User:Thine Antique Pen/Adoption/AFisch99
Hi there AFisch99! Welcome to my adoption program. Your lessons are below.
Five Pillars
|
|---|
The Five Pillars[edit]One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.
Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did. How articles should be written[edit]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. Reliable sources[edit]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 whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent. A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. 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. Questions?[edit]Any questions or would you like to try the test? Five Pillars[edit]This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers. 1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
2) Q - A mainstream newspaper 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?
3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?
8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
|
Wikiquette
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
Wikiquette[edit]WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is 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.
Questions[edit]Any questions?
Test[edit]Have a look at the conversation below:
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In 1) Position A?
2) Position B?
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
|
Copyright[edit]
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.
Glossary[edit]
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
| Term | Explaination |
|---|---|
| Attribution | The identification of work by an author |
| Copyright symbol | © - used to show work is under copyright |
| Creative Commons | Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. |
| Compilation | A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. |
| Derivative work | A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting) |
| Disclaimer | A statement which limits rights or obligations |
| FACT | Federation Against Copyright Theft |
| Fair use | Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. |
| Copyright infringement | Use of work under copyright without permission |
| Intellectual property | Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. |
| License | The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. |
| Non-commercial | Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. |
| Public domain | Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired |
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit]
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.
Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.
So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.
Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.
Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)
In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
- 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 cannot be used on Wikipedia.
- 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
- 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.
Commons[edit]
When people refer to Commons on Wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to Wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.
Copyright and text[edit]
So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there
| 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.
Questions[edit]
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
- Yeah, I think I've got it. It was very well explained! AFisch99 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Test[edit]
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
- A-Well, yes. As long as there is no fee to use it, and there's no copyrighted material that could get us in trouble with the government...it's free.
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
- A-
- If you took it yourself, AND
- It is of nature/stuff no one owns.
- It is of paintings or sculptures more than 150 years old.
- It is of a public figure in a public location.
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
- A-I actually don't think so, since it said in the lesson "you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold." This may or may not apply to the Commons, too; I'm not sure.
Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
- A-I think so. Since it is of album covers, there are no free equivalents.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
- A-Nope. Anyone can take one of those.
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
- A-Yes. Because the general public can't get there, you can.
Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?
- A-Report it for copyright infringement.
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
- A-Yes. Violates copyright.
Q9) 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!)
- Answers are generally correct, but do you wish to expand on some of them? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry I didn't notice this sooner. I haven't been around Wikipedia as much lately. I'll try to be back more and take a look at these answers again soon--I'm not exactly familiar with the content anymore since I finished the test on January 4, I believe. (Oh, and...whoops, I'm so out of practice that I forgot to sign my name the first time! Oh dear, sorry. AFisch99 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC))