course, I do see real, legitimate reasons for anonymity, at times - just not when I'm editing the pages that I do on Wikipedia.
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
A-I do research in Speech Pathology and Audiology and focus in Behavioral Science, and I foresee major edits in those fields in the future, as the categories do need some cleaning up and to be edited with the latest evidence-based research. However, the main things that I edit now are vandalism and grammatical errors.
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A-As you noticed when you adopted me, I'd love to be a reviewer. I do think that I was a bit preemptive in my attempt to apply recently, but I think that I'm getting there. I am currently an instructor and am working with my research professors to develop honors projects that focus on making major Wikipedia edits that conform to regulations, but I want to wait until I feel ready to do that before taking on such a task (I'll probably start on the curriculum this summer). Anyhow, ultimately I'd love to be a reviewer (and potentially, down the road, a roll-backer), both as an honor and because I would genuinely use the right and I hope that the administrators will soon let me be one. I have NO desire whatsoever to be an admin, though - too much responsibility!
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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.
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
If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
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.
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
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.
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
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
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.
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. I usually learn something from teaching this lesson, our second-to-last. I did want to thank you for being a marvelous adoptee to this point. GoPhightins!
This is a complex topic, given that there are copyright attorneys, even, but I think I'm ready for the test. Thank you for being an excellent adopter! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A-Wikipedia is free, but it is not public domain. Everything on the site is "free" to view - the knowledge is free. However, as is the case with many "free" publications, as well, there are restrictions to its use. One cannot merely take a picture that is not their property and use it as their own without proper citations, just as is the situation in university settings and any academic paper; proper attribution must be given, and even written content is subject to this license/restriction. Fair use of copyright images is free, but that does not make it one's property. The only truly free items are those that can verified as belonging in the public domain.
Fair enough. 5/5
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A- The Three Scenarios when I can Upload to the Commons The image describes it all:
Pictures/images created entirely by myself of things that I created myself (or are natural, etc., i.e. flowers) that I am, therefore, releasing many, if not all of, my rights to. (Ex: My hypothetical picture of my puppy on my user page.)
"You can upload your photographs of old art, statues,and buildings (usually over 150 years old)."[2] (Ex: My picture of Saint Basil's Cathedral.)
Precisely. 15/15
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [13] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
A-No? Because Wikipedia is released under a share-alike license that allow others to use the works on it, the works in the Commons must not have such restrictions, and WP:FU does not apply to the Commons.
Right; nothing requiring fair use can be uploaded to the Commons. 5/5
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A-I would say no. Though it was published elsewhere first and is very creative, I don't see a necessity for this work and it uses official team photographs, which are no doubt copyrighted and were previously only used under WP:FU guidelines.
I too would say no. Of the criteria listed here, it seems that this proposed work would violate numbers four and five, as well as possibly others. Nevertheless, I believe you are correct. 5/5
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
A-According to US Copyright Law, "an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work" (see [[14]]).
Right, for example a photo of the Mona Lisa. 3/5
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
A-Nope. There are plenty of better alternatives. Take a picture yourself or use one from the official photographer; there are certainly enough, and the federal government posts all of their content for free in the US.
Exactly; anyone can snap an image of the president...he makes public appearances and his official portrait is available along with other press photos. 4/5
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A-Only if it meets the ten criterion for fair use. There must not be an alternative, and we must make efforts to ensure that the press does not lose business as a result of us using their (no doubt copyrighted) image.
It is more likely we could use an image of a man on death row than the president, for example. But your caution is certainly warranted. 4.5/5
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
A-Find a different image. Alternatively, see if it can be utilized under WP:FU guidelines.
Don't forget to remove the image immediately and tag it as a copyright violation. 3.5/5
9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Comments: I think you have a pretty solid grasp of this. The key thing to remember with copyright is that, if in doubt, you should err on the side of caution or ask someone. I would say our resident copyright expert is User:Moonriddengirl. User:Ryan Vesey is pretty knowledgable too. I can help, but my knowledge is nowhere even close to theirs. Keep up the good work. GoPhightins! 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.
Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.
Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
How much time, approximately, do you typically personally recommend giving to establish consensus through a talk page on an "average" content inclusion/removal issue that seems relatively noncontroversial? I think that I'm ready for the test. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, there really is no set time. Two days might be sufficient for one thing, two months might be needed for another. AFD discussions last one week but are often relisted if the closing admin doesn't feel there's been consensus established. A general rule of thumb would be one to two weeks, in my opinion. The test is below. GoPhightins! 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.
1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
A-A policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and has established consensus. A guideline is more of a recommendation, though they provide excellent justifications for an action if one can make a reference to that guideline. These are also developed using consensus, but they are not as broad as policies. Essays are far less formal and are more of suggestions than even recommendations, or the could simple explore the pros and cons of a topic, such as in WP:Apology. These can be written by a sole editor without much consensus, as it reflects an opinion, though should be well thought-out.
Right on. 5/5
2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
A-Considering that we do have Bureaucrats as a user type on Wikipedia, I actually do think that we are a de facto bureaucracy, but not a bad one, and certainly not a de jure one. Though WP:Buro states that we are not a bureaucracy, that simply means that there are means by which to avoid the negative parts of a bureaucracy in many cases. This does not mean that there are not components of on in the Wikipedia community. Though users are not "below" administrators, per say, the Administrators can ban users, bureaucrats assign admin positions, stewards are the bosses, and, even if we want to appeal a decision, we must follow protocols set forth by arbitrators. These systems are good and in place for a good reason, but they are components of a de facto bureaucracy.
I am a bigger fan of bureaucracy than most. I believe in established hierarchies and chains of command. On the other hand, I understand that those probably wouldn't be good for Wikipedia, in all cases. I agree that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, but I don't think that's bad. I agree with pretty much all you said. Great answer! 5/5
3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
A-Yes. Request community input and consensus, as policies are massive and well-developed. There has to be a very good justification for modifying a policy (unless it is grammatical or a copy edit that is non-controversial, of course), though some policies may simply develop over time due to changes in the community. Again, vast community input would be good, and this would be a good situation in which to formally call for input.
Righto. 5/5
4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
A-It is very difficult to explain a potential single situation to implement WP:IAR. I suppose one would have to go by the policy itself: only something that clearly benefits Wikipedia should use this policy, and I would personally only do do so as a last result. I would interpret the spirit of WP:IAR to be primarily a justification for not being able to locate a guideline that justifies one's changes.
Right. We ignored all rules for years, for better or for worse, to justify not blocking and throwing away the key to User:Malleus Fatuorum. Now that he's retired, that doesn't matter so much, but it's worth noting nonetheless. I have never really used IAR except when ignoring the blasted manual of style, which in some cases doesn't make sense. Thus, I have ignored it. 4/5
5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
A-No. Decrees from WMF are very rare, and they are always implemented with very good reason (and the lack of transparency and consensus-collection can be explained by the nature of the decree). For instance, legal demands that are reasonable/not influenced by intimidation may result in WMF decrees. The Wikipedia community can always give input, but decrees are not subject to change as a result of this input unless the Board or staff finds something compelling in the community's arguments.
Right, though I will say that decrees have been coming with increasing frequency lately. WMF has taken sides in what should be, in my opinion, community issues, but I digress. In any event, you are correct that their decrees aren't subject to consensus from the community.
Grade: 24/25 (96%)
Comments: Congratulations, you've completed all lessons of my adoption course and done so with flying colors!
Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
Have a look at your favorite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D
Why not head over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.
There's a lot to maintain at Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
Recent Changes Patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.
WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on Wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.
Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there! --GoPhightins!
Thank you! I think that I'm ready! --141.218.226.208 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the {{Not done}} template with {{Done}}. You may also use {{Doing}} to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.
Done Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
Well, you added the stub tag correctly and tagged that the article is unreferenced, but remember, we need to use WP:BLPPROD for unreferenced biographies of living persons. Though sources have since been added, at the time when you tagged, they were not.
Looks fine to me, but in the future, you could add categories rather than just tagging it as not having categories. Generally, "drive-by tagging" is frowned upon.
Again, I've never been a fan of tagging an article for not having categories, but no need to rehash my position here.
You gave it a valiant effort in NPP, which based on what I've seen from you thus far is not surprising at all. There were a few minor issues, especially in the second one and the fourth ones. Overall, based on those issues, I have decided to give you a 20/25 in NPP. --GoPhightins!
Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate here: [[20]]
All right, we'll see how it turns out.
Done Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
Fine by Bbb23 = Fine by Go Phightins! (at least when it comes to speedy deletion)
You did a pretty good job here, which leaves me a little confused about your troubles in the written section. For your efforts in deletion, I will give you an 18/20. --GoPhightins!
DoneCleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs:
Not quite sure what you did here; add a tag and then remove it?
Umm... sort of. It was an orphan, so I added an orphan tag, then I found it parents...
Well, your cleanup efforts were...OK. I'll give them a 6/10. I know we didn't spend a whole lot of time on this, but still, I'm really not sure what you did on the second article. The first one was fine. --GoPhightins!
Done Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs:
That might have been a test edit, not vandalism, but still it needed to be reverted.
[33] ClueBot is absolutely ridiculously fast, by the way.
It absolutely is fast! What great work by its writers. Somewhere online, there's an interesting article about how it was created.
This was some outstanding work. 37/40. --GoPhightins!
Done Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: [34]
I can't dispute that one. That is a good choice for you. 5/5 --GoPhightins!
Not doneExtra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here. [35]
I think I'll pass up this opportunity for extra credit. I don't want to upload a picture for the sake of uploading a picture, and the opportunity hasn't presented itself.
That's fine, but perhaps at some point you could add pictures of your campus or something...we have a shortage of college campus photos. You're somewhere in Michigan, right? GoPhightins!
A different opportunity presented itself at the Teahouse, today; I uploaded a picture of myself for my userpage. [36]
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
A: Consensus, in the context of Wikipedia, is a general agreement among Wikipedia editors, administrators, etc. on a particular topic. It does not merely reflect a "majority rules" mindset but, rather, the overall agreement of the populace after discussion (though this does not mean that it was decided unanimously; there will always be disagreement). Wikipedia policies reflect consensus, and consensus must be reached before modification of these policies. Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that consensus should be established before making substantial changes to certain types of pages, such as policies, guidelines, and deletions that do not fit into the speedy categories (or other notable exceptions).
Remember, consensus is best judged by administrators and in some cases bureaucrats. I underlined what I thought were especially good points. 5/5 --GoPhightins!
You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
A: Technically, that's okay, as PROD assumes that the deletion is not controversial. The policy says that one should NOT replace the tag, and I would argue that, technically, a speedy deletion request for a non-notable (whatever) should have been made in the first place point 1. However, since I was apparently dumb and initially tacked on a PROD tag,point 2 I would try to reach the editor directly to explain myself and see his/her input as well as express what changes could be made to repair the article (if any), what is WP:NOTABLE, and that I am considering speedy deletion but wanted to touch base, first.
At point 1, you would be incorrect; an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion prior to a PROD tag being placed upon it as speedy deletion is only for a narrow set of criteria. Consequently, at point two you would have done the right thing. The best course of action from here would be to send the article to articles for deletion. 3.5/5 --GoPhightins!
Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
A: Nasty notes just aren't nice. I would respond with a note explaining why I didn't think that the article should be deleted, and, though not required, I probably should have done so in the first place. If the article was deleted in the interim, I would request that it be restored. If I could not reach an agreement with the mean editor, I would tag him/her for personal attacks.
Adequate response here...again it would be appropriate to, and you should suggest this to the editor, send the article to AFD. 4/5 --GoPhightins!
Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
A: Vandalism is deliberate and malicious defacement of a Wikipedia article, policy, user, or other page that is meant to cause harm to the encyclopedia. Right, vandalism is anything done in bad faith Administrators always keep their eyes out for vandals, but I would not personally bring one up unless it was CLEAR that the editor was purely a vandal, it was becoming a problem, and/or multiple tags had already been placed on the user (including by myself) with well-explained reasoning. This can be done directly to an administrator with which one has a rapportPoint 1 or through the noticeboard,assuming you mean WP:AIV though I would posit that an administrator probably already knows what is going on.
At point 1: Be careful about that, it's better for boderline cases to notify an admin with which you have a solid rapport (for me that's User:Dennis Brown; most experienced non-admins eventually find an admin who's their "go-to guy") but for blatant cases, it's best for the encyclopedia (to avoid further vandalism) to go straight to AIV.
And just a side note, even if you think an admin will have seen something, take it to AIV just in case. 4.5/5 --GoPhightins!
You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
A: This should be taken as a deletion request (per CSD policies) from the original editor. Proceed with deletion.
Exactly. It's either criterion G4 or G7, I believe...I want to say G7, but don't quote me on that. Whichever it is, you're right. 5/5 --GoPhightins!
You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
A: Apologize. This actually already happened to me, and it was resolved very nicely. The user apologized for the irate tone and said, in essence, that stuff happens and they were not offended. If I'm at fault, I'm at fault The article was improperly cited, that's one thing, but a mistaken vandalism request deserves an apology even if it was improperly cited, as vandalism should be identified carefully. Fix any changes you made (revert your revert with an explanation).
About that situation you mentioned, both you and Lady of Shalott handled that very well. If more Wikipedians walked around with attitudes like that, we'd be a lot better off. I also liked what you said in the part I underlined. That was just about a perfect answer. 5/5 --GoPhightins!
I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
A: Find a different picture that is not copyrighted, ideally, or take one myself (probably not possible, but still). If the picture is genuinely irreplaceable, do what I can to make it so that the image won't be abused (i.e. re-size, reduce quality), then only use according to fair use policies. Copyright issues are serious, so make sure to follow the rules.
Right. Quadruple check to make sure that you follow the fair use guidelines as copyright is a very important issue. We have two primary experts, in my opinion, should you ever need help: User:Moonriddengirl and User:Wizardman. They'll help you out on a talk page or via email. 4.5/5 --GoPhightins!
You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
A: There should be a big button that allows one to contest the deletion, which should stop the deletion if the administrator's any good (and, in my experiences, almost all of them are). Use the big button, explain reasoning, and also reach out to the editor. If it was really that good, I would be suspicious but still assume good faith, per WP policy. Maybe welcoming the new user would be good and, using Twinkle, explaining the reasoning behind not thinking the article is suitable for speedy deletion.
Remember, this is AFD, not CSD. Only CSD has the button to contest. AFD is a discussion. That said, I'd recommend that in this case you find an admin with whom you have a solid rapport and ask them to speedy close it per WP:SNOW and then discuss it with the user on their talk page. Also, leave a personal note instead of Twinkle for something like this. 3/5 --GoPhightins!
If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: {{subst:foo|article=Lorem Ipsum|Thanks again!}}?
Thanks for helping with [[{{{article|that article}}}]]! It's a great help. {{{1|}}} <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~
A: Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's a great help.
It should read: "Thanks for helping with Lorem Ipsum! It's been a great help. GoPhightins! 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)"
You were close, though, and we didn't really spend much time on templates (mostly because I'm not very good with them) so I can't penalize you more than a point for that one. 4/5 --GoPhightins!
You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
A: Ahhh! Plagiarism! The editor in this case should not only be assumed to have made changes in good faith, but we know this to be the case since they (presumably) reached out to us for cleanup. This must be deleted immediately for copyright reasons, Point 1 but the user should be reached out to as to why this is. This is a learning moment, but one that deserves speedy deletion, nevertheless, at least in the parts that plagiarize.
Speedy deletion implies the whole article, so that is why I struck it. Only the plagiarized content needs to be removed. You're only partially correct at point one; the content can be paraphrased and rephrased, so it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted. 4/5 --GoPhightins!
Post any of the aforementioned types of queries in this section.
For the cleanup, the first one was a fixed broken double redirect that a bot couldn't fix and was listed in the cleanup section. The second one was an orphan that I fixed. There are lots of demonstrations of pages that weren't marked that I copyedited; just check my history!
Okay, I'll admit that I think that I did #9 in the immediately previous section incorrectly. Could you please explain this to me?
Sorry, we didn't really cover templates much (you may have seen my response above), so I'll tell you what. I'll eliminate the question from the final score. GoPhightins! 20:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm done! Thanks so much for everything! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will post all answers to questions that I ask you, questions you wish to ask me, and anything else related to adoption. Please sign somewhere at the top of this page so as to indicate you've found the page. I don't expect you to fly through this course; I would guess that it takes an average user about six weeks...a lot more than that, and we may have some problems. But anyway, if you'll be away from the project for more than a week, please let me know so I don't sit around waiting for you. Thanks. GoPhightins! 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Pizzamancer (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A-Yes. This is part of his work history and relevant.
