User:OcaasiTeaching/ADL

Welcome to the basic Wikipedia editing training for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)

A Babylonian Talmud. Like this tradition of intellectual engagement, Wikipedia articles are developed over time through collaboration and discourse. How they are shaped depends on principles, reasoning, and civil debate.

Background

About ADL

"In 1913, ADL was founded on Jewish values that inform our work, how we operate and the changes we seek in the world. It has always meant stopping anti-Semitism and defending the Jewish people. Today, it also means fighting threats to our very democracy, including cyberhate, bullying, bias in schools and in the criminal justice system, terrorism, hate crimes, coercion of religious minorities, and contempt for anyone who is different."

Mission

To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all...

Philosophy

1. Go to wikipedia.org
   • Notice how many different Wikis there are--almost 300 in as many languages!
   • Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit
   • The mission of Wikimedia (the movement) is "to share the sum of all human knowledge with every human being on the planet"
   • Radical goal but also radical progress!
   • Stats: 20 billion pageviews per month, 40 million edits per month
   • "Many eyeballs make all bugs shallow" (many hands make light work)
2. Think about how you learn (hint: mistakes make your brain grow)
   • We're going to be learning by doing
   • Watching, try, ask, troubleshoot, try again, celebrate small wins (and mistakes!)
3. Learn a bit about me
   • One of 2000 admins on English Wikipedia
   • Started editing in 2007
   • Made 40,000 edits
   • Wrote and built our standard interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure
   • Wrote our conflict of interest guidance, The Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide
   • Founded The Wikipedia Library to give 25,000 active editors access to 100,000 scholarly journals
   • Started the #1Lib1Ref Annual Citation Campaign
   • I really care about making learning how to use Wikipedia accessible, editing responsibly, and relying on good sources
4. Learn about each other
   • Name
   • Location
   • Role
   • What you're interested/scared/excited about in Wikipedia
   • How you're best handling shelter in place

Getting started

1. Go to English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
2. Register at WP:REGISTER (or click the link in the top right of the page)
3. Select your username
   • Pick a name that is for only you as an individual
   • Pick a name that you will only use for editing as ADL staff
   • Pick a name ideally that discloses your affiliation (User:JoeAtADL)
   • Pick an anonymous name if you're concerned about harassment (User:MitzvahKitten)
4. Decline/skip the pre-loaded introduction
5. Click on the redlink at the top of the page with your username (that's your userpage)
6. Click on "create the page"
7. Switch to the visual editor (you can always toggle this on the top right of the editing window)
8. Introduce yourself to the community briefly and clearly make a conflict of interest disclosure
   • Say hi. Offer details such as your role, general location, Wikipedia goals, editing interests, hobbies, favorite works of art, or quotes. Less is ok.
   • Make a disclosure: At the very least you must state that your affiliation is with the ADL.
   • A userpage disclosure is one of three mandatory. options (the first being userpage, the second being talk page, and the third being edit summary--you can do them all!)
   • Add an edit summary ("added info about me and a COI disclosure")
   • Click "publish"
9. Edit your userpage again
   • Bold one word in your introduction
   • Click Publish changes
   • Make an edit summary ("bolded a word")
10. Edit your userpage to add an image (search for your favorite book, place, or animal to start...you can change it later)

Describe the debate: neutrality

1. Neutral point of view (NPOV) is one of 3 core policies that grounds all editing practices.
   • In a nutshell: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
   • More details: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
2. The articles on George W. Bush and Barack Obama have some of the least bias.
   • Why? A flagpole that stands up straight because it's being pushed at from all sides
   • Why? Many--independent, diverse--eyeballs make all bugs shallow
   • Why? Many filters to make an edit stick
3. Here's an example where bias is clear: Enawene Nawe
   • What do you notice about the "Current Issues" section?
   • Can you tell who wrote it?
   • Would their 'enemy' agree with it? (write so that even your staunches opponent would agree with your summary of the debate)
4. Neutrality is about "due weight", so that better supported views receive more attention, and some receive none at all
   • The earth is flat (conspiracy)... though the conspiracy has a separate article about it
   • Astrology predicts personality and events (pseudoscience)... though the article details rich mythology and history
   • Climate change is happening and is driven by human activity (scientific consensus)... there's a separate article about climate change denialism
   • Israel and Palestine have been in an ongoing struggle for 50 years (political real world dispute)... there's an article on "views" of the conflict (note the issues identified at the top)
   • See Israeli occupation of the West Bank and think about it's presentation of the situation, and even the terminology.
   • See Hate group, Religious persecution, Violent extremism, and Cyberbullying, AIPAC, Israel–United States relations, Stormfront... how developed are they, how neutral
5. Go to Anti-semitism
   • Note its detailed uncensored description of negative stereotypes without of course endorsing them (see also: Antisemitic canard)
   • Scroll through the sections down to the references
   • Add the article to your "watchlist"
   • Click on View History to see all past edits
   • Click on Talk to see all past discussions
6. Go back to your userpage and add a useful links section
   • Click edit and below your introduction create a Heading named "Useful links"
   • Add a link to the Neutral Point of View policy as part of a bulleted list
7. Check out Wikipedia:Words to watch
   • Add it to your useful links

Support claims: good sources

1. Check in
   • Covered the mission of Wikipedia, your account and userpage, and the core policy of neutral point of view
   • How you felt after yesterday's session (honesty is good!)
   • One thing that bugs you about the way the public views an aspect of your area of expertise--a common misconception or misunderstanding
   • How has remote working affected you in an unexpected way? (pajamas all day? started eating breakfast?)
   • Wifi update: reset gateway, moved on top of router, tested speed (350/15)

Verifiability

1. The second core policies is Verifiability
   • Verifiability states, in a nutshell: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources."
   • Verifiability continues: "Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
2. Verifiability means that the claim being verified comes from a Reliable Source. What makes a source reliable?
   • "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".
   • Good sources tend to include books published by respected publishing houses, established magazines, academic papers, mainstream newspapers, university textbooks, or authoritative trade journals.
   • Self-published sources, website forums, blogs, press releases, and social media posts are rarely considered reliable,c except as sources on themselves.
   • A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material.
   • Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.
   • Articles about living people require reliable sources.
   • If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
   • Robust review, specific support: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
3. Reliable sources should be summarized not copied verbatim or plagiarized.
4. A source is judged based on its reliability for a particularly claim, fact, or argument.
5. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.
   • Sources with "bias" can be used, especially with attribution. (Expert think tank says...")
   • Like editors, sources themselves do not need to maintain perfect neutrality. Many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is to summarize what reliable sources say."
   • On Biased sources: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
   • Attribute biased sources if you use them: Attributing and specifying biased statements
6. There is a community noticeboard where the suitability of sources for specific claims is discussed and evaluated. The ADL appears there too!
   • [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
   • Is ADL a reliable source according to the criteria? In which situations would its findings, communications, or reports be treated as fact vs. a notable opinion that needs attribution to the ADL itself? Is it a third-party source? Independent?
7. Verifiability exists alongside the Neutrality policy.
   • "Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation.
   • One reliable source likely exists among a constellation of related reliable sources, some of which disagree.

Verifiability Activity

1. Go back to Antisemitism and explore the citations
   • Find a sentence with a [number] after it. That's an inline citation. Click on the number.
   • This is the reference. Click on the number next to the reference. Now you're back at the article claim it supports.
   • Scroll down to the bottom of the page. This is where all of the references are. It's a series of [hopefully] reliable sources that support specific claims.
   • Look at all of the references in the article. Do you notice any trends or biases in the sourcing?
   • Are they up to date?
   • Are the citations themselves detailed enough that someone else could go track down the claim if they wanted to?
   • Are they high quality (reliable) publishers or authors?
   • Pick a reference number of a reference that has a url to a webpage. Click on the number to see what claim it should support.
   • Read the claim. Then click the inline citation to go back to the reference.
   • Click the external link to go read the website yourself. Does it support the claim?
   • Do you see any other claims in the article that are not sources (no number after them). Do they need one?
   • Claims without an inline citation to a reliable source can be removed if challenged.

No original research

1. The third core policy (in no particular order) is No original research.
   • Nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
   • Details: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
   • If you thought it or studied it but never formally published it, it's original research.
   • If you are making a new conclusion from two other pieces of fact that don't make that particular conclusion, it's original synthesis.
   • Here's an example: Original synthesis.
   • Editors are here to summarize, not reveal new truths from their own experience.
   • Editors are not empowered to create new narratives, or a new thesis, argument, conclusion, or perspective that isn't present in underlying reliable sources.
   • There are things you just know as an expert or from personal experience that Wikipedia will still require a reliable source for.
   • Credentials, reputation, expertise, or other markers of prestige and rank do not matter for editors; however, they are essential for the published, independent reliable sources they cite.

Citation activity

1. At the top of the page click on "Sandbox". This is where you can experiment and practice.
   • Create the page to edit it.
   • Edit below the line and add: The mission of the ADL is "..." (followed by the full mission from the ADL.org website)
   • Click "cite" and paste the url of the page that the mission is posted
   • Generate the citation
   • Click "insert"
   • Now you see a number after the sentence, but where's the reference?
   • [This part is not something you'll need to know but for now...]
   • Click down to a new line click Insert -> Template -> Reflist
   • Now you can see the citation autoformatted for you.
   • That combination of claim and reference is an "inline citation".

Homework

• Make a list of articles, sections, topics, people, or gaps you are interested in contributing to. Add them in a To do section on your userpage.

Engaging with others: consensus and civility

1. Check in
   • What's your fear:excitement ratio for starting editing?
   • What's the strangest thing that's happened to in your role at ADL?
   • What's one thing you've been watching during shelter-in-place, good or bad?
2. Look at the Antisemitism article
   • Add it to your watchlist by clicking the blue star. This means you can track recent changes to it and other articles.
   • Check the view history. What is being added or removed and by whom? What are the edit summaries suggesting?
   • A new article is like a foreign country: learn its norms, debates, history, and tone by looking around
   • Check the article talk page. Read the banners at the top. What do they tell you about the article quality and nature of the debate? Is it contentious? Are the discussions of good quality (specific, well-referenced...)? Do any editors stand out as both neutral and useful?
   • Read through a random talk page archive. Which issues have persisted for months or even years? What are poor arguments being made? How can you identify a constructive discussion?
3. Be a good community member.
   • Wikipedia is not a Battleground, even if it sometimes feels contention. Others are collaborators even when you disagree.
   • Assume good faith, as if the person you are talking to was across a real table having a conversation with the best of intentions. They may be wrong, but until they demonstrate otherwise, give them room to get their point across.
   • Make reasoned arguments rather than personal attacks. Focus on the content and the logic rather than the other person. Do not assume their motivations or accuse them of ill-intent. One, you don't know; two, it won't help; three it's prohibited by policy.
   • Be civil. Imagine you're on an academic panel where courtesy is expected. Even better, be kind, be generous, be understanding, be patient, and demonstrate taking the high road. Help others see from your point of view. Try to understand what informs their perspective. Remember it's another human on the other side of the keyboard.
   • Show your sources. The best way to make your point is by showing that good sources support them.
   • Make thoughtful appeals to relevant policies. Without acting like a lawyer, show how a relevant policy leads to your treatment or conclusion.
   • Let others defend you. Don't go head-to-head endlessly in a 1:1 match of wits or stubbornness. If you've made your point, give others a chance to support you rather than hammering it over and over again.
   • Similarly, convince the audience. You may never persuade your intellectual "opponent" but make arguments to the others who are watching and listening. These are the people in the crowd on the academic panel, and often they matter as much if not more than the other people on stage.
   • Walk away. There's no deadline and sometimes you need to step back from the keyboard if you're getting frustrated, stressed, angry, or cynical. Give yourself time to come back to a discussion. Wikipedia is not going anywhere. An issue can always be raised again with calmer heads.
   • Get a third opinion. If there's not enough unbiased or uninvested people in a discussion, try to get someone respected and generally neutral to help out. Again, you can't always convince the person who disagrees with you, but an informed third person can help mediate.
   • Get lots of opinions. Sometimes a debate is intractable with the voices available. It's possible to call in comment from around the encyclopedia with a Request for comment. These are week-long periods where anyone can chime in. It's not a vote, but people will present arguments for why they support or oppose a particular interpretation or suggestion.
   • Don't canvass, sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or brigade. Canvassing is asking other editors to help you when you know they support your view; instead ask a variety of editors from all sides. Sockpuppeting is using more than one account to make it appear like there is support for your position; instead use one account and get other real people involved. Meatpuppeting is recruiting other people you know to support your position; instead, persuade others who are not "in the bag" to consider your argument. Brigading is inviting a horde of people from your organization or movement to all push a debate to one side; instead, reach out to relevant WikiProjects where a diversity of editors congregate and solicit their opinion.
   • Find your helpers. If you're stuck, consider that you don't understand. Maybe you haven't read the relevant policy. Ask for help at the Teahouse where you'll get friendly support (though not necessarily agreement).
   • Remember that even if some arguments are better than others, no single person's objectivity is perfect. You may have vastly different life experience, education, access to sources, exposure to media, networks of friends and colleagues, or goals for advocacy. Different does not mean wrong, bad or evil; sometimes the world is just complicated. Wikipedia is here to represent the complexity.
   • Only revert once; then discuss. Rather than getting in an edit war of continual edits and reverts, make (or let someone make) one revert. Then bring the discussion to the talk page. If you disagree, merely hitting "undo" won't resolve anything.
   • Seek consensus. WP:Consensus is the net output of legitimate arguments accepted by those most closely involved in a discussion. Consensus often resolves compromise, collaboration, and iteration.
   • Don't assume you're the first. It's possible your point has been discussed for years. You can find some discussion in talk page archives. It's ok to bring issues up again while being mindful that there may be a long history or precedent for why an article is the way it is. Be bold, but considerate.
   • Write well: be calm, clear, direct, brief, and reasoned. Don't write angry rants. Don't write pages upon pages that people won't have time to read. Write in a way that your intellectual peers would approve up, and that is accessible to those without your knowledge.
   • Make concrete suggestions. Avoid theoretical or ideological debate by offering suggested text. It's much easier to debate a real paragraph than an entire framework for understanding international relations and human rights.
   • Write for the "enemy". Wikipedia is not a battleground, but think about writing in such a way that even your enemy would have to concede that your text or argument is fair, correct, logical, complete, and neutral. Write in such a way that even those who disagree with you will be impressed by your ability to find common ground and advance towards consensus.
   • Add light not heat. Discussions can be long and messy: improve the signal to noise ratio by not engaging or resisting every single comment. Choose where to spend your time and who is worth engaging. It's ok if "someone is wrong on the internet" and it's not your job to fix everyone or refute every mistake. Stay focused while you are being active. Some people will never contribute productively to a discussion, and as long as they're not being aggressive, harassing, or obstructive, they're best ignored.
   • Take time to decompress. Editing can be surprisingly stressful. Talk to friends about how it's going and make sure you are taking care of your health and sanity.
   • Edit wars are better than real wars. Even though Wikipedia can be full on contentious argument, think about solving the world's disputes with words rather than bullets. We are here to attempt finding common ground with research and reason. That's a noble pursuit and one that vastly improves upon other methods of conflict resolution.
   • Wikipedia is a process, a way of getting closer to the truth of what all sources say. Trust the process while you seek to improve it. Be patient with the process while you try to get better results. Remember that millions of people have been working on this project for two decades. You can learn a lot while you share what you know.
4. Disputes are meant to be resolved
   • Read the dispute resolution guideline: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (note the prefix, which indicates a different 'space' in the title like User, Talk, and Help)
5. Remember how long Wikipedians have been doing this
   • Look at the list of polices: Wikipedia:List_of_policies
   • Look at the list of guidelines: Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines
   • Look a the list' of essays (click 'Show'): Template:Wikipedia_essays

Conflict of Interest: Advancing Wikipedia's Goals

1. Situations: Beware Backlash, Be Better (look at some examples)
   • Bakery: Corner Store vs. Zabar's (notability, claims of pre-eminence, attributed reviews, "Zabster Zalad")
   • Band: Garage Band vs. Matisyahu (promotion, 'shaving his beard' controversy]]
   • David Ben-Gurion, Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu (historical revisionism, party affiliation, ongoing international and domestic issues)
   • West Bank (history, political geography, consequences of occupation)
   • British Petroleum, (Deepwater Horizon spill, Arturo at BP, production, size of the controversies
   • Breitbart (Wikipedia Ban)
   • Bell Pottinger (client interests, censorship, whitewashing)
   • Barcelona (city brand ranking)
   • Barnes Foundation (proposed move, legal challenges)
   • Hate Group, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Zionism
2. Types of COI
   • An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.
   • A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.
   • An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.
3. Questions
   • Do I have an organizational mandate or assignment to advance a point of view?
   • Am I potentially biased because of my affiliation with my organization?
   • Will others doubt my impartiality and editing as improper?
   • Would revelation of my involvement cause significant editor or media backlash?
   • What would Council on American-Islamic Relations think or say?
4. Approaches
   • Edit directly with a source
   • Edit with attribution to a source
   • Propose on talk page with suggestions
   • Disclose on talk page for discussion
   • Just watch and monitor changes
5. Ways to contribute
   • References
   • Further reading
   • External Links
   • Talk pages
6. Expertise: Educate don't advocate
   • Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
   • Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict
7. Self-citing
   • Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
   • Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
8. Strongly discouraged: The Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Policy
   • In a nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships."
   • Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.
   • COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.
   • Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead.
   • As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion. Articles should contain only material that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns.
   • An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.
   • Being a paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called "paid advocacy", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer.
9. COI best practices
   • Prioritize links to the most relevant, specific, and useful materials on the web as well as the best offline sources. The principal goal of Wikipedia is to facilitate access to the "sum of all human knowledge" (see Wikipedia:Prime objective); when adding links on Wikipedia make sure you are pointing towards digital records in your collections or holdings that provide substantive contextual information about the topic of the article, whether that is in the holdings themselves, collection description, or description of items within the collection. The community greatly prefers not to include links indiscriminately and in very large quantities.
   • The more you do, the more it helps Wikipedia's readers and community: contributing links to your holdings is useful; contributing links to other holdings alongside is helpful; reorganizing a further reading section while adding links to your sources, and citations for all of the major scholarship on the topic is superlative. The community appreciates editors who work with the intentions of readers and the community in mind. Collecting and organizing information about relevant scholarship is a powerful tool for future researchers; even if you don't expand the article, expanding the collection of citations allows you to better meet our goals and make a positive impression on the community.
10. Constructive engagement principles
    • Be transparent about your conflict of interest.
    • Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
    • Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space.
    • The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell.
    • Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
    • State facts and statistics; don't be vague or general.
    • Take time to get sources and policy right.
    • Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions.
    • Respect the volunteer community's time and avoid making protracted or repeated requests.
    • REGISTER: Create an account, for you individually – not your organization; e.g. User:Jmaloney or User:JmaloneyNYU, but not User:NYUArchives (see the account naming policy for more information)
    • (DISCLOSE: Mention and explain your institutional affiliation on your userpage and explain how you are here to help
    • HIGHLIGHT: Link to your substantial collections that are most relevant to articles.
    • INCLUDE: Add relevant collections from other archives that you know have substantial holdings
    • ENGAGE: Respond thoughtfully to any community concerns raised in discussion
    • COMMUNICATE: Speak in a friendly, clear, and specific manner while you are seeking consensus
11. Scope and scrutiny
    • To the extent that a proposed draft from a COI editor/corporate representative/paid advocate: concerns a controversial company, organization, or public figure; contributes a substantial amount of text or revisions; contributes text about the controversies themselves; or makes extraordinary claims, a robust review is required.
    • Imagine robust review as a sliding scale in which a small non-profit that recommends a change to a fact about their history or operations needs just ordinary review, but a major oil company proposing changes about their own environmental record warrants very serious scrutiny, and from a variety of editors with different perspectives. A robust review involves broad disclosure, active involvement from more voices (especially critics), and clear notification on noticeboards that these discussions are ongoing.
12. Disclosure
    • You may Disclose on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. As you have a conflict of interest, you must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status, in all discussions on Wikipedia pages within any namespace.
    • You may propose changes on talk pages by using the '''{{request edit}}''' template, or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed. On an article you edit, you can place '''{{connected contributor}}''' at the top of the affected talk page. You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the '''{{UserboxCOI}}'''

Becoming a Wikipedian: Putting the pieces together

1. Check-in
   • What's your amazed:overwhelmed:disgusted:trusted ratio for Wikipedia now, compared to when you started?
2. Talking norms and technical forms
   • Wikipedia talk pages do not use the Visual Editor. This means they appear in 'markup' language. You don't need to know much of it.
   • If you have a new topic to discuss, create a new section for it. You can do this with the link at the top or by adding a ==Topic name== header that has two equals signs on each side.
   • If you are joining an existing discussion, show who you are replying to by using one more : than the person before you. If they made a first post, begin your reply with one :. If they used :::, then you use ::::'. This idents the posts so that they appear as a coherent discussion.
   • Sign your posts. Sadly, it's not automatically shown who said what. Because of this you need to insider a signature code after your comment. You do this with 4 tildes (~~~~). You can type them out or you can click on the four tildes at the bottom of the editing pane.
   • Add an edit summary. It could say who you are replying to. It could say what your main point is. Say something short and relevant even if as simple as "reply".
   • If you mention someone directly, make sure they'll get notified that you replied to them. Do this by linking their username. So if you're speaking with User Ocaasi, then write [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] and they'll get a notification at the top of their page. This is a courtesy and it keeps discussion moving smoothly. (Note the | names renames the visible link text and is cleaner). Use the link toolbar button for easier functionality.
3. Say hi to each other on Wikipedia
   • Pair up. Go to your pair's real user page. Then click on their talk page link.
   • Leave them a message. Start by editing the page.
   • Create a new section using == on both sides of the topic. Try "Saying hi." (You can use Advanced-> Heading -> Level 2 in the toolbar)
   • Put your message underneath the heading. Say something friendly like, "I'm glad to be working on Wikipedia with you. Let me know if I can help."
   • Sign your post with the 4 tildes so they know it's from you. (You can click on the 4 tildes at the bottom of the talk page editing box to insert it automatically where you cursor is)
   • Publish with an edit summary like "saying hi" or "welcome".
   • Look at your notifications and you'll see that someone mentioned you.
   • Go back to your own talk page and reply to the other person.
   • First, click "edit" to change the page.
   • Then add : below their comment so yours will be indented.
   • Start off by typing their linked username so they'll get a ping notification too and know you replied. You only get notifications when someone edits your own page, so you have to ping them if you want them to see it.
   • Write them a response like "Thanks. I am new here and am sure I can use the support."
   • Sign your comment with 4 tildes.
   • Publish with an edit summary like "Thanks! You too."
4. Explore your watchlist
   • Having added at least 5 articles to your watchlist (the blue star), click on the watchlist link at the top of the page.
   • Let's review the recent edits by looking at the edit summaries and the diffs.
5. Go back to the antisemitism article's talk page. Look at the box that says "This article is a member of multiple wikiprojects."
   • Split up and look at the different Wikiprojects--what do you see there? This is one way editors organize by subject.
   • Join a Wikiproject by signing your name (4 tildes) after a # in the participants section). There's no commitment, just a signal of interest.
   • Wikiprojects are a great way to find resources, discuss issues, and learn about "open tasks" that need attention.
   • Wikiprojects are not fiefdoms or tribes--they're functional not ideological.
6. Look at a Request for comment and see how a structured discussion goes. They tend to be more specific and logical:
   • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pavel_Florensky#Request_for_Comment
   • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_Farrakhan#Allegations_of_racism,_antisemitism_and_sexism_??_(sic)
   • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Request_for_comment_on_number_of_Jewish_deaths_in_The_Holocaust
7. Look at the categories on the Louis Farrakhan page at the bottom
   • See how many boxes a person or subject fits into
   • Note how there's an 'antisemitism' category but not an 'antisemite' category.
8. Look at the antisemitism 'footer' navigation box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Antisemitism_footer
   • See how many articles there are and how they are related and grouped
   • Notice how there isn't a section for "antisemites". Why do you think that is?
   • Add a link to this box onto your "Useful Links" section for article ideas
9. Look at your 'contributions tab' -- not bad. Here are all of your edits. See the value of edit summaries?
10. Where can you get help?
    • For all the tutorials you can dream of, there's the Help portal: Help:Contents
    • Where can you get personal, friendly help? Check out the teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse

Homework

1. Make a bulleted list of sources you want to incorporate in a new "sources" section on your userpage.
2. Read "The Charms of Wikipedia" from the NY Review of Books: [11]