But strictly based on your hearing it from a friend, you definitely couldn't add it without a reliable source. 1/5
Sorry. That was a misread on my part. Hearing it in a conversation is not a reliable source. The first step would be to check Harvard's web site, look over the chancellors and see if it was in fact true. Then add it to his article, which would have probably been done already by a more experienced editor :)
All right. 4/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A-No. Racism is a very subjective topic. If it was very egregious, then it might warrant some discussion on the talk page to get a consensus, with the result being to put it in or leave it out.
Fair enough. 4/5
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A-Nope. This kind of baseless correlation has nothing to do with causation, and is anecdotal at best.
Exactly. 5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A-I haven't seen Fox news in 15 years. Knowing that Fox and MSNBC are competitors would lead me to think that they are probably not a reliable source in that topic though. As for Sara Palin, probably not. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.
That's reasonable...but how would adding information on Sarah Palin be "tabloidish"? 3/5 pending answer to follow-up
I am American, but haven't lived in the US since the 90s. The only news I see is the outlandish stuff she does or crazy opinions on facebook. My view of her is probably distorted in the first place (I think she is kind of a clown), so I would just stay away from her wiki page in the first place actually and leave that work to people who are better informed and have a more solid and fact based opinion of the subject.
Fair enough...Palin was a vice-presidential nominee on the Republican Party ticket four years ago. 5/5
Correct, but would you elaborate a little to explain your answer please? 3/5 pending explanation
It is a marketing tool that they use to sell more ice cream. Any tweets that appear are run through the marketing department. Although it is probably a pretty reliable source, it violates WP:SELFPUBLISH
There you go. 5/5
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?
A-Nope. Now, if the forum official was a widely known expert on the subject who just happened to be a forum mod, then possibly.
Right, but under no circumstances is anything posted on a forum reliable. You must have it from a reliable source. 4/5
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)
A-Nope. In many cases this is the only place to get stockholder reports and corroborate information.
Yeah, but you have to be careful to take what you get from the BK website and write it from a neutral point of view. 4/5
It looks like there are a lot of citations on the BK Chicken Tenders page that are from Burger King press releases. Most lead to dead links. The challenge of using that as a source is obviously to remove the marketing spin that paints the subject in the best possible light and keep the addition in WP:NPOV. On a side note, most of the links cited for the chicken tenders page are gone or moved. I might work on that a bit today. I suppose that is another reason not to use an "about us" page, because companies tend to change their websites periodically, making the citations out of date.
Dead links are always a problem; they're quite annoying. Good addition. 5/5
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?
A-I would try to avoid the whole discussion. The bandwagon is a logical fallacy though, so if pushed into replying about it, it is easy enough to cite the atmosphere filtering wavelengths to make the sky appear blue, and I would cite it.
Yes. 5/5
Grade: 29/40 (72.5%) 37/40 (92.5%)
Comments: Generally speaking, my policy is that >75% is a pass, 70-75% is discretionary for me, and <70% is a redo if the entire lesson. You're in the discretionary range. Most of your answers are on the right track. I'd appreciate if you'd answer my follow-up questions. Once you do, I'll give you a few additional points, and we'll move on to the next lesson. Good start, I can tell you were thinking! And don't worry, you're not the first, and won't be the last, adoptee to have to answer follow-ups on a lesson . GoPhightins! 20:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Your additions were terrific. Next lesson coming at you. GoPhightins! 02:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
I read through those sections. Ready for test #2Pizzamancer (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-I see the key point here is giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Many things can be misread or misinterpreted. I did that myself on test #1 with the first question. Not realizing that I misread it, my answer reflected that. Totally my mistake, but however unintentional it was, it needed to be addresses. Many editors (especially new editors) get bent out of shape because of the briskness of a lot of the veteran editors.
The subject of edits came up on a page I have been working on John Schnatter. Another editor kept trying to put in some poorly sourced material, but refused to back it up, and went back again and again to add it (see the talk section about the Forbes article). It was very helpful to have an admin step in and close the subject. I gave the other editor ample opportunities to talk about it or discuss it on the talk page, but to no avail. Every attempt was met with no discussion and a revision. Good faith only goes so far in cases like this.
All in all, good faith is a big part of the standards of Wikipedia and should be kept in mind when editing, and especially when discussing things on the talk page.
That is about as good an explanation as I've heard recently. 5/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A-The first step here would be to explain what went on to the new editor. I made two new articles that both got tanked with very little discussion. It is frustrating as hell as a new editor, I can easily see why someone would send a nasty note. The AP:ANI is also a place to detail what went on. By far the best option would be to steer them to the mentoring section and turn him into a more productive editor instead of trying to get in a less than productive discussion.
Right. I too had a heck of a time as a new editor; my first article went to AFD within days of its creation and, though it was kept at the AFD discussion, it really scared the crap out of me that hours of work can be undone with so little consideration. Anyway, I think that we definitely should look into educating users on how to deal with edit conflicts, as they are frustrating. 4/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-Replying to: Like what -- Rod's Mate
Yup. 5/5
3b.) Position B?
A-Replying to: What's the best car in the world? -- Rod
Correct. 5/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-Nope. They could easily have had a good mentor or studied before editing. For someone good with programming or using word processing software it is a natural step. Give them the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith.
Excellent. 5/5
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
Not the best answers I could give, I need to run out to a meeting. Be harsh, no need to assume good faith here. Constructive criticism will help me out a lot more at this point.
Grade: 29/30 (97%)
Comments: Well, if this isn't your best work, I would certainly like to see it as this is a far better understanding of the concept than from editors who've been around longer than you. Terrific work. Time to move on to vandalism. GoPhightins! 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
1: This is actually vandalism I caught and corrected recently:
I don't now how much you value following directions, but I thought that posting some of the work I have done in the area might be better than doing all three from the current edits list.Pizzamancer (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I am ready for the test if you are.Pizzamancer (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A-Someone who makes an edit that lowers the quality of wikipedia. Basically a bad faith edit, someone knows they are defacing a page and does it willfully.
Vandalism is not every edit that lowers the quality of Wikipedia; it's every bad faith edit, in other words to intentionally lower the quality of Wikipedia. 4/5
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A-I always take a look at edits done by people without accounts (the ones that come up with an IP address instead of a user name). Big red negative changes with no explanation are also a red flag.
Yeah. Those are two good ways. Additionally, if a tag comes up next to it (like "possible vandalism"), it's also a good hint...usually if something trips the filter it's not productive. 5/5
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A-That kind of depends on the user, and if it was actually vandalism. If it was an IP address on the first edit, then the highest warning. If it was an editor with a lot of edits, it would need a good explanation, so probably a level 2 warning.
You're right that it depends on the user. Unless an edit made by a user was grossly insulting or a major BLP violation, it's almost always not a good idea to jump to the highest warning on their first edit. A level one blanking warning would be appropriate for a first offense, or even just a welcome message. I would not template an established user. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars sheds some more light on this, but usually a personal message would suffice. 2/5
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A-For the first time, then probably: Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you..
Not a bad idea. Again, depending on what they posted, this could be an instance where an only warning template would be appropriate. Your call. 5/5
I understand the frustration of making good faith edits and having my work reverted. If they came out swearing and calling names, then This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
A-AIV is for Administrator Intervention for vandalism. I should have used one a while ago in an edit war. Without knowing about the 3 revert rule, I reverted an article three times in a day and got a 24 hour ban. Needless to say, the other editor was absolutely wrong, but I got the ban for not using the proper channels. I should have slapped a WP:AIV after my first edit was reverted, so the admins could step in and do something that had a bit more teeth than my warnings.
Possibly true. Usually though, you should only make an AIV report after two warnings. I don't know the specific circumstances around your predicament, but an AIV report sounds like it may not have been totally out of line. 4/5
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
Good grief! You found three possibly good faith test edits. I'll give you a 5/5 for this one, but none of these were truly vandalism. Still, good work.
I just did the third one now.Pizzamancer (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Will grade momentarily...I've been finishing up another adoptee and now should have some more time to stay on top of things. My apologies. GoPhightins! 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Grade: 33/40 (83%)
Comments: By my count, that's a 33/40. Except for question three, you did an excellent job. We may make a vandal-fighter out of you yet! I'm assuming you already have Twinkle enabled, but if you do not, please do so now as you'll need it for the next lesson. You can find out how at WP:TWINKLE. Let me know once you do. GoPhightins! 16:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you (and Happy New Year)
Happy New Year to you as well. Do you have Twinkle enabled? GoPhightins! 03:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Went on an anti-vandalism rampage. You can see the aftermath here: User_talk:66.142.142.196. I did four reversions, and cluebot caught another one. After more disruptive editing, I went to report the user through the arv link on twinkle and someone had beaten me to the punch. The user got a one week ban. I think I am ready for the next lesson Pizzamancer (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Good work. Next lesson coming at you! GoPhightins! 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).
Aha! I never noticed the three options for rollbacks (even though they were right there on the page). I think I am ready for the test.
1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
A-D'oh! I left a talkback on your page. Sorry about that.
Template:
{{talkback|Pizzamancer|WP:ANI|ts = ~~~~~}}
You're really close. The template should be {{talkback|WP;ANI|ts= ~~~~~}} ~~~~. The template you left said that I had messages at your talk page. Still, you were on the right track. Nevertheless, if you use Twinkle, which is the point of this lesson, it should do it automatically when you click "TB" then "other page" and type in the full name of the page (in this case WP:ANI). 3/5
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
Helpful hint. To leave actual clickable links on Wikipedia, type [web address], and it will generate a link looking like this instead of being a bare url.
He'd already been welcomed, but it can't hurt to be extra welcoming. 4/5
4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
A-
{{BLP sources}}
Intrigued by that wiki-code, I was unfamiliar with it. It doesn't appear you did it with Twinkle, so I'll dock a point, but still you're one-up on me if you can do that. 4/5
5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
A-Nice question. Can I use the example I used in the last section?Pizzamancer (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I trust you know how. 5/5
Grade: 31/35 (89%)
Comments: Good work. Not a very hard lesson, especially compared to the next few. I trust you'll do fine, though.
Edit: Actually, no. I don't seem to understand how twinkle works on talkbacks. Is the default for always leaving a talkback that directs to my talk page like the one I just left on your talk page? (Sorry to clutter that with talkbacks by the way).Pizzamancer (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
All right. Well, let's move on for now and we can come back to it later. All right? GoPhightins! 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
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 specialise in sorting debates.
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than 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 to be certified.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
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.).
A-
Editor assistance:
Third opinion:
Mediation:
Request for comment:
Arbitration:
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:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A-
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A-
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, 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?
A-
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
Craddock1, welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will post on all topics related to this mentorship. Bwilkins, a trusted administrator, unblocked you on the condition that you make no edits to any page other than this page and your talk page without my permission, your contributions are linked here, and I will be checking them, that you complete this course to the best of your ability, and that you remain civil at all times. Should you violate any of those points at any time, I will not hesitate to contact an administrator to re-block you. Based on my reading, I think you are capable of being a productive member of the community, but remember that editing is a privelege. Please sign at the end of this paragraph to indicate that you have read and agree to these terms of mentorship. GoPhightins! 20:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for your message, and taking the time to offer your mentorship,
Here is my signature: Craddock1 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This course will entail a series of lessons and quizzes culminating in a final exam. As you are here under different circumstances than my previous adoptees, I reserve the right to adjust the course as I see fit and may grade you a tad more harshly than others. During the final exam, you will be permitted to make edits in content areas of the encyclopedia, but until then, unless directed to by a lesson here, please refrain from doing so. Thank you. Here is your first lesson on the five pillars of Wikipedia. GoPhightins! 02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Posting the test prior to you notifying me that you're ready is something I'll only do in extenuating circumstances, such as me being away. This is one of those circumstances. I will be away from tomorrow afternoon to Sunday afternoon and therefore will not be able to post the test then, so I will do so now. If you have any questions, I will answer them when I get back or a former adoptee who helps me out with the course on occasion, Tazerdadog, may answer them for you. He will not grade the test, but if he watches this page and sees you have a question, he is certainly welcome to answer the question or provide any guidance you may need, as he has experience with my course having been the first to successfully complete it. Without further adieu:
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A-No - not reliable
True, but you could look to find a source to substantiate this. 4/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A-No - my opinion - might not be racist from someone else's opinon. Racisms article - possible if it is widely held to be racist by other soruces
Fine. 4/5
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A-Depends on source - if reliable source / author possibly
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A-Depends - probably yes but sometimes news sites make mistakes. Are there multiple sources from authoritative sites?
We generally consider newspapers, news networks' sites, etc. to be reliable. The key here is that MSNBC and FOX are competitors, and Sarah Palin is a contributor to FOX. 3/5
A-No - managed by various people. Social accounts are not reliable sources
You're right on the second half, the first half is irrelevant. 4/5
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?
A-No - doesn't have a right to speak for paper but it depends on who the official is.
OK. 4/5
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)
A-Yes I would object - WP: SelfSource not acceptable
Why would you object? For factual information (e.g., Burger King was founded in xxxx by xy) it should be an adequate source. 3/5
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?
A-Yes I need a source - could be bronze if a special event happened. Depends on circumstances / context
See WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE for conflicting essays on this. I agree it depends on the circumstances, though. 4/5
Not even going to start to grade. I need explanation to go with your answers. GoPhightins! 03:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Grade: 29/40 (73%)
Comments: You did all right, but I still need more if I'm going to pass you along. I've eluded to some additional policy here, perhaps you want to read up on that and give a one sentence summary of each in your own words and then I'll pass you. GoPhightins! 17:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to your adoption classroom. Post all queries on this page's talk page. Please sign here Aditya Roongta 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC) to indicate that you've found the adoption center. Thanks! Have fun, and good luck. Let me know when you're ready for the first test. GoPhightins! 20:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A- The claim will have to be substantiated either from the Harvard University's website or Mitt Romney's personal website or any reliable news organization and only then can it be added to the relevant articles. The article cannot be updated on the basis of the friend's information as it cannot be verified by others. Also it is not a reliable source. Hence it will violate WP:IRS as well as WP:Verifiability.
Exactly. 5/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A- It should be included only if other notable and reliable news publications carry the story or when it has been criticized by any anti-racism group or when it has resulted in a controversy. A Wikipedia editor should refrain from writing articles based on his personal opinion. Same shall be the case with including it in the racism article.
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A- The information is highly controversial and very difficult to verify. However, if it is carried b a noted peer review journal then there might be a case to include such information. It is highly improbable that such a situation will arise and generally such isues hould be ignored.
That's a can of worms that Wikipedia just doesn't need to get involved in. WP:UNDUE talks more about this. 5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- This is not my area of expertise. I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding American politics to answer this question. However, as per some basic research, FOX News is known to be biased towards the Republican party and MSNBC is known to be biased towards the Democratic party. Hence it cannot be considered to have a neutral point of view towards either of the two.
Sorry, it appears you're from India, so you may not understand some of these well because they mostly pertain to America or Great Britain. But yes, you're correct. Palin used to be a governor and now is a commentator on FOX News. The key here is whether or not the information is controversial (e.g., "Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from x to y" would likely be all right but "Sarah Palin is the best governor in American history" would not). 4.5/5
A- It can be considered reliable regarding certain matters relating to itself. However it should not be considered reliable when making comments on other organization or issues.
See this page for more information, but generally speaking we don't consider Twitter, Facebook, or anything similar reliable...official websites (e.g., [mcdonalds.com this one]) are better. 4/5
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?
A- Forums are generally not considered reliable sources as they represent the opinion of an individual.
Precisely. 5/5
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)
A- Not unless it makes exceptional claims about self or any third party.
This goes back to what was said in the Fox News question; it depends on the information. 5/5
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?
A- Although it is a matter of fact and does not require further clarification, it would be better to add a source to avoid any conflict.
Not a bad idea. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer conflicting opinions, I tend to lean towards what you said; if you can find a source, you might as well include it. 5/5
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
All right Anne, welcome to your adoption center. The first lesson is posted below. Let me know when you're ready for the test. --GoPhightins! 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
All right Anne, here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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:
Thanks for the test. I apologize, I was not particularly thoughtful as it is late here and I did not want to delay completing this. I am also distracted by my disappointment about my article getting turned down.
Hey Anne, why don't you go to sleep and refine your answers when you get a chance; you have until this coming Wednesday. There's no rush just yet. I'll wait to grade it until you post the {{done}} template on this page which will create Done prior to grading this. GoPhightins! 05:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
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?
A- no, it's word of mouth
Right, but you could look to substantiate that with a WP:RS by looking online. 4/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A- as an example of racism, I think "no", it sounds like me judging, which is not a neutral POV. I could search for evidence of public controversy re: the cartoon, and document the controversy. Otherwise it is original research and that's not ok.
That's the general gist of it; it is important to maintain a neutral point of view without lending undue weight to an event or controversy. 4/5
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A- No, it sounds like an outlier opinion. If this is from a reputable medical journal source and is a widely held medical opinion, that would be another matter. But it ain't.
Hit the nail on the head. 5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- probably not, because they are competitors in the first place and employers in the second place. Potential for bias.
It would depend on the information; for example Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from x date to y date would probably be OK, but Palin is the greatest human being ever to walk the earth would not. You're right that there is a potential for bias. 3.5/5
A- Twitter pages are not considered reliable sources in general but if it was announcing something related to Ben and Jerry's, some business news, it could be reported as such with attribution, I suppose.
WP:SELFSOURCE, which I noted below, sheds some light on this. A press release on the official company website would be better than a "tweet". 4.5/5
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?
A- Not sure what a forum official is or what a community forum is. Is this an anonymous contributor to a blog? I think it would 1) need to be a named verifiable source 2) be knowledgeable and accurate 3) reporting on something objective, not merely expressing an opinion
A forum is a community discussion of sorts, a forum official would be a moderator (e.g., someone from the Chicago Tribune) on the forum. I will exempt you from this question, but if at the end you're not happy with your score, feel free to follow up and answer this question for some points.
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)
A- common sense suggests it would be self-serving and therefore unreliable. Exception could possibly be as a source of "what Exxon says about their corporate culture in light of X significant events".
This goes back to what I was talking about on Ben and Jerry's. Usually, an about us page would be phrased promotionally, but you could definitely extract useable content for a Wikipedia article in most cases. 2/5
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?
A- no, it is grade school level knowledge and therefore no source needed.
WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are conflicting essays on this subject; I tend to agree with you, but a reliable source can never hurt. 4/5
Total: 27/35 (77%)
Comments: You didn't do poorly, but I think you would benefit from following up on some of these questions. I'll post the next lesson, but you're welcome to come back to this one at any time. Anything above a 75% is passing, and 70-75% is at my discretion, so you do pass the lesson, but you're not quite rock solid on these quite yet, but hey, it took me a lot longer than you've been around to even have a working knowledge of these, so you're ahead of me! GoPhightins! 02:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
Hi, thanks for posting. Did not realize it was here. Skimmed it and will return and signal when ready to take test. I'm checking in b/c I have a question and want your guidance.
I've been making minor edits on various pages (being bold, but not too bold--minor edits, English usage mostly). Today I looked at a section of an article about a mental health assessment tool in which I'm expert. I corrected some glaring errors and noted in my edit summary that the main ref source was not reliable (a student blog). There is more to correct there that is misleading or confused and I'll go back to that someday. However, my main concern, with which I want your help, is that the exact questions/directives that are said by the mental health professional during administration are included in the article.
When too much information is available about a mental health assessment in the public, it weakens the validity of the instrument. If the exact questions that are in a Minnesota Multiphasic MMPI are known in advance, a person can prepare him- or herself and attempt to fake the response. Since assessments are used in serious situations (hospitalization, imprisonment), it is important to protect their validity/accuracy. Is there a WP policy that allows one to remove information that may be damaging to the usefulness of a procedure or to protect the public?
I looked at the articles on the Rorschach and MMPI for comparison. They offer details on what is looked at in the analysis of results but they do not reproduce the inkblot stimulus or the stimuls questions. This is consistent with what I want to edit out of the article I visited today.
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction with all possible speed! Anne9853 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Also hope to encourage you to look at my version of "Barry Marc Cohen" page soon. Thank you! Anne9853 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Anne, I just took a quick look at your Cohen page...it looks all right. Are you ready to re-submit it to AfC? GoPhightins! 20:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-The more I see the structure of Wikipedia, the more impressed I am by its organic architecture. This is only possible with countless intelligent beings contributing and interacting relatively peaceably. If my intention is truly to protect and develop Wikipedia, I will be kind in my dealings with others, and will expect the same. To act otherwise would be harmful to the project, and there would no longer be countless contributors.
While this is an admirable goal and one that we should all strive to achieve, you didn't really address assuming good faith itself, more that you'd like to do it. 3/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A- The technicalities are a bit beyond me, but--I guess I would apologize for jumping in too quickly or not offering help or Talk as an initial gesture. It seems TOO bold a move was made. Answer 2, later: This is a new editor who feels bitten. Explain politely that none of his edits are lost. Anne9853 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Not bad...Assuming good faith is the key...thank the user for their contributions. 4/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A- Ooh, tough one. At first, I thought he was replying to Freddie. Now, I think he's replying to Rod's Mate.
You'd be correct. Rod's Mate it is. 5/5
3b.) Position B?
A- Here, he's replying to Rod, and starting a new threat under "What's the best car?"
Yup. 5/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A- Ok, this was over my head technically but I take refuge in ASSUMING his GOOD FAITH. I don't see that there's anything wrong with being "awfully competent" or having a low edit count.
Dead on. 5/5
Please score this, and thanks for the lenient grading on the 1st test.
Grade: 22/25 (88%)
Comments: Lots of improvement! Outstanding work. Are you ready for a tough lesson? Ready or not, here it comes! GoPhightins! 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
About my concerns about protected information, above--I can see that I can move it to a Talk page, but wonder if there is a Wikipedia principle I can apply to the situation.
Also, about my article not being accepted--would it help my case if I point out similar entries that HAVE been published?
Did you submit it again? Anyway, let's discuss this on the adoption talk page here, so it doesn't keep getting archived. GoPhightins! 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
I just read of the death in your family on your page. I'm sorry for your loss. Take care. Anne9853 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's tough, but there's not much I can do about it. GoPhightins! 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
Anne9853 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
Let me know when ready for the test, which will include some practical applications. --GoPhightins!
Not a great example of vandalism, but it does seem to be poorly-considered change that removes much of the subject's early career and current professional career. Removed sensible sections and full sentences, leaving hard-to-read phrases and ellipsis in their places.
Will pause here to rest.
Anne9853 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Everywhere I looked, I was confronted by Rollback:Vandal. I took that to mean that a bot had already corrected the vandalism. Is that right?
Please grade me; I don't think I got the best examples but I learned a lot and it increased my confidence. A good lesson!
I think I will not be active here again until after the 26th. Thank you for adopting me! I wish you happy holidays, if you celebrate any solstice-related events. Anne9853 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
Here's the test, you have a week or so to find some more vandalism and revert it. If "Cluebot NG" beats you to it a ridiculous amount of times, simply post the diff of him reverting it. GoPhightins!
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A-
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A-
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A-
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
All right, Tazerdadog (do you have a nickname that I can type faster like Tazer?), I'm setting up your adoption course right here. The first lesson is below. Read over it, let me know if you have any questions, and then I'll post the "test" (basically a review to ensure you understood the lesson), which we'll then go over. OK? Here's lesson number one:
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Tazer is fine with me, most people shorten it like that anyway. This was mostly a review of what I had previously found through wandering. The reliability of sources part did expand on what I had previously known, however. I should be ready for a test.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A- Not unless I can find a reliable source (a newspaper article or something) that says he was. (I am also fairly certain he wasn't).Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. By the way, I'm pretty sure he wasn't either. 5/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A- The key here is that I see it as racist. If (insert leading eexpert on racism here) thinks it is racist, then that's a different ball of wax. This should not be includein eitther article. In addition, this is a strong negative allegation, and including it with less than pristine sourcing will likely get WMF sued out of existence Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You're on the right track, but don't forget about the second pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Only if the comic garnered massive media coverage should it be included in the article. 3/5
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A- That really depends on the article, and who published it. If it was published by, say The New York Times, and I feel it did not give undue weight to a fringe theory, AND there was an article that it would fit on, (something like health risks of the capitalist ideology), then yes. However that is a very tall order, and I would be sending any article where it fit to AFD. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. I might even nominate that article for speedy deletion as being a blatant hoax. 5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- It depends on the claim. If they are saying that MSNBC has the largest nighttime news show on television, they are probably reliable. If they say that MSNBC is full of dirty lying commie brainwasehd brainwashing scumbags, then they are not. In general, factual information from fox is to be considered reliable, while opinion on a topic such as MSNBC is not. Sarah Palin falls into much the same category. If they say she was mayor of wasilla from (date) to (date), I would call them reliable. If they are saying that she should be our next predident, no. (I also would be very cautious here, as my own political views are right of Ron Paul. )Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head again. It all depends on what type of information is being added. As a side note, I visited Wasilla, Alaska during the summer of 2008. It was about a month before McCain announced Palin as his VP, so it wasn't that remarkable at the time, but it's pretty ironic. Anyway, back on topic, good answer. 5/5
Edit: After reading WP:SELFSOURCE it appears that this source is acceptable with a few limitations. I would still be leery, but I certainly could use it with caution. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It would depend on what was being added. Still, a third-party source or even a press release from Ben and Jerry's would be better. 4/5
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?
A- No. I have no clue what a "forum official" is, but since it is a community forum I cannot accept this as reliable.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Good. Just because I say something doesn't make it the official position of any organization I'm involved with. WP:SELFSOURCE says that self-published sources on oneself can be reliable when, among some other stipulations that don't apply here, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Either of those stipulations knock out a forum post by a "forum official". Sorry, that's my long tangential way of saying that you're correct. 4.5/5
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)
A- This is clearly permitted under WP:SELFSOURCE unless the article is based on it, or the source is claiming extraordinary things or attatcking (e.g. McDonalds causes cancer).Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup. 5/5
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?
A- I do not need a source under WP:IAR if under nothing else. A source claiming that the sky is blue does not improve the encyclopedia. However, if the bronze sky theorist can produce reliable sources to prove that he should not be excluded from the article per WP:FRINGE, it needs to be looked at further. The idea here is to avoid an edit war. WP:LAME would have a field day.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty good answer. Here are two essays that you may like to read regarding this exact situation: [41] and [42]. 5/5
Final grade: 36.5/40=91.25% A-
Great start. And just as an FYI, when you're done with a lesson, instead of letting me know on my talk page, you can type {{done}} which will generate this image: Done instead if you'd like. I am watching this page, so you really don't need to ask anything there; the adoption talk page works just fine. Anyway, you're off to an outstanding start. Check out your talk page in a minute. GoPhightins! 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
I am ready for the test. I would like to take the wiki markup class, as I have been mimicing others formatting which is not ideal. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, here it is. GoPhightins! 01:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-Assuming good faith means that, in absence of really convincing evidence to the contrary, everyone is trying to improve the encyclopedia, and should treated as such. Even edits which appear "vandalizing" or are otherwise negative should be attributed to a lack of clue or an honest mistake rather than bad intentions. This should not be taken to extremes per WP:DUCK. Every editor is trying to help until proven otherwise.
Right. 5/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A- Seeing as I have no clue how to correct an edit conflict, or that this would cause problems, I'd start by reading up there. I would post in the AN/I discussion to clearly show that I was aware of it. I would give the other editor on my talkpage a link to WP:AGF, and probably find a welcome template for his talkpage, and post it there. I would not respond hastily or with anything that could be construed as an attack, or less than totally civil.
That's a decent response. I ask this question because something almost exactly like this happened to me a month or two ago. You can read the exchange in my talk page archives, if you'd like. As an aside, if you experience an edit conflict, click the back arrow in your browser, copy your text onto your clipboard, and then click the front arrow and paste the text. You may want to put {{ec}} in front of the text you want to create. This just denotes that you experienced an edit conflict. Anyway, your answer is a pretty good way to solve the problem. 4/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A- Rod's Mate
Right. 5/5
3b.) Position B?
A- Rod
Yup. 5/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A- No. First of all WP:AGF says to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, my previous experience also says no. On , My first edit was to create a full article on pitchblende from nothing. (I translated it from main wikipedia). While I didn't do a perfect job, it was clear that this wasn't my first edit. He could easily be fromm a different language version, or have experience on other wikis, or.... He is a sockpuppet comes in somewhere in the teens on this list.
Correct. 5/5
Whew! Great performance. By my tally that's a 24/25, 96%. You're doing a great job.
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
Joy, (this is one thing I am not likely to do much of.)
That's all right. The goal of the adoption course is to give you an introduction to numerous aspects of the encyclopedia. --GoPhightins! 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
read and understood. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me know when you're ready for the test. GoPhightins! 02:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'm going to post the test now. I'm not around during the day (except on weekends), so if you post something in the morning tomorrow, I don't want to leave you hanging all day. GoPhightins! 03:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A- Vandalism is any edit which has the intention of harming the encyclopedia. It can be alternatively defined as any edit that was in bad-faith.
Couldn't have said it better myself. 5/5
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A- A large bolded red negative number means a large number of bytes was removed from the article. Additionally, the automated edit summaries page blanking and section blanking are (usually) dead giveaways. This will only catch very obvious vandalism, but it will allow it to be caught quickly.
Right, but there are also edits that are tagged as having a possible BLP issue, possible vandalism, repeating characters, etc. In general, anytime there's a tag attached to the edit, you want to check it out. 4/5
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A- I would have a look at their contributions and their talk page history before deciding. However, I would be inclined toward using the last warning template.
If it's a first time offender, always assume good faith until it becomes clear that it's a vandalism only account. Once you've made that determination, you can usually make an WP:AIV report. Though sometimes, a personal message saying something to the effect of "why don't you join us in building the encyclopedia rather than tearing it down" can go a long way in editor retention. That was a poorly phrased question, as I said "warning template"; I should have just asked how would you warn the editor for blanking a page. Can't fault you for that. 5/5
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Edit. Upon further reflection, the "last warning" template is a little harsh, and a level one - three would be better in most cases.
Right. I credited you above.
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A-I would use a civility/NPA warning of a severity subject to change based on prior infractions based on what exactly #$%^$#$%^#@$%^&*%^%*&( said.
Probably I would use this if there were no additional aggrivating factors.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
That's right...you have to look at it on a case by case basis. In some cases, depending on the "egregiousness" of the attack, a level 4 only warning template might be acceptable, but starting with a template that assumes good faith is usually a good idea. 4.5/5
A- WP:AIV is the administrators noticeboard for vandals, used when a block of a user is needed. We can slap all of the warning templates on a user we want, but it takes an admin to actually block. This is to stop persistant vandals, such as those who vandalize after a level 4 or 4im warning is given.
Exactly. 5/5
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
Yes you reverted correctly, but for a first time offender who blanked a page (e.g., not a major BLP violation or personal attack) I think that a level on warning would have been sufficient. I don't really have a problem with your other warning since that was a repeat offender who was subsequently blocked. GoPhightins! 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
3.5/5 as the warning template was a little harsh. Also, don't forget to sign your posts (if you use Twinkle, it signs them automatically).
In this case, I have no issue with skipping the level three template as the user had already blanked it twice. Also, I can't argue with the AIV report since an admin blocked. Nice work. 5/5
Good revert. Though I'm going to dock one point since all three of your posts were from blanking. No big deal, since they were all vandalism, but I would have liked some variety. Though I'm going to add a point for your handling of the aftermath of this, therefore, it stays even at a 5/5.
Done
Total: 37/40 92.5%
Comments: More impressive work...you're cruising through this! Outstanding job thus far! GoPhightins! 03:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).
I should be ready for the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
A-
Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:ANI. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
A- Diffs:
Rollback AGF-After looking far and wide for an edit where this rollback type is appropriate, I have been unable to find any. This rollback is used is the person backing the edit is new, inexperienced, or has some other reason to not know exactly what they were doing, AND the edit was plausibly in good-faith. My Rollback-vandal was close to being a rollback AGF, but there was just too much removed text. To show that I know how to do it, I will post a diff of me playing in the sandbox.
4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
A-see top of page.
5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
A-
" Review Question- Ha ha! " -You (Insert phase that would break WP:CIVIL into tiny pieces)
See here [50] which was in the vandalism test, where I sent a user who had a preexisting vandalism level 4 tag to AIV after cleaning up another vandalism. Basically I will report vandalism to AIF if there is a level 4 or 4im tag, and a subsequent vandalism occurs.
Done. I think I an turning twinkle off and leaving it off...it doesn't suit me.
Hey, I appreciate the effort. Nice work, however! I think you did pretty well. I will stipulate that Rollback AGF is the hardest to find, and I'll certainly forgive you for not finding one. I don't think you'll need Twinkle for the rest of the course, at least I'm not thinking of an occurance for which you will. Anyway, I would suggest leaving it on as it does make some thing easier. I didn't like it at first either. Anyway, I'm not going to really grade the test question by question as that'd be relatively pointless. You did everything I asked, therefore it's a 10/10. Congrats, and here comes the next lesson.
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
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 specialise in sorting debates.
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than 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 to be certified.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
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.).
A-
Editor assistance: This is for a dispute where one or more (but usually just one) editor(s) want advice on how to proceed with a dispute without the person giving advice necessarily getting involved. It is quite informal, and non-binding.
That's the gist of it. 5/5
Third opinion:Used when two editors (no more, no less) are stuck with a fundamental disagreement after they have discussed it somewhere (preferably a talk page). The editor giving the third opinion will try to sort it all out. It is also non-binding, although a little more formal than editor assistance.
Yup. 5/5
Mediation: Used in more complicated disputes which may have more than two parties, or be abnormally long and/or tedious. It is more formal than any of the other two, as MEDCAB is now historical...:(
Yes...and I should really remove MEDCAB entirely. 5/5
Request for comment: A way to gain broad consensus on a position, a RFC is basically equivalent to throwing ones hands up, and counting on the whole wikipedia community to figure it out. It is only to be used after serious thought, and after other attempts at sorting it out have been exhausted.
It can either be used in the situation that you mentioned or when trying to establish consensus when there isn't a major dispute. Usually an RfC turns up at least 5-10 editors. here is an example of one. 4/5
Arbitration:
Abandon all hope, ye
who enter here
Extra credit for being funny and right at the same time. 6/5
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:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A- Yes. It was edit warring on a's part when he re-added, and edit warring on B's part when he rereverted. (Unless what A was adding was vandalism or something...)
Correctemundo. 5/5
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A- They should enter the much less-used bold-revert-stupid readd-equally stupid rerevert-stop the presses and discuss cycle. The discussion should take place on the talk page.
WP:BRD is what I read from that answer, and again you would be correct. You are approaching the record on a Go Phightins! adoption test. You currently have it by half a point, but we'll see how the next questions go .6/5
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, 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?
A- I probably would not respond to the comment at all, and certainly would not do so hastily. If I responded, I would try to refocus debate on the article, rather than getting involved in a mudslinging contest.
We need more thick-skinned editors like you. 5/5
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
A- I probably would change the formatting from a pyramid to something else. I cant help but think of the food pyramid, which would imply that the staples of your wiki-diet should be name calling and ad-homeniems. From a content perspective, it seems fine though.
Good. Though remember we now use a plate because Americans are too retarded to be able to figure out a pyramid, so they need a circle graph:. Tax dollars at work. 5/5
Grade: 46/45 (102%)
Comments: And there it is, a new record for a Go Phightins! adoption test beating out Jackson Peebles by less than 1%. Congratulations! (OK seriously, like you care). In any case, outstanding work. You are breezing through the course. Up next is the lesson on deletion processes. GoPhightins! 20:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.
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.
If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
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. 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.
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
Broad questions
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
A- As a fairly firm inclusionist, I am disinclined to do this. I would ganerally use PROD if my gut feeling says that the article should be speedily deleted, but none of the categories really applied. If the article was hopelessly unsaveable (which I think relatively few of them are), and that there would be overwhelming consensus for delete, I might also try PROD (Assuming no speedies applied)
Those are pretty good standards. I originally was an inclusionist, but have found my self shifting towards the center recently. Generally, I would say you might as well send an article to AfD unless, as you said, there'll be overwhelming consensus to delete. 5/5
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
A- This qestion seems ambiguous...did he blank all content and leave the speedy deletion tag or take everything out of the article including the tag?
Answering case 1 (tag remains), I replace the tag with the new appropriate tag (in this case A3) and follow up on his talk page.
Answering case 2 (tag removed), I add the appropriate tag (in this case A3) and follow up on his talk page.
I was hoping you'd say criterion G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. When an author blanks his own page (I meant he blanked the entire page, including the tag. I didn't think this was ambiguous, but I'll look to rephrase for future adoptees, you're the test dummy! ), it usually implies he's given up on it. Therefore, criterion G7 would be the route to take. 2.5/5
3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
A- An article that would be deleted A! or A# is almost always made in good faith. In addition, it doesn't necessarily have an unfixable problem. Context can be added to an article, while something like notability cannot. Also, unlike something like an attack page, there is no pressing need to delete it. Therefore, the author should be given a little time to make sure he is done, and not about to add the needed context.
You're correct. Though a scenario in which A1 or A3 could apply which was probably not in good faith would be something to the effect of "Joe's Grocery Store is cool." 4.5/5
A- I'm torn between the {{db-bio}} tag, or sending it to PROD. My gut feeling tells me this should be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I don't know what the notability threshold is for a musician. I would rather miss with a softer deletion request than a harder one, so I'd PROD it.
Actually, my goal when creating this page was that one would view it as a potentially notable BLP, albeit one without sources. WP:BLPPROD would apply. 4/5
A- I would first of all wait 15 minutes (give or take a few). If the article is being worked on, I hold the trigger finger until it isn't being actively worked on anymore. They took the time to dig up resources, so I am guessing that they made a blunder in the wikimarkup somewhere. If no improvements are made I'll have to send it to PROD, as I just don't quite have enough context to save it. I did not see an applicable speedy criterion.
I think simply tagging this one would suffice, but if you PROD, someone might object and send it to AfD. This is one that definitely shouldn't be a unilateral decision, rather one that needs consensus. 4/5
Comments: A solid performance. I don't think you have a ton of experience in deletion processes, perhaps that's an area where you could spend some time. Participate in a few AFD discussions or do a little WP:NPP work. This experience will be invaluable, especially if you ever want to pursue adminship, but even if you have no intention of doing so, it would still be helpful to you as an editor.
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
A- My first ever edit (as an IP) is here[51]. I saw a mistake and fixed it. I have continued to do so. More recently, I have translated several articles to simple, and have been participating in Wikidata, although I think I'm going to let the bots play for a while before I step back in there.
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
A-I had a dog named Taz. I loved him very much, and it was the best I could do at age 9 (I think). I'm actually a little impresed by the longevity of this username in hindsight. AAnd no, it has nothing to do with creulty to animals.
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
A- I don't know. My first article was Throstur Thorhallsson, a chess Grandmaster. I might continue down that path, or I might stay with gnomish stuff or translating english-simple. Heck, maybe I'll even do Adopt-a-user!
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A- Enjoy myself, and make the knowledge of the world more accessible.
P.S. Why is the personal break, which should come in the middle, is 7th out of 9?
Interesting. This is helpful. Thanks. It's 7th because I forgot to include it until I'd written 6 lessons. I originally anticipated having 12 lessons or so, but I only did 10. If, at the end of the course, you think of another lesson that might have been helpful, feel free to let me know. I'll move on to the next lesson. GoPhightins! 01:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. You're on the homestretch, but the final two lessons and the final exam are the most difficult parts of the whole course. You've been flying through, however, to this point, so I have no doubt you're ready to meet the challenge. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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.
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
If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
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.
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
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.
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
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
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.
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
Ok, having had copyright issues in the past, it is time to ask the question... The reason my blunder on simple (see my talk page over there) violated the copyright license is due to attribution, right? (this was my first, last, and only blunder by the way)...
I should also be ready for the test
I'm sorry, I'm not finding the blunder in question. Could you post a link to it? Thanks. GoPhightins! 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I tried, Piped links were not behaving...
I'll post the test awhile, if you figure it out, let me know. GoPhightins! 02:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This gets you there, although it has to be the least elegant possible way to do it.
Attribution was the issue there...I'm not too familiar with the Simple Wikipedia, but it seems that that was the issue, there. GoPhightins! 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A- Yes, I believe it is, because Wikipedia allows you to copy it with only minor conditions, and you can copy it without having to get permission from another human soul.
Fair enough. 5/5
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A-
It is entirely your work.
It is a photograph of something really old (150 years is the benchmark)
The author has explicitly released it under a compatible license
Yup. 5/5
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [53] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
A- The main sticking point here is the non-commercial. WMF is a non-profit, but seeing as we have a link to "Wikimedia Shop" over to the left, I have to take the cautious route and say no, not acceptable.
You would be correct. See the Commons' uploading guidelines for more info. 4/5
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A- Not unless the team photos themselves were released by the Philles into the public domain or a license compatible with Wikipedia. This is a derivative work, and as such, the components must be licensed adequately.
P.S. Go Pirates!
Correct. But minus one for being a Pirates fan. 4/5
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
A- A derivative work is a work based in whole or in part on the work of another.
I like your concise definition. 5/5
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
A- No-a free equivalent exists. I could get off my butt, and snap a photo of him.
Right. If the image is the property of the Federal Government, you could use it, as that's in the public domain. 5/5
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A- I think we could, as I cannot just snap a picture of him, so I could make a fair use claim. (all of the other criteria are ok, but I would also have to do other things, like lower the resolution)
Exactly. 5/5
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
You could do that, or if it was particularly egregious, you could remove it and post a note on the user's talk. 4/5
9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Comments: Just kidding about docking a point for being a Pirates fan. I started rooting for them after the Phillies were out of it last year. So really you posted another excellent score. 43/45! GoPhightins! 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Next lesson is coming at you. It's the last full lesson! GoPhightins! 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.
Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.
Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.
1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
A-
A policy is a broad statement of something that should be followed generally on Wikipedia. It is supported by community consensus (so don't substantively change them unless you are sure it reflects consensus). Policies can also be created by the WMF directly, and such policies are exempt from consensus.
A guideline is a supplement to policy. If there is a relevant policy, then it takes precedence over the guideline. They are also supported by consensus.
An essay is whatever the person writing it wanted to say, and is not necessarily supported by consensus. I could write an essay right now saying that all rules are set in stone and must be followed religiously, which is a good reason why they should be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.
You hit the nail on the head on all three! Great work! 15/15
2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
A-
I think Wikipedia's bureaucracy attempts to grow at a steady pace, but the community regularly manages it with a chainsaw. The closing of WP:WQA is an example of said chainsawing. At the moment, I think that there is a small and reasonable bureaucracy, but the community is firmly in control.
In my opinion, Wikipedia needs to be more of a bureaucracy, in a way. Civility is a major issue, and I'm glad that's the example you chose. I never used WQA and I didn't comment in the RFC, because I didn't feel I could make an informed !vote, but I monitored the discussion closely. In any case, getting back on track, that's a 5/5.
3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
A- Policies, like consensus can absolutely change. (except decrees from the WMF) Non-substantive changes can be made (heck I've made them)per WP:BOLD If I wanted to change one in a substantive way, the place to start is the talk page of that policy. If consensus appears to be there, a bold change per the talk page discussion on minor, lesser known, or less important policies can me made. For major or key policies, a RFC is probably in order.
The firm grasp on this I already thought you had is becoming a strangle-hold. 5/5
4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
A- IAR is designed to ensure that the letter of policy does not override common sense or the spirit of the policies. IAR is very hard to use correctly, as the policies are in general very good. I cannot think of a specific example, so here are the criteria for an IAR application:
1. The change you want to make must benefit the encyclopedia.
2. The change must be against a policy or guideline.
I agree. I was looking to see if any of my adoptees could cite a scenario in which it could apply. The most reasonable argument for it I could find would be in the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian debacle. 5/5
5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
A-
No. These policies often have legal implications, and are put there for a reason. Avoiding getting the WMF foundation sued out of existence should be a priority, and is likely supported by consensus.
I think that's a fair assumption; most people don't want to see Wikipedia getting sued out of existence. 5/5
Grade: 35/35 (100%)
Comments: You continue to impress me and have exceeded any expectations I had. But now, before I post the final lesson, I want some feedback from you. What did you like about this course? What didn't you like? How can it be improved? What additional lessons would you find helpful? As you are my guinea pig, I am looking for any comments/suggestions/complaints/concerns you may have below.
The course was overall a good, basic course. I feel like I can participate without putting my foot too far in my mouth in just about everything. I would have liked more practical applications, especially in the Deletion section... Something like tag 3 articles with appropriate CSD tags, post on the creator's user page, and then post the diffs, and participate in an AFD (or XfD) discussion citing policy to support your argument.
It feels like this is like a required core, and it needs to be extended. For example, vandalism 2.0(Twinkle + Huggle),deletion 2.0 (including non-admin closures), dispute resolution 2.0 (volunteering at 3O or mediation or something), Translation 101, wikimarkup for dummies, article creation, copyright 2.0 for those who want to be active managing files etc.
I would like to continue working with you on this, perhaps writing some of these lessons, or helping out with grading and posting lessons and tests to provide two opinions on answers given (Although I might not be there yet). I can go through each lesson specifically, and give feedback if you'd like.
Tazerdadog (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been in consultation with User:AutomaticStrikeout about something similar to what you proposed. I think that a second level of lessons would be a good idea as well...one thing that's not included primarily because I am clueless in the field would be templates. I'm also not an expert in copyright, but I definitely could get into vandalism and deletion in more depth and probably wikimarkup and dispute resolution as well. The basic premise I'd been discussing with ASO would be that I would have my lessons, he would have his, and in consultation we'd grade the final exam. Speaking of which, I am going to post the final lesson, and then you can get to the final exam, which I'm sure you'll pass. GoPhightins! 03:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
And by the way, don't think you're off the hook for practical applications...this intro stuff is preparing you for the final, which is 2/3 application, 1/3 what we've been doing thus far. GoPhightins! 03:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
Have a look at your favorite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D
Why not head over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.
There's a lot to maintain at Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
Recent Changes Patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.
WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on Wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.
Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there! --GoPhightins!
Good deeds done Kittens rescued. Crooks captured. Massacres stopped. World peace attained. Apocalypse averted. Encyclopedia explored. Ready for the test (or whatever you decide to give). Tazerdadog (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link. You have one week from when you start. Good luck. GoPhightins! 02:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the {{Not done}} template with {{Done}}. You may also use {{Doing}} to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.
Done Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here: [],[],[],[], []
Not sure how to post a diff of a patrolling, here are the article titles:
Chilean ship Presidente Pinto (disambiguation)
Mendeleyevo, Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Oblast
Helten
List of bus routes in Harleston
List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and United Arab Emirates
I have no way of verifying that you patrolled these pages (well, let's rephrase that...no way that wouldn't take a very long time in back-channels), but I trust that you did. I was hoping, however, that during the course of your NPP you would have added some maintenance tags to articles, as a few of the ones you patrolled probably could've used them. Patrolling disambiguation pages isn't usually necessary, just as an FYI. Overall, I'll give your NPP efforts an 21/25.
Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate here: [[54]]
Good nomination rationale.
Done Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs: [55] (terrified that I took the opposite position of someone who might be grading this test), [56]
It's just me grading the test . Your comment is reasoned...I'm not sure I agree, as this one doesn't seem to have much coverage, though I'm not sure how I'd !vote. That's a good AfD.
You didn't really add much value to the discussion, but I'm assuming that you're right based on the fact that the article was deleted.
I trust that if A. Bradbury thought it should be deleted, you were justified in tagging it as such.
Overall for your efforts in deletion, I've settled at a 17/20.
DoneCleanup at least two articles (e.g., resolve at least one problem noted with a maintenance tag and remove said maintenance tag) Diffs:
[58](This one was more or less already done, I just removed one piece and the tag.)
I would prefer you'd have found something that actually needed to be cleaned up. Removing a maintenance tag doesn't exactly show me that you're familiar with the cleanup process.
At least here you did more than simply removing a tag, but still, there isn't much depth to what you did.
I hate to do this as you've excelled elsewhere, but unfortunately your cleanup efforts here were, to put it bluntly, inadequate. I'm going to give you a 4/10, but if you'd like to find two new articles to cleanup, I will be more than happy to look at them and include those scores rather than these two.
Done Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings. Diffs:
[61] (note on this one - I saw only part of the vandalism, and then someone beat me to reverting the rest...)
Your warning here was a little harsh. A level three would've been more appropriate, I think. That was more of a test edit than it was vandalism. Never mind, looking through his prior contributions, your warning was justified. If forced to nit-pick, you should have left a final warning template rather than an only warning, but the blocking admin figured it out.
In total, I'm giving your vandalism efforts a 35/40. Nice work.
Done Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: [68]
Have you done any work thus far with that project? 5/5
Not doneExtra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here. []
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
82/100
By my count, that's an 82/100 for a solid score of 82%. My main concerns are as follows...
You're cleanup efforts were pretty bad. I really want you to get more experience in that area especially if content contributions are going to be your primary focus.
Vandalism wise, you did pretty well. Twinkle does warnings automatically, if you have it enabled. One thing that works better than a templated warning some times is a simple "Why don't you work to build up the encyclopedia rather than tear it down" type message. Personal messages sometimes do work better than templates.
Your deletion efforts were excellent...
Overall, you seem to have a working knowledge of the encyclopedia, but there's always room for improvement.
What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
A: Consensus is whatever the wikipedia community at large believes. Consensus runs wikipedia, as except for when the WMF gets involved, what the consensus is, is what will happen. Wikipedia policies are supported by consensus, and changes to them must reflect consensus.
Correct. 5/5
You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
A: The obvious next step is taking the article to AFD. Because the PROD tag was removed, the deletion is controversial (The fact that the author removed it is irrelevant). If the article met a speedy delete criterion, I would use that instead (actually I would have used it in the first place), but since itis a "Doesn't seem to be" notable, none of the criteria are likely to apply.
That's the right thing to do. 4/5
Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
A: I got a nasty note. Per WP:COOL, I am going to stop, wait and wait at least half an hour before I even think about replying to it. Once I'm sure I won't say something I'll regret, I would reply to the message on my talk page in as civil a manner as I can. The deletion was obviously controversial, so the article needs to go to AFD. I would explain in my response why I believe the article should be kept, and invite him to take the article to AFD so consensus can be established.
Don't forget to assume good faith!Ha! Gotcha! In all seriousness, you could procedurally nominate the article for deletion through AfD if it's clear the user doesn't know how. Likely, this would be a new editor, so don't forget to welcome him, thank him for his contributions, maybe even direct him to the Teahouse. 4/5
Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
A: Vandalism is any edit that was intended to harm the encyclopedia. It can alternatively be defined as any bad-faith edit. I do not have the technical ability to stop a vandal from editing, so when a vandal has received a level 4 or level 4im warning, and vandalizes again, a post to AIV is appropriate.
Good definition. In most cases, unless what the vandal has done is particularly inflammatory, it's best to wait until he's received at least three warnings. 4/5
You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
A: Fool me twice shame on me;) I would post a new speedy deletion tag CSD G7 (User requests deletion) (assuming of course the author was the only significant contributor)
Learning from you're mistakes...I like it. 5/5
You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
A: 1) Apologize profusely. 2) Apologize profusely. 3) revert my revert if he hadn't done so already. He has a right to be irate, so I wouldn't call him for WP:CIVIL.
Good, but make sure you rectify your error. 3/5
I found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article I'm writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should I do to upload it to Wikipedia?
A: I need to get the owner of the picture to release it under a license compatible with wikipedias. I probably cannot make a fair use claim, as I can probably take a picture of them myself, and if I can, then I can't claim fair use.
Right. Verify the copyright license of the image first. Avoid the copyright violation at all costs. 4/5
You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
A:I would take a look at the article and the nomination to see if it meets the speedy keep criterion 2a. If it was a good faith nomination that doesn't meet this criterion, then I would lodge my keep !vote, and feel secure that someone will snow close is keep soon. I would NOT make a big deal of it.
Most likely, if there's enough coverage to get it close to FA, then it probably should be speedily kept. One other thing you can do is find an AfD-patrolling admin, like Mark Arsten, Bwilkins, or DGG, and ask them to speedily close it. Afterwards, you should however post a polite message on the nom's talk page explaining the deletion processes. 4/5
If I wrote a template "foo" with this code, what would be displayed when I called it like this: {{subst:foo|article=Lorem Ipsum|Thanks again!}}?
Thanks for helping with [[{{{article|that article}}}]]! It's a great help. {{{1|}}} <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~
A: Thanks for helping with that article! It's a great help. Thanks again! ~~~~
And you didn't even have a templates lesson...good work. 5/5
You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
A: As a copyright violation, I need to clean it up to remove the copyright violation by paraphrasing the whole thing, even if it reduces it to a stub. I would then explain the problem to the new editor, remembering to assume good faith. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That's generally the best route. 4/5
42/50
Total: 124/150 (83%)
Comments: You seem to have a firm grasp of most of these concepts too. Feel free to debate any of my scores above if you disagree, and I would recommend that you take another crack at cleanup, but other than that, good work! GoPhightins! 18:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Starship9000, welcome to your adoption center. It is on this page that you will read all lessons and complete all tests. The format of my course is as follows: I post a lesson, you read the lesson, ask any questions you have, and, when you're ready, request the test. I then post the test, you complete it, I grade it, and then I determine whether you performed satisfactorily enough to move on. We've already discussed in great lengths terms on your talk page, so I will not re-hash that here except to say this: I will be monitoring your contributions throughout adoption and will not hesitate to contact an administrator should you violate them. Thanks, and let's get started shall we? GoPhightins! 00:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A-Yes. Because that is one of his works and biographies about him. And it should be added in Harvard University's article because it should mention it there.
You heard from a friend that... is a dead giveaway. You absolutely cannot add it to the article based off of that. 1/5
A:No, you can't add it to the article because you heard from someone that it is a dead giveway.
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A-Yes. The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which should be on the newspaper's article.
What if only you see it as racist? 2/5 (pending follow-up questions)
Then it is not included if you only see it as racist. If it only published a cartoon, then that can be included.
3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
A-Yes
Why? 2/5 (pending follow-up question)
Because that is true.
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A-FOX News is not a good reliable source for information on MSNBC because is a reliable source for Wikinews, our newspaper project. And yes, Palin's biography is definitely a good source for information on her.
What does WikiNews have to do with this? I'm asking is Fox News a good source for information on its competitor, MSNBC? Is Fox News a good source for information on one of its former contributors, Sarah Palin? 2/5 (pending follow-up question)
A- No because like Facebook, Twitter is avoided as a source. In fact, twitter is not a good source.
Right on! Social media is not a reliable source and should be avoided. 4/5
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?
A-Yes because it is definitely a good source.
Can you really trust someone who is a "forum official" to form the position of a multi-national corporation? 2/5 (pending follow-up)
A-No
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?
A-The sky is actaully blue and that is right. Yes, because all articles still needs sources.
There are two conflicting essays on this: WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Read both and tell me which you agree with. 3/5 (pending follow-up)
There are 2 essays on how the sky is blue including:WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE
adoption page stalker I can almost guarantee you that these answers are not detailed enough. In some cases you answered with a single word-answers need to be supported with either policy or a well-reasoned argument. You probably also want to re-read WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE, as some of your answers are simply incorrect. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You said you wanted me to grade it even though you were warned your answers were inadequte, so I did. You ended up with a 19/40 (47.5%). I have posed follow-up questions where they are needed and if you successfully answer those, you can move on and I will award you your first barnstar. GoPhightins! 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the answers and explained the answers so is it now good. --Starship9000 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Starship, I've created a retest for you here. Please complete it, and then we'll decide how to proceed. There are directions on that page. Thank you. GoPhightins! 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Starship, this adoption is not going very well. Instead of going off of the old questions and pontificating on them, I am going to write a new test. You will have one chance to complete this test. You must explain all your answers (at least two sentences per answer) and cite Wikipedia policy, explaining how it applies to the given situation. When you are finished, leave the {{done}} template at the bottom of the page and I will grade it. You must get a 75% or higher to move on to the next lesson and earn a barnstar. Thank you. GoPhightins! 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1) While sitting in the cafeteria at school, you heard a rumor that your school was thinking about changing its mascot (nickname). Can you add that to its Wikipedia page?
A-Absolutley because it is important to put its nickname (mascot) when you create or edit a school article because that is included part of the Infobox school template. For example, the nickname (or mascot) of Henry Clay High School is Blue Devils and all school articles must have a nickname, including Henry Clay High School's article.
I agree that having a mascot in the name of an article is helpful and important, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mandatory...as a matter of fact Kudpung would be a good one to ask about that, but that's really not the point of the question. You got this wrong the first time and this time; unless you have a reliable source, you cannot add it to the article. 2.5/5
2) Your science textbook says that evolution is real and is definitely how the world was created. You go home and talk to your parents, and they tell you that God created the earth. Can you add either of those statements to a Wikipedia article?
A-For the fact that evolution is real, yes it is allowed in a wikipedia article because that is part of science and how it evolves around the sun. And the fact God created the earth should not be added to a article because everybody knows good created the Earth.
This was a poorly phrased question; I'm going to discount it from the final grade.
3) You read an article from the The New England Journal of Medicine which says that British people are more likely to get diabetes than Americans, but Americans are more likely to get heart disease. You find another article from NBC News that says that British people are Socialists, while Americans are Capitalists. Can you then assume that Capitalists are more likely to get heart disease while Socialists are more likely to get diabetes and add it to the respective articles?
A-No. You cannot assume that Capitalists are more likely to get heart disease while Socialists are more likely to get diabetes. And it should not be added to the respective articles.
Absolutely! Great job! You can't synthesize that information to come up with a new assertion, as that would be original research. 4/5
4) Can you use Twitter or Facebook to cite information for a Wikipedia article on an amusement park? Why or why not?
A-You do not use Twitter or Facebook to cite information for a Wikipedia article because Twitter and Facebook are avioded as a reiable source. For example, when you add a source for the Carowinds article, Carowinds facebook page is avioded as a reliable source and and Facebook is a Social media. In fact, twitter and facebook are aviodable sources for all articles, not just the amusement park articles like Carowinds or Luna Park Sydney.
Right, social media is not a good source because it is almost always very promotional and certainly does not represent a neutral point of view. 4/5
A-Yes because is actually a fact about it coming from the aide as it would coming from the White House Press Secretary.
This question requires a little background knowledge...the White House Press Secretary is the President's spokesperson, while an aide to the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services would be an assistant to an assistant to an assistant to the president. So, which is more reliable: the Press Secretary or the aide to the Deputy Secretary of HHS?
The aide to the Deputy Secretary of HHS
No; someone who is an aide to the president is far more reliable than someone who is the aide to the aide to the aide of the president. 3/5
6) Do you need to cite a reliable source to tell you that the grass is green?
A-You do not need to cite a reliable source to tell you that the grass is green because everybody knows that the grass is green.
Okay; what if someone contests it and says the grass is brown? Then what do you do?
A-Then you cite a source
Right on. 5/5
7) Is there ever a time on Wikipedia when you can ignore the rules? When?
A-Absolutley not. You are not allowed to ignore the rules at all because you have to follow them our else it can lead loss of editing privilages.
Actually, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the subject of this test, allows one to ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. You are right that violating policy over and over will get you blocked. 3/5
8) If you create an article on a new roller coaster that you think is amazing, are you allowed to tell another editor to go away when he tries to rewrite it from a neutral point of view? In other words, do you own the articles you create?
A-No. Editors are allowed to help improve articles and rewrite it from a neutral point of view. Telling a editor to go away when he or she does that is very disrespectful to the editor becuase they are trying to help you with it and try to rewrite it from a neutral point of view. No, you do not own the articles you create.
Right on! 5/5
9) Is Wikipedia a place where someone can get famous?
A-No. Wikipedia is not a place where you get famous. It is a serious project, not a place where you get famous.
Right on again! 5/5
10) If you write a really great article, is someone else allowed to come along and put it on their website without giving you credit?
A-No. He or she cannot do that without giving you credit. If they give you credit, then that is fine.
Well, technically, Wikipedia is free content, so anyone can use it for any purpose without giving you credit...you don't own what you create on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia editors, however, we must attribute non-free content to whom it belongs. 3/5
Done
Grade: 35.5/45 (76%)
Comments: Persistence pays off. Ideally, you should be scoring in the 80-85% range at least, but since we really worked hard here, I'll let you move on. GoPhightins! 00:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A-A fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
What kind of principle? 1/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A-A block
You're not an admin; you can't block someone. And doling out blocks are almost never the solution to a civility problem, at least not initially. 1/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-Passat Lover
Nope. 0/5
3b.) Position B?
A-Passat Lover
Nope. 0/5
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-No he should not be reported as a possible sockpuppet. He would be only reported if he was a account of a sockpuppeteer such as Heyj00 and 204.195.0.161 or if he used those accounts to abuse our privilages.
Right, but the reasoning is because you should assume good faith. 3/5
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
Done Done Done
Unfortunately, most of this is simply incorrect. I would recommend rereading WP:AGF and WP:THREAD, and then revising your answers.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Grade: 3/25 (12%)
Comments: Starship, I told you and Tazerdadog told you that your answers were pretty much wrong. If you have questions, you ask me. That's the whole point of adoption. Since you have refused to do so and are unable to grasp simple concepts like threading and what it means to assume good faith, I think we're going to take a break from adoption. Please take Ryan Vesey's advice; why don't you take a one year Wiki-Break and next year at this time we can resume adoption. Thanks. GoPhightins! 04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nerdfighter. This is going to be your adoption center for my course. Please feel free to ask any questons at any time. Please sign at the end of this message so that we know that you found the adoption page okay, and we can get started! The first lesson is posted below. And a quick note, User:Tazerdadog helps me out on occasion with some administrative tasks related to adoption, so don't be alarmed if you see him around. GoPhightins! 03:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A- Not unless I can find at least one reputable source online that also says this, in more than a passing mention.
Well, whether or not it's a passing mention is irrelevant unless you are trying to confer notability. But you are correct, you're going to need a source better than word of mouth from your friend. 4/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A- Tricky... Because of copyright issues I shouldn't upload it at all. If for some reason the newspaper gives me permission, I still shouldn't upload it unless an outside reputable source also identifies the cartoon as racist because of WP:NPOV. If I do find a third party reputable source that says this (in more than passing mention), I can add it to the newspaper's article. I shouldn't add it to the racism article unless there is a section titled "racism in media" or something along those lines.
Well, I hadn't even thought of the copyright angle of this. I was more going for adding news of the article (e.g., can you add "On January 1, 2013, The Daily Telegraph published a racist cartoon."?) I like your added analysis. 4.5/5
No you can't unless several outside sources mention this because of WP:POV.
Fine.
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?
A- I assume you mean a newspaper article, not a Wikipedia article. No I shouldn't because the former article is presumably based on scientific research, and the latter is based on one's opinion. The latter should not be found on Wikipedia anyhow.
I shouldn't because "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" is against Wikipedia's policy against synthesizing.
Precisely. 4/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- No because they are two competing news companies. No for Palin because they are against(? Sorry, I'm Canadian) her policies.
Probably correct on the first half. Palin at one point worked for Fox News, until they fell out a while ago. Does that give you enough information to determine if she's reliable? 3/5 (pending follow-up)
Actually I want to change my answer: Information about Sarah Paling provided by Fox News, could be considered a reliable source if there is no room for bias. For instance, if they said that "Palin is no longer running for office" that would be an appropriate source. If they said "Palin will not be running for office because x" it would be an unreliable source.
All right; the general gist of it is that we can use it for uncontroversial information such as "Palin was governor from x to y", but not "Palin is a good choice for president because..." 4/5
They would be biased towards promoting their own company
They don't use it for news
And also because social media is not a reliable source. 4/5
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?
A- Depends on what the sentence of the Wikipedia article being cited says. For instance, if it says "The Chicago Tribune's view on world hunger is.." then it would be good. If it is being used to verify a statement such as "Many people believe that world hunger is this century's greatest problem" then no because the official's comment is POV.
Well, the key here is whether or not a "forum official" can form the stance of a multinational corporation. What do you think?
I'm a little confused by what you mean by "forum official". I suppose it would always be better to find an official press release regarding the issue.
Exactly. We don't know what a forum official is, so they shouldn't be determining the official position of a multinational corporation. A press release is far better. 4/5
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)
I tend to agree, though originally some Greeks (I think Greeks, one of those ancient empires) called the color of the sky bronze. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer conflicting opinions on this.
4/5
Ok, well still no because thinking that it is bronze is a non-notable fringe theory.
Can you answer the follow ups and then I'll finish grading? Thanks! GoPhightins! 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm hoping I could receive a lesson on consensus if thats ok. I am a little confused because "Wikipedia doesn't use voting" is always drilled into your head, yet for stuff like RFAs thats what we use. — nerdfighter 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Grade: 33.5/40 (84%)
Comments: There is a lesson later on regarding consensus...you seem to have a reasonable grasp on this, and I appreciate your follow-ups. GoPhightins! 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. GoPhightins!
Hi! Question about AGF, should you assume good faith for blatant vandalism? I am under the impression that blatant vandalism should be assumed to be bad faith. For instance if someone posted "THIS GUY IS SUCH A F*GG*T!" they are clearly not trying to help the encyclopedia. — nerdfighter 02:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Right on. If someone posts that, they are obviously trying to be disruptive, and we can treat them as such. If someone blanks a page, however, we should still assume good faith and that they were making a test edit (unless of course they've previously been warned about that). GoPhightins! 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks :) — nerdfighter 02:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm ready to begin the test. I hope it isn't to much harder than the last one. I found it surprisingly challenging. — nerdfighter 02:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A- To assume good faith means to presume that an editor on Wikipedia had good intentions when making an edit. For instance if a new user wrote an unsourced controversial claim, one should assume good faith because they may not know the policies behind sourcing.
Go Phightins! asked me to grade this test on my talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Good, your definition is right on the money, and the example is OK. 5/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A-
Leave a friendly response to the message explaining how edit conflicts happen, and how I was only trying to help his article. I would offer to help him expand his article again to reconcile the conflict.
I would be completely open at AN/I and do everything asked of me. I expect that it would be closed fairly quickly as per WP:SNOW
If the user continues harassing me I would follow the dispute resolution guidelines by requesting for comments and going from there.
Is there anything I should add?
Ok, therre are a couple things that you should also do. The first thing is not to reply in a hurry. Take 10 or 15 minutes to collect your thoughts before you even think about replying to a message like this. Also, teach the new editor how to fix an edit conflict. (hit the back button when you get to the edit conflict screen) You are right that you have nothing to fear from ANI, and it would almost certainly be closed per WP:SNOW. The really important thing here is not to get involved in a mudslinging contest, and to be friendly and civil and courteous throughout this exchange. 4/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-responding to rods mate
Absolutely right. 2/2
3b.) Position B?
A-responding to rod
Again, absolutely right 2/2
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A-No, of course not! He could just be good with HTML, or a fast learner. Not exactly things we want to punish. It is important to assume good faith here. However I would follow his contribs for a while to see if he always seems to be siding with one person, or anything similar.
Right. The important thing is to assume good faith. He could also be a returning user requesting a cleanstart. You probably don't even need to delve too deeply into his contributions, a shallow look is probably sufficient. 4.5/5
Done, thanks!— nerdfighter 03:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
Very well done! by my count, that's a 17.5/19 for a 92%. All my quibbles are minor, and it looks like you have a really solid grasp of this. I will bring over the next lesson on vandalism now. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
[]
[]
[]
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: — nerdfighter(academy) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm ready for the test :) Post it whenever. — nerdfighter(academy) 21:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You still need to go out on the encyclopedia and find 3 vandalism edits. Also, I would like you to read and put your signature on the "Important warning" above. I would be delighted to post the test once this is done. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as I just saw that you teach a course at the counter-vandalism academy, I think the spirit of WP:IAR applies. The test will be posted shortly. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A- Any deliberate attempt to harm the integrity of Wikipedia.
Precisely! Anything in bad faith. 5/5
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A- Removal of large amounts of content, addition of large amount of content without edit summary, any tags on the edit, whether or not the IP already has a talk page blue link (usually if they do it's good to check because 1. more than 90% of vandalism is done by IPs 2. If they have a blue link, it may mean that they have previously been warned on their talk page)
Good indicators. 5/5
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A- If they have had no previous warnings, a level one test edit warning would suffice
Yes, but why didn't you do this below? 4/5
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A- I presume that is meant to symbolize a very vulgar word. if so, I would use{{uw-npa2}}
Fair enough. It's really up to you, since you were the one attacked. 5/5
A- Administrator Intervention against vandalism. When a user has vandalized past their level 4 or 4im warning.
Right on, or for particularly grotesque violations of the BLP policy. 4/5
6.) (I would still like you to read and sign the warning posted above before you do this)
Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
Again, that's a first offense, so a level three warning is too harsh. Remember, assume good faith. It's entirely possible that IP editor thought it was an appropriate link, but you slapped a warning template threatening that he may be blocked from editing. For a first offense, a level one warning is much more appropriate. 3.5/5
Comments: Honestly, for a CVUA instructor, I expected better in the practical portion of the test. While all the reverts were valid, the warning templates were not assuming good faith for first offenses, and I was taken aback. Let's make a deal: Why don't you find three more instances of vandalism and warn the offenders appropriately, and I'll bump up your score accordingly. Other than that, your answers to the questions were on the money. GoPhightins! 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...I beg to differ. Quoted directly from WP:WARN: in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance. The second and third diffs showed clear intent to harm the integrity of Wikipedia.— nerdfighter(academy) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The difference in opinion here seems to be whether the offenses were egregious enough to warrant a bad faith assumption or not. In both cases, I find myself slightly on Nerdfighter's side of the line, with a probable bad faith assumption probably being in order. I do think the level three was a little harsh, as the angel in the back of my head tells me that there is a small chance these could have been good faith additions, but that angel speaks softly, and is not very insistent. I would probably have split the difference and gone with a level two myself, but I think either approach would be acceptable. Just my $0.02, and I have less experience in this area than either of you. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, for the first one, the level three was more appropriate than the second one; that user likely misunderstood Wikipedia's policies and thought it was helpful to add something related to how to fix it. Whatever, it occurs to me that my comments were a little crass, and for that I apologize. I agree with Tazer, a level two would probably have been the best idea. GoPhightins! 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't want to have an argument :) I can go revert three more and give another shot at warning. Vandalism is pretty low right now (bottom of my user page), so it may take me a while. Thanks! — nerdfighter(academy) 22:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
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 specialise in sorting debates.
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than 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 to be certified.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
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.).
A-
Editor assistance: A place where anyone can ask for help from experienced editors. The editors will typically not join into the conversation unless they are explicitly ask to.
To be honest, I've never actually used editor assistance, but that's what I gather. 5/5
Third opinion: A place where anyone can ask for another editor's opinion on a dispute. It is largely informal, but can be very helpful in resolving disputes.
The opinion of the third editor is non-binding; that's a key point to remember. (unless of course it comes from yours truly in which case it carries the power of an Executive order (cue laugh track)) 4.5/5
Mediation: A place to ask experienced editors to formally guide the dispute conversation. They may also suggest unbiased compromises.
The committee is full of experienced mediators who usually can hammer out a compromise. 4.5/5
Request for comment: A less formal version of mediation. Similar to third oppinion request for comment asks other editors to comment on the content of a dispute. The conversation is usually held on the appropriate talk page of the dispute.
Precisely. It's also technically non-binding, but usually if a consensus is reached, one should abide by it. 5/5
Arbitration: A very formal place of mediation, usually only used where the other kinds of dispute resolution have failed. The arbitrators (arbitration comity members) are widely trusted and seasoned Wikipedians who are experienced in dispute resolution.
And their decisions are binding. 4/5
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:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A- This can be considered the beginning of an edit war.If editor B reverts twice more, he would be breaking the 3 revert rule. Instead of continuing down this frivolous pattern, the issue should be raised at the talk page.
Right. 5/5
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A-The issue should be raised at the talk page. If that fails they should request a third opinion or request for comment. If even that fails, the two editors involved should continue the dispute resolution process.
Fair enough. 5/5
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, 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?
A- If I'm being honest, I would likely just leave the conversation there. I have put in my opinion, and I want to avoid such arguments (WP:Don't feed the trolls). Another user will almost surely leave a warning template on the editor's talk page. If the user continues harassing me, I would notify an admin willing to make difficult blocks.
That's probably the best strategy. 5/5
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
A- I think that it is a great, largely accurate tool that should probably be inserted on more behavioural guidelines pages. If I had to change something, I would add a row above "name calling" and below "ad hominem" saying: Facilitates other logical fallacies to bolster an argument. This is a common problem for online and offline disputes.
Yes it is. 5/5
Grade: 43/45 (96%)
Comments: Good work. GoPhightins! 23:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.
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.
If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
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. 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.
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
Broad questions
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
A- An unsourced article about a small indie PC game.
OK. Why? 3/5 pending follow-up
Because if it is unsourced it is unlikely to be notable. Especially if it is an independently produced game.
Fine. 5/5
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
A- Revert the blanking, and post a message on the editor's talk page mentioning how he can contest the deletion.
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
A- 16:14, October 21, 2012 (so long ago, I know ;) )
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
A- Well, as well as a Wikipedia I am active on Youtube. One of the many channels I am subscribed to is VlogBrothers. It is, as the name suggests, a vlogging channel run by two brothers: John Green and Hank Green. The members of their fan base are called "NerdFighters".
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
A- I guess I am a bit of a WikiGnome. I revert vandalism, answer questions at WP:TH etc.
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A- Years from now I would like to be an admin, but for now I am satisfied where I am. I just want to remain active, and continue (trying) to help the community.
Thanks for that information; that's always interesting and helpful for me. The next lesson is in my opinion the hardest. I have to constantly check and double check policy pages and such to make sure I don't misstep, which would be pretty bad. So we'll work through this one together.
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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.
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
If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
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.
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
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.
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
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
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.
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A- Yep. Wp:free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is free because anyone may use it, and everyone starts with the right to edit.
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A-
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [72] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
A-
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A- I think no because the images in the collage are likely copyrighted. As a side note, I don't see where this could even be used on wikipedia.
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
A-
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
A-
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A-
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
A-
9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Hello JHUbal27. This is going to be your adoption center for the course run jointly by User:Go Phightins! and myself. Please feel free to ask any questons at any time. Please sign at the end of this message so that we know that you found the adoption page okay, and we can get started! The first lesson is posted below. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm here and ready to go. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Lesson
Status
Grade
Pass?
One
Done
35/40 (87.5%)
Waiting for follow-up questions. Yes
Two
Done
33.5/39 (85.9%)
Waiting for follow up questions Yes
Three
Done
36/40 (90%)
Yes
Four
Done
33/35 (94.3%)
Yes
Five
Done
38/45 (84.4%)
Yes
Six
Done
No Test
N/A
Seven
Done
34/35 (97.1%)
Yes
Eight
Done
34/41 (82.9%)
Yes but waiting for the answer to a follow-up
Nine
Done
22.5/25 (90%)
Yes but Tazer do you have any follow ups?
Final
Done
134/150 (89.3%)
Yes
Sounds good. Let me know when you've read through everything and I'll post the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in 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 never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are 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 – 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.
Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. 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?
A- No. Hearing something from a friend is not reliable or verifiable. I would want reliable news sources to post that information to verify that Romney is the president of the university. I would also check the university's website.
Good. Reliability and verifiability are the two main issues here. 5/5
2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
A- No. The information should not be included because it fails the neutral point of view policy. The information would be considered biased, and would most likely be removed.
Close, but not quite right. What if your interpretation is right on the money, and you can find reliable sources to support your interpretation? What if the cartoon caused a signifcant controversy? Does this change anything? 4/5 pending follow-up.
That is a good follow up question, but without additional reliable sources, JHUbal would be correct. Still, answer the follow-up, please. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If the cartoon caused controversy, then I would look for other sources that can support other peoples' opinions. That would be an example of racism, but it would be difficult to use the right words witout causing any bias. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Good. in any case information like this needs to be included with absolute dispassion and rock-solid sourcing. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
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?
A- No. There is no correlation between the statement about Americans being Capitalists and more likely to get diabetes. That would be a generalization and an opinion, which is not allowed.
Again, close. You are correct that correlation does not imply causation, and that this information should not be included, but what this violates is The policy against original research, specifically the part about synthesizing sources. 3.5/5 3/5
I changed the score for this question to a 3/5 because the answer missed the policy and, while correct in its final result, didn't get there "correctly". --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I get it now. I said generalizing instead of synthesizing. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Yes. It also violates the policy on original research.
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- No. FOX News would most likely post false or biased information about MSNBC. Also, FOX News would not be reliable for Sarah Palin because some information may be false and some factual. CNN would be a better source.
While I agree that CNN would be a better source if you could find the information there, this will not always be the case. What if the information is uncontroversial or not politically charged?
Would you object to a Fox News citation saying that Sarah palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996-2002? How about if Fox news said that MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Mathews was the highest rated Primetime news show in month X? 3/5 pending follow-up answers.
FOX News would be a good source for uncontroversal information, such as she was the mayor. I wouldn't really trust that FOX News would actually be correct in saying that itt was the highest rated TV show, but I may be overthinking this. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
It is much better to be overcautious than not cautious enough. Either way, this is a good response, 4.5/5
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
A- No. Self-published sources are not reliable. The information could be false.
The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth. However, with that said a twitter feed is not a very good place for any type of reliable or verifiable information. It is possible that some very limited statements could be reliable, but in general you are correct. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, look for an official press release or something, but I will say that Twitter is better than nothing, though it still is far from reliable. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
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?
A- No. Blogs and forums are not reliable because they are self-published. Again, that would be biased and an opinion.
Good. Just because I post something doesn't mean it's the official policy of wikipedia. The same thing applies to this situation. 5/5
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)
A- Yes, I would object to that. Burger King's website is a primary source, and should not be used for information in its article.
While we do prefer secondary sources here at wikipedia, there are situations where primary sources can be used. Specifically if the material in question is neither promotional nor unduly self-serving, it is probably acceptable in limited situations. See WP:PSTS for more information. 4/5
I get it now. I could use their website as an external link or for official company data. By the way, Burger King's fries are the best and their chicken nuggets are the worst. (I'm not going to vandalize the article. ) JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Seeing as I haven't eaten there in about 5 years, I have to reserve judgement.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
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?
A- No. You do not need a source for nonsense. That is an opinion and cannot be verified.
Right. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are a pair of conflicting essays on this very subject, but consensus says no citation is needed for common knowledge. 5/5
Actually, he needs a source that says he went to a psychologist. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Be very careful about making statements like this. If this had been in a real debate, a comment like that is the fastest possible way to get into hot water. Civility is one of the pillars of wikipedia, and we will look fairly extensively at this in the future. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I went too far that time.
I've added some comments as food for thought or reinforcement. I agree with Tazer that a firm grasp of this is necessary and consequently would also encourage JHUbal to answer the follow-up questions. Good job, both of you, on this first lesson. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
While this is pretty good, and would normally be easily passing, I would like you to answer the follow-up questions that I have posted. This topic is really the foundation for all of the rest, so a really firm grasp of it is essential. You also seem to have a very tight definition for what is a reliable source. While too tight is better than too loose, it still needs to be addressed. I will also post the next lesson now so that you don't have to wait for me to grade just the follow-up questions. Go Phightins!, any additional comments would be greatly appreciated
By my count this is a 34/40 for an 85%33.5/40 for an 84% 35/40 for an 87.5 Nice work! Check your talk page in a minute.
You've almost successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks.
Tazerdadog (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm ready for the test. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A- Assuming good faith means having benevolence, or the desire to do good. If another editor disagrees with you, then try to work it out with them. If you disagree with another editor, remain calm because they were most likely assuming good faith.
Not Quite. Assuming good faith is not "benevolence, or the desire to do good" yourself, it is assuming that othersare acting for this reason. Your desire to remain cool is admirable, however. 3.5/5
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? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A- I'm going to start with the note on my talk page. First, I would remove the notice on my talk page and keep my cool. I was just assuming good faith by fixing the formatting issues. I would explain to him what I was trying to do and about good faith. I would help him in reverting edits and trying to recover his data, if I can. I would also go to the AN/I board and explain that I was acting in good faith, so that the discussion is closed. The editor and I would shake wikihands (where did that come from?) and end the dispute. Never mind about the wikihands, I would give them a WikiLove cup of tea because we ended the dispute.
Again, not quite. You know that you were acting in good faith, the assumption that you need to make is that the new editor is as well. Your desire to stay cool is once again, excellent. I generally as a rule of thumb don't touch wikipedia for 15 minutes after I see a nasty note, lest I do something I regret. Wikilove is always good too. The folks at AN/I rarely get it wrongm so you would be OK here. Also, you should show the newbie how to correct an edit conflict. (Hit the back button when you get the error conflict message.) 3/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-He is replying to Rod's mate. (Like what?)
Correct. 2/2.
3b.) Position B?
A- He is replying to Rod. (What's the best car in the world?)
Again, absolutely correct. 2/2.
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A- Absolutely not. An editor with a low edit count has a perfectly good reason to be competent with templates. They could have learned it from someone, but a low edit count does not mean they are a sockpuppet. There is always a possibility, but the chances of that are low.
Correct, the idea is to assume good faith. There could be all kinds of reasons why a new editor is familiar with templates. He could be taking a cleanstart, or could just be an experienced programmer. 5/5
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
I actually took my time on the test because these lessons are for my own good. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's good that you can make the mistakes here and now, instead of on the big, bad wiki where they would really matter. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
By my count that's a 15.5/19 for a 81.6%. While this is good enough to move on, I really would like you to read WP:AGF through one more time. Please tell me when you've done this, and I'll post the next lesson. Go Phightins!, if you have any comments I'm all ears. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Right on Tazerdadog. (I feel like I should be some old cranky professor with a cane pointing at a chalkboard or something every time I chime in here...) Assuming good faith means that you always act as if someone is here for the betterment of the encyclopedia unless proven otherwise. GoPhightins! 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I read WP:AGF. I would be indifferent about someone going on my talk page and posting a note. I wouldn't care unless it was a threat. I originally put "Assuming good faith is taking responsibility for your actions." Would that have been closer? Assuming good faith means that you have an intention to do good. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Still not quite right.A good-faith edit is one designed to improve the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually does so. A bad faith edit is ine that is designed to harm it. Assuming good faith means everyone is making the first kind of exits until proved otherwise. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna finally get this right. An example of good faith is a user requesting deletion of a page because they know that it does not meet the policies. Also, a user reverting his own edits because he knows it was vandalism. A user who assumes good faith has an intention to improve the encyclopedia. Is that right? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 21:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is something between one editor and another. There is a difference between assuming good faith and acting in good faith. The examples that you gave are examples of acting in good faith. Assuming good faith means that you believe everyone ELSE (you do not apply this to yourself) is also acting in good faith (i.e. trying to build up the encyclopedia rather than tear it down.). Assuming good faith is for relations between more than one editor. An example of assuming good faith would be if I came to your talk page, and butchered the formatting on a template, causing a mess. While it was a bad edit, it should not be seen as malicious unless there is overwhelming evidence that my intent was to harm.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Example (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
You did upload this file, but the permission is clearly stated on the website to upload under the copyright licence you uploaded it under, so you know you are in the right on this one.
example shamelessly stolen from my talk page
A- The administrator was assuming good faith in you because they were unsure that you did have proof and just wanted to clarify. Their intention was to make sure the photo had correct copyright licensing.
Yes. The administrator was applying Assume good faith here. You are also assuming good faith here because although you didn't say so in so many words, you assumed that it wasn't personal, and the admin was trying to thelp the encyclopedia. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
2) You remove a large portion of copyrighted text from an article, and nobody challenges it.
A- You were acting good faith by removing copyrighted content that will improve the article.
Again, yes. Assuming good faith has no role here, as there is nobody to make that assumption on. You know you were acting in good faith, and nobody challenged it. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up question (reminded me of something) Was it okay to blank someone else's sandbox for it being a how-to guide on being a hacker? It was written in a different language, so I looked it up on Google Translate, blanked it, and nobody challenged it.
3) A new editor comes to an article you are working on, and replaces the whole body of text with "TROLOLOLOLOOLL!!!!!"
A- An editor is not acting in good faith by vandalizing an article.
While you cannot know that for certain, that is a reasonable assumption to make. You should assume that everyone else is trying to help the encyclopedia unless there is obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This qualifies as overwhelming and obvious evidence. We will talk more about editors who make these types of edits in the next lesson on vandalism. 4/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
4) A new editor makes a change to an article that you are working on, and adds a fact that you don't think is correct without a source.
A- The new editor was acting in good faith by adding a fact. You could leave a friendly note explaining that it needs a source or just add the citation needed template.
yes, this is the assumption you should make, and the probably the right course of action. 4.5/5
I did the follow-up test and put some thought into my answers. If I still don't understand the concept, please let me know.
P.S. I left a follow-up question. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey JHUbal, Ryan Vesey here, editing while logged out. There's still some issues with your understanding of the concept evident here, but rather than pointing them out individually, I thought I'd give you some advice and see if you can update your answer. (Sorry in advance to your adopters if this is out of line) When someone assumes good faith they assume that another editor is acting in good faith. Some of these questions above involve acting in good faith, but not assuming good faith. Can you identify which ones involve acting in good faith rather than assuming good faith? In another note, in regards to the question related to "TROLOLOLOLOOLL!!!!!", would your answer change after reading the fifth sentence of Wikipedia:Assume good faith?165.123.232.31 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the side note, the page in question would violate WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Since nobody raised any concern with your blanking of the page, I wouldn't change anything now (the page content hasn't been restored, correct?). In the future, we have a miscellany for deletion process that you could go through. I believe you'll touch on this a little bit later in the course. It's also a good idea to discuss it on the user's talk before taking any action. Hopefully the editor will blank it themselves and will learn something in the process.165.123.232.31 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
@RyanVesey Adoption page stalking is not only permitted but encouraged. The more opinions and methods of explanation we have, the better
@JHUbal you are getting two very similar, but distinct consepts mixed up. There is assuming good faith, and then there is acting in good faith. You and only you know whether you were acting in good faith. Similarly, I and only I know if I was acting in good faith. Acting in good faith basically means trying to help the encyclopedia. It contrasts with acting in bad faith, which is trying to harm the encyclopedia (usually through vandalism). Assuming good faith, on the other hand is what you should do regarding other editors. I don't know if your last 10 edits were made with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, you and only you know if they were made in good faith. What I do, per WP:AGF, is assume that they were made in good faith unless I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and then base further decisions off of that. You can't say if any other editor was acting in good faith, but your job is to assume that they were, and go from there.
Regarding the follow-up question RyanVesey is absolutely correct, the correct way to handle it in future is talking to the user or aking it to WP:MFD if that fails. However, if it hasn't been restored or challenged, it's probably better to let it rest.
I would encourage you to look at the follow-up questions one more time with all of this in mind, and take another stab at them. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did the follow-up questions again. I have a feeling I'm still wrong. Acting in good faith is something only you can acknowledge and assuming good faith is somehting everyone acknowledges. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This is much better. There are still a few wrinkles to iron out, but I think that you probably have it now. We can safely move on to the next lesson, which is vandalism. By my count, the follow up test was an 18/20 (90%), which combined with a 15.5/19 on the previous test results in a 33.5/39 for 85.9% overall. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
[73] If this isn't blatant vandalism, then what is?
OK, I think we can both safely say that is vandalism by any reasonable definition.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
[74] This is an example of blatant vandalism, but would you like me to find a more subtle one?
[75] I get the idea of vandalism in general, so never mind the second question. (You just said 3 vandalism edits)
These all look like good examples of classic vandalism. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Your vandalism-identifying looks good. Please tell me when you are ready for the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I am ready for the test, but I'll probably do it tomorrow, maybe some tonight. You are in the Mountain Time Zone right? So that means it would be 8:25 PM now. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am in the Mountain time zone, so your conversion is correct. The test is below.
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A- Vandalism is any intentional attempt to harm the website. It occurs when people are bored and are acting in bad faith. For example, blanking a page and replacing it with nonsense is vandalism.
Optional probing question: How do you know blanking a page is vandalism? Couldn't it just be a test edit? What's the difference between vandalism and test edits? GoPhightins! 02:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If a user blanks their own talk page or user page, then that is not vandalism. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Good. The definition is right on the money. While inserting nonsense is almost always vandalism, there is an (admittedly small) chance that blanking a page might not be. I'm going to give this a 4.5/5 and strongly encourage you to answerr Go Phightins probing question. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A- If large amounts of content is removed from a page (indicated by -10000 bytes). If it says something like, a possible vandalism tag, it wouldn't hurt to check the diffs. Also, something like "replaced page with..." is an indicator of vandalism.
Yep, more or less right. Basically any computer generated tag should be checked out carefully by a human. Although this is controversial, I also think that edits by IP addresses deserve a little more scrutiny due to their higher proportion of vandalism edits. Just remember that Ip's are human too. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A- For the first time, I would add {{uw-delete1}} and proceed as the user continues to blank content.
That produces
Hello, I'm JHUbal27. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
If this was the first time, this warning is probably best. 5/5
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A- Depending on my mood, I would add a level 3 or level 4 warning.
These warnings are {{uw-npa3}} or {{uw-npa4}}
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
or
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
First of all, you should make your mood as much of a non-factor as possible. The level three warning might be a little harsh, but might be appropriate depending on what exactly was in the personal attack. The level four warning on the other hand is definitely too high unless the editor had been previously warned. If it was so egregious as to merit that kind of warning, {{Uw-npa4im}} should be used. 3.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A- WP:AIV is administrator's intervention against vandalism. You should use it when a user continues to vandalize Wikipedia after the 5th warning. Also, when a user obviously intends to vandalize Wikipedia, an administrator will look into it and block the account.
Are 5 warnings really necessary? Do you have to step straight through the levels one by one, or can you skip levels? The reason for WP:AIV is to alert the admins to editors who won't listen to the warnings. We do not have the tools to block vandals, and so must ask admins to do this for us. 3.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
[76] The user blanked a section, so I replaced it.
Good. The revert was absolutely correct. The warning might have been a little light, but it is probably better to go light than heavy on a first offense, and the difference between a level one and a level two warning here is probably a matter of taste. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
[77] I am proud to revert this edit! I'll admit the warning was a little harsh, but you don't just change someone's name.
Good revert. I actually like the warning you gave, although it is important to remember to assume good faith. How an editor manages to get two warnings for one edit perplexes me though. Phightins, if you have any more clue what exactly happened, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, I can see nothing wrong with how you handled this, so 5/5. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
[78] Classic vandalism. I warned the user with a level 2 because of 2 vandal edits. Please check history page and it should be the -16 one.
Good, clean reverts, and the warning, while a little harsh, is justified in my opinion. There was absolutely no doubt this was vandalism, and it was repeated. 5/5Tazerdadog (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
By my count, that's a 36/40 for a 90%. Good Job! I would encourage you to answer the couple of folloe-up questions I asked, but I think we can safely move on to the next lesson. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).
Tazerdadog (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
One question. Can you use rollback only on the latest revision? That's my only question and I'm ready for the "test" to do after school. I previewed lesson 5 and I probably will spend a lot of time on that. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is the case. The test is below.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
A-
Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry Tazer, it defaults to Go Phightins!
Good, it does that because we are in his userspace. 5/5
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
Not thrilled with this one. I would have liked it if you had gone through the contribs a little more carefully and fixed the (borderline vandalistic) edits that this user made. A standard welcome was probably not best. 3.5/5
Normally, I go through their contributions more carefully, but okay.
4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
A- {{Uncategorized|date=February 2013}}
Good. 5/5
5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
A- I would report a user to an administrator as a vandal if their account was a vandalism-only account. I would have warned them with an only warning or level 4 warning tag and then report them.
Do you have to be the one to give the warning? 4.5/5
By my (occasionally suspect) count, that's 33/35 for a 94.3% Good Job. You seem to have Twinkle down-pat. Let's move on to the next lesson, on Dispute Resolution, shall we? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance 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 Rerverts 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 in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that.
If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
You can get someone uninvolved 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 option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There used to be two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) has been closed, leaving the more formal (WP:RfM). The editors at WP:RFM specialise in sorting debates.
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than 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 to be certified.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
No questions. I think I'm ready for the test. I'm sorry for waiting so long, but school is more important than Wikipedia and I need a wiki-break. I'll do the test and come back next Friday if I can manage to stay away.JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your priorities are absolutely correct. School (and real life in general) must come first. Here is the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
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.).
A-
Editor assistance: An informal way to get help/advice from multiple other editors if you are involved in a dispute. An informal way to ask other editors for advice or help on what to do in a dispute.
Not necessarily from multiple editors. This is the lowest and most informal of the content dispute levels. It is used when you want advice from the community, but you don't necessarily want or need the community to step in. However, more often than not, you will get a single editor helping you. 3.5/5
Better. Note only that you might not want the editor you are getting advice from to actually step in. 4.5/5
Third opinion: Another informal way to get help/advice from one other editor who is not involved in the dispute. An informal way to ask another editor to step in and give you advice to help you with a dispute.
While third Opinion is still pretty informal, it is a little more formal than editor assistance. However, it is used when you have a dispute with one and only one editor. While you will likely only get one editor helping you, this is not always the case. (the dispute is between you and exactly one other editor, so you ask people to come in and give another opinion) 3/5
While third opinion does ask the other editor to step in, you are still missing that the dispute must have originally been between you and only one other editor. 3.5/5
Mediation: If you still have a dispute after Editor assistance and Third opinion, Mediation is a formal way to get help from experienced editors.
Good. Mediation is more formal, and good for more complicated disputes. 5/5
Request for comment: After every other level, if the dispute is not solved, several people from the Wikipedia community can help. If two or more users are having a problem with the same editor, people can comment on that edtor to end the dispute.
Good. I would only note that it has to be the same problem with the editor, and that you can skip levels if the dispute escalates quickly. 4.5/5
Arbitration: This is the absolute last level after everything else has failed. If the dispute is still not solved, the best of the best experts will try their hardest to end the dispute.
Yes. Note that what the arbitration committee says is binding. If they say you're topic-banned (or whatever), that is the last word. (Jimbo could technically overturn ArbCom, but he doesn't). 4.5/5
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:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A- Two reverts is not enough to be considered an edit war. They did not violate the three-revert rule.
Follow-up question: Does the three revert rule have to be broken for edit-warring to occur? If not, what is the bright line? 2/5 pending follow-up.
The bright line is 3 reverts. I don't understand the question. No, the three-revert rule does not have to be broken. As long as two editors disagree more than once. I guess so.
The idea is that this is a classic example of BOLD, revert, discuss. A made a bold addition, and then B reverted it. A should now begin discussing the change. Instead, A reverted again, which made this edit-warring on A's part. B rereverted, making this edit warring on B's part.
Right, edit warring is any time two editors revert instead of discuss. We even have the one revert rule for certain occasions. GoPhightins! 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A- They should have followed Bold, revert, discuss. They should discuss the matter on the article's talk page and come to a compromise.
Good, this is exactly right. 5/5
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, 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?
A- I would give them a gentle warning for "attacking" me, like
Hello, I'm JHUbal27. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
I would then talk to the other editor, and explain my stance with supporting evidence. On the dispute resolution pyramid, I would be using a counter-argument. I would then request editor assistance if I can't get the other editor to agree with me. I would continue through the process as necessary.
OK, just be very careful not to escalate the situation. It might be possible to avoid the whole dispute resolution process entirely. Ideally, I would let someone uninvolved do the warning, although you can do it if it was really egregious. A case can be made for not replying at all, which sidesteps any dispute. 4/5
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
A- Refuting the central point and refutation should be combined. Also, responding to tone and ad-hominem should be combined. After name-calling, the last level should be personal attacks. That's all I guess.
Unless some of my answers are too vague, this test was easy. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 04:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
By my count, that's a 36.5/45, for an 81.1%. I'd like you to answer the follow up question I posted, and take another stab at explaining editor assistance and third opinion, but this is pretty good, and certainly good enough to move on. Go Phightins!, if you have comments, I would love to hear them. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
After Follow-up questions, that's a 38/45 for an 84.4%.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
November 21, 2012
I continue to edit because it is fun and there is lots of potential for new content.
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
A- I'd like to improve school and airport articles. I'd also like to revert vandalism.
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A- I'd like to be an administrator. (NOT!) That would be too hard and too far down the road. I would like to become way more experienced than I am now.
OK, sounds good! Your answer to #4 shows how thoroughly WP:NOBIGDEAL has gone down the tubes, but that's a commentary on wikipedia, not you. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.
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.
If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
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. 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.
Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? Tazerdadog (talk)
Yes! I have a very important question before the test. Also, I can't keep away from Wikipedia. All that aside, I came across an article while I was patrolling new pages. The article is called Truth or Death? and I hope it was deleted. I could not find the right speedy deletion criteria. It was a fictional story that had no purpose to be on Wikipedia. Was it vandalism? Did it violate WP:NOT? I just proposed deletion. Can you help me please with this scenario? Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Based on what you told be, there would be no speedy condition that the article really fits. A7 is the closest, but does not apply, as this is a fictional story, and not about a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". Therefore PRODding it was correct. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply! In that case, I'm ready for the test.
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
Broad questions
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
A- Unsourced Biographies of Living People (BLP)'s is a scenario in which you'd use PROD. All BLP's must have at least one reliable source. I did that once with Barry Engel, which now has more sources.
Indeed, unsources BLP's should be prodded. 5/5
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
A- This should be taken as a deletion request. The A7 should be changed to G7.
Correct, if the author is the only significant contributor, and blanks the page, this is a G7. Make sure he is the only significant contributor though. 5/5
3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
A- A user may have created the page and will add more content later, so wait before adding A3. Also, a user may have created a page and will add references for context later, so wait before adding A1.
Precisely, the article is likely undergoing extensive development. 5/5
A- I would wait to see if the user will add sources, then propose deletion of the BLP because the article has no sources. The person would be notable if there were reliable sources.
Perhaps. I think your approach is conservative, he looks like he meets A7 to me. However, this is thin, and there is nothing wrong with your approach. 5/5
A- I would wait, then add {{db-context}}. The article needs to be more specific with its information.
db-context is thin but reasonable in this. The problem is the criterion states that it applies to only very short articles. I would have prodded this or tried to fix it with the sources. 4/5
I think number 4 might be wrong, but I'm Done with the test. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
By my count this is a 34/35, for a 97.1% Excellent Job! You seem to have a really firm grasp on this. It's time to move on to the next lesson, on copyright. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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.
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
If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
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.
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
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.
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
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
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.
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. Tazerdadog (talk)
Actually, I did have a weird situation. I uploaded File:Noodle and Doodle logo.jpg and it was a television screenshot. It asked me to provide a fair use license and a non-free license. GP said I just need the non-free license. Do you know anything about this. Thanks.
Also, you may post the exam tomorrow or Saturday.. I'm still here, don't want you to forget about me. I'm glad you're my instructor instead of GP, he can be a little...uhm...strict? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A- Oh my gosh, this is a hard question. I'm gonna say no. Not all images can be used anywhere because some are fair use. Use on other websites would be copyright infringement.
Fair enough. 5/5
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A-
It is your own work (easy one)
Yep. you would then have the ability to release it under a compatible license. 2/2
The image qualifies as "fair use"
No. Yhe commons is only for public domain or certain creative commons licenses. Fair use images cannot be uploaded there, these must be uploaded locally and are subject to a number of other restrictions. 0/2
It is in the public domain
Yep. 2/2.
Follow-up: Find the last case when you can upload to commons.
Answer: If the work has already been released under a less restrictive license.
OK, this works. If the original author releases it under a compatible license we can use it. 1.5/2
3.) Q- You find music displaying this license [83] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
A- Yes, as long as you attribute the work to the original author.
No. This license is non-commercial, and so is not compatible with the licence Wikipedia uses. ( CC-BY-SA 3.0 License). 2/5
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A- This is another question I'm debating on. I'm going to say...no...because the idea, while creative, is not suitable in the context of the article.
Right. This is a derivative work, and so all of the components must be released under a compatible license. Fair use would bevery, very difficult (probably impossible) to justify. 4/5
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
A- A derirative work is a work derived (taken) from another work. An example is a cropped image.
Good definition, and the example is ok, but it also includes more substgantial modifications. 4.5/5
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
A- No, because the photographer has not released the copyright and there is a free equivalent because anyone can take a picture of him.
Right. If it was taken by the government it would be in the public domain, but as a press photo it is not eligible. A free equivalent exists. 5/5
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A- Same as #6 (I think).
There is a difference. I can get off of my duff and take a picture of the president, but I can't really can't do this with a death row prisoner. Therefore, a fair use claim would likely work. You would have to do things with it, such as lowering the resolution however. 3/5
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
A- I would tag the image for speedy deletion for copyright infringement.
Right, but you should also check where it is displayed and remove the pictures ASAP. 4/5.
9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Feel free to leave all the followup questions you want, as I simply gave my best guess on some of the questions. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to add a bonus point for this. By my count that makes it a 32.5/41 for a 79.3%. I would strongly reccomend you answer the follow-up question I posted. This is good enough to move on, but I would also recommend reading the applicable policies one more time as well. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
After grading the follow-up that's a 34/41 for a 82.9% Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.
Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.
Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?Tazerdadog (talk)
No questions. I think I'm ready for the test. By the way did you see that Johncheverly got a 100% on this test? Impressive! JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The old crank regrets that he has been busy lately and has been unable to check in as often as he would like to. Do either Tazer or JHUbal have any questions or concerns for the old crank, who is currently enjoying referring to himself in the third person? The old crank is pleased by the progress of both the adopter and the adoptee and hopes that both go on to successful wiki-careers at the conclusion of this adoption. The old crank is eager for your feedback. The old crank is signing off. GoPhightins! 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The teenager (me )—wait come on GP you can't be that old, 40?—is a little shaky on some lessons. He is definitely shaky on copyright and dispute resolution. Do you have any suggestions for him? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
GP is not going to reveal his exact age, but will say that he is <40, but likes to play that he's older than he his for the fun of it. Anyway, GP thinks JHUbal is doing fine, but should probably just slow down, make sure he asks with any questions, and understands the policies. GP thinks that the final exam will give JHUbal a good indicator of where he is in his comprehension of the material; if he doesn't do so well in a particular area, GP or Tazer will be happy to do some "tutoring". GoPhightins! 21:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I originally said you were 30 . If Tazer is creating the final exam (if there isn't already a preset set of questions), is it the same idea as this.
“
JHUbal27 is being guided through the course, with me [you] just peering over their shoulder as a guide, if necessary.
”
I'll read through lesson 9 this weekend and take my time. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Go Phightins! assumes that Tazer will use the same final GP gave him a few short months ago, but he (Tazer) is of course welcome to modify it as he sees fit. GP will likely assist Tazer in grading it, at Tazer's discretion. GoPhightins! 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the plan, I figured we would grade it separately, then look at both together to resolve any discrepancies. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to GP! GoPhightins! 12:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.
1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
A- There is not really much of a big difference, but I'll explain it like this. A policy is a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow (i.e. no original research). A guideline is a principle supported widely by consensus (most accept it) and sometimes common sense. An example is assume good faith. An essay is an not an official policy or guideline and it is not supported widely by consensus. It contains the opinions of one or more editors and people may or may not necessarily agree with it. A random essay that applies to me () is WP:Guidance for younger editors. I'm 13, most of that is common sense. Oops, I just broke the first rule. (I'll strike it out, pretend you never saw it.) You're not going to judge me by my age anyway, I'm mature. Right? Never mind.
Well, I disagree with your intro sentence that there "is not really much of a big difference"...in some cases you may be right, but there's a big difference between User:AutomaticStrikeout/Applying IAR and WP:IAR, an essay and a policy respectively. The rest of what you said is mostly valid. 4/5
2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
A- To break this down, "de facto" means concerning facts and "bureaucracy" is a group of people who uphold the rules (in this case administrators and bureaucrats). So, is Wikipedia de facto bureaucracy? No, considering there are no official rules and the "rules" do not necessarily need to be followed. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Obviously Wikipedia is de facto because there are official policies widely accepted, like no original research, verifiability, and notability. I added an original research comment without a source here and it was reverted right away. The warning I got was that all information must have a source. Also, that same user PRODded Most Extreme Airports (my article) because of notability. I sent it to AFD like a stupid person instead of removing the PROD tag. Wikipedia is de facto but not a bureaucracy.
Okay, I didn't know what the heck they meant, thanks for clarifying. Yes, Wikipedia is a de facto bureaucracy. If you ignore the rules, you are at risk for being blocked. You may not know this, but I was actually blocked for two weeks by Reaper Eternal (what a scary name) for sock puppetry on Get Squiggling. (One article!) I was only on Wikipedia for less than a week, therefore he was not assuming good faith and was biting the newbie (I.e. me) It is always important to log in every time and that's why I stay logged in. Actually, I did do one vandalism edit while logged in (nothing too bad), which probably didn't have to do with my blocking. My "sockpuppetry" made it look like there were two different contributors on the article I was productive on and intended to fix. Also, I uploaded a copyrighted image, which was deleted immediately. Administrators, bureaucrats, and even Jimbo uphold the rules (even though there are no "offical" rules and policies do not necessarily need to be followed). If you choose not to follow them, you run the risk of being blocked or even banned. And you thought I was a good boy.
Definition of de Facto
Try this one again. "De facto" is a Latin term that means "unofficial, but in practice" (e.g., User:Jimbo Wales is the de facto head of Wikipedia) in contrast to "De jure" which means the official law-abiding (e.g., The Wikimedia Foundation is the head of Wikipedia). So the question is: is Wikipedia a bureaucracy in practice? In theory, we are not, but the question is are we a de facto bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is a system in which "officials within a government or other institution that implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of the institution". In plain English, a bureaucracy is highly "hierarchal" that has lots of rules that must be followed to the letter. So to summarize the question, based on what you've seen in Wikipedia in your time here, do you think we are a de facto bureaucracy?
That's a reasonable explanation, I guess. Wikipedia, is in theory, not a bureaucracy, but we tend to lean in that direction at times, for better or for worse. 4/5
3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
A- Yes, of course policies and guidelines can always change. Over time, people may have different interpretations of them. Any autoconfirmed user can click the edit tab and edit it (WP:BEBOLD). They should be careful, though. Major changes should be discussed on the policy's talk page and should reflect widespread consensus.
Right on! 5/5
4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
A- From personal experience, I would ignore the conflict of interest guideline. As long as you have sources, you could greatly improve the article and add interesting encyclopedic information.
OK. Be very careful when applying IAR (and for some handy dandy advice, check out User:AutomaticStrikeout/Applying IAR NOT! but it's still a humorous read!) and when in doubt, start a discussion. 4.5/5
5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
A- Decrees are laws (or in this case rules) and the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that makes this website possible. Any decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation are subject to change the community. These must be adhered to (or you could ignore them) if you don't want to get blocked. These are rare, and would be something like the addition of a new policy (like the BLP policy.)
That's right; what the WMF says goes. 5/5
Grade: 22.5/25 (90%)
Comments: I am going to leave this open until Tazer shows up again, I am sure that he's just swamped in RL (our favorite little acronym) as there is nothing else before the final and, since he's your primary adopter, I want to make sure he thinks you're ready. Feel free to peak at the study guide on the adoption page. GoPhightins! 02:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm in NO RUSH to complete the final exam. Tonight and tomorrow night is the play and I want to take the weekend off from Wikipedia. Basically, I will force myself to not check Wikipedia until 6:30 am Monday morning. I am actually taking a Wiki-break this time. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 10:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
All right. I would say break a leg, but with my luck, you probably would and then I would feel bad. So I'll just say good luck in German: Viel Glueck! GoPhightins! 10:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about my recent busy-ness. Yes, it was real life that was sneaking up on me. These answers look good, and I think we can move on to the final when you're ready JHUbal. I will post the study guide now, just tell me when you're ready for the test.Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks GP and Tazerdadog! I'm using the Wikibreak enforcer so I will not use Wikipedia until Monday afternoon. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 19:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
Have a look at your favorite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D
Why not head over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.
There's a lot to maintain at Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
Recent Changes Patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.
WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on Wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.
Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there!
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the {{Not done}} template with {{Done}}. You may also use {{Doing}} to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.
Done Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
Overall, for your efforts in NPP, you have earned a 23/25.
Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate(s) here: (I did two because I felt like it.)
[90] (PRODding could have been an option, but I just sent it to AFD)
Good nomination rationale, though if deletion was not your goal, then you could have started a different type of discussion. And I always accept going above and beyond...
Done Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
Cleanup is pretty straightforward, but often goes ignored. Good job! 10/10
Done Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings.
A violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Yes. Vandalism? Possibly not; assuming you reverted as a BLP issue, then you used an incorrect warning template. This one is not one of your better pieces of work.
There’s some clear cut vandalism. I would have gone with at least a level two, perhaps even a level three warning template, though. He has a history. And in answer to your question, I believe Cluebot only will revert an editor once per article; it will not edit war with a user.
Overall, vandalism is somewhere where, to steal some terms from academia, you are proficient, but not advanced. 33/40.
Done Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: [104] Joined WikiProject Schools
OK. 5/5
DoneExtra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here. [105]
Cool! I was never good at Legos and K’Nex, but you evidently are Good job! +5
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
A: Consensus is the way the decisions are made on Wikipedia. It applies to even the simplest of decisions, like editing articles, to major decisions like the addition of a new policy. When addingproposing a new policy, it is important to know that consensus is not a vote. It is an approval from the community with strong arguments in a discussion. Unamity is not required, but most editors need to approve of a policy before it is added. Even when previous consensus is reached, a policy is subject to change or be removed as time goes by. New consensus can always be reached through discussion or boldly. Another important point is that the Wikimedia Foundation and other superior offices Like what? have the right to add or change important policies without community consensus.
Good. Just a few minor points of inquiry. 5/5
You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
A: After a PROD tag is removed, it should not be replaced. The next step is sending it WP:AFD with a nomination like "PROD tag removed by author. Still no evidence of notability." Leave a message on the talk page of the author explaining why.
√ (ok that's a square root symbol, but you get the idea) 5/5
Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
A: I would remove the note, first of al. Then, I would leave a message on the editor's talk page, and even with the nasty note, assume good faith. It would be something like, "Please do not personally attack me. Personal attacks are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You may disagree with me and that's okay, but do not comment on me. [(Not included) Depends on what you mean by "nasty note", which is vague.] Next time, comment on the content of the article and do not replace the PROD tag. Send it to WP:AFD, where editors argue discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. When you nominate the article for deletion, explain why you think the article should be deleted. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)"
OK. 5/5
Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
A: Vandalism is any intentional attempt, no matter how subtle, to harm or destroy our website. For example, blanking a page is vandalism if the user replaces it with crude content or something similar. A user who blanks their own talk page is not vandalism. Other examples of vandalism are advertisingNot necessarily; could be a misunderstanding of rules and deliberate factual errors. It is important to assume good faith except in the most obvious cases of vandalism. Users who have a vandalism-only account and have been warned after the level 4 or 4im warning should be reported to WP:AIV, where administrators will take care of them.
Not all of your examples are necessarily vandalism. Remember, vandals can change. I believe I was a vandal once as either an IP or an old account that I've long since forgotten. Granted, that was at least 4-5 years ago, but still... vandals can change. 4.5/5
You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
A: First, make sure the author was the substantial contributor of the article. Then, mark the article for speedy deletion under G7, assuming the author requested deletion by blanking the page.
√ 5/5
You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
A: First of all, I would apoligize and ask the person to not personally attack me they are talking about content, not about you . I would ask them next time to assume good faith. I thought that was vandalism, so I acted in good faith by reverting it.
Make sure you fix the problem as well. 3.5/5
You found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article you're writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should you do to upload it to Wikipedia?
You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
A: I would ask the editor why they nominated the article for deletion, assuming good faith. They may have made a mistake. If no one commented on the debate and the editor has no valid reason for the nomination, I would ask an administrator to close the debate. The result would be speedy keep.
√ 5/5
How does the child protection policy apply to editors like yourself and what are two ways you can protect yourself?
A: The child protection policy is designed to protect my safety. On Wikipedia and anywhere online, there may be child predators or pedophiles. Most (or all of them hopefully)SOME are banned from Wikipedia. Thankfully, I trust Wikipedia is a safe website. Just in case, to protect myself:
1. I will never give out any personally identifiable information (full name, address, phone number, social security number, etc.) I really shouldn't give out my age either, but very few people here know that.
Anyone who wants to can look at your user page... it says you are in middle school (12-14).
2. Another way to protect myself is creating a separate e-mail address just for Wikipedia. That way, I can be safer because people won't know my name (or even part of it). Were you thinking of another way GP?
Second way is solid.
I don't trust that Wikipedia is a safe website. If it was, WP:OUT and WP:OVERSIGHT would be unnecessary. Granted, they help a lot, but nowhere on Wikipedia is safe, and you should always remain vigilant. Your answer, unfortunately, is rather naive. 3/5
You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
A: Mark the page for speedy deletion under G12, referencing the plagiarized textbook. Explain to them that plagiarism is wrong and tell them not to do it again. The page specifically says to address the editor and tell them about the guideline. Also, I would tell them to fix any other plagiarized articles or request speedy deletion under G7 How would G7 apply? The author hasn't requested deletion. of plagiarized articles in good faith. I would help them again, provided that they reference the textbook and do not plagiarize or closely paraphrase from it.
I enjoyed doing this quiz and tried to demonstrate my best work. I've been sort of a perfectionist, as you can see with the history page. I like the idea of a #9 being customized instead of that "foo" question. Thanks for working so hard on my adoption. You guys are the best! ~~JHUbal27 17:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jackson_Scott_Peebles.jpg#filehistory){kind=link}
