Wikipedia talk:Final exam for wikilawyers

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Wikipedia Help Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Question[edit]

Is it cheating or off-topic to disagree with the premise? Question 1 claims OTRS "advises there is nothing they can do". I suppose it might literally be true that one OTRS agrent made such a statement, but I would start by pointing them to Wikipedia:Deletion review.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun trouble on my part; I meant there is nothing the OTRS volunteers can do. But you can assume that on-wiki steps have been exhausted, e.g. a DRV attempt also failed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answers[edit]

"This essay contains the advice or opinions..."

Or so it claims, right up at the top. But this is not an essay, or at least, not a complete essay. It provides no advice. It states no opinions, except by connotation. It is a sample-quiz, with no capacity to "turn to the back of the book" and see the de facto answers. I suppose one could always utilize Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Final_exam_for_wikilawyers to find the set of people that have provided answers, but this will also find every person who has merely *mentioned* the exam-page, without actually answering the questions. Ahem![1] ;-)

I suggest adding a new See Also section, which includes pointers to pages (perhaps full-blown Essays or more likely just user-talk-subpages) where individuals have given answers. Each page of exam-answers could then be "graded" with support 100%, support 80%, support 60%, and so on... partial credit also permitted... using bangvoting by the community to determine the "letter-grade" of each completed exam-paper. And not-so-incidentally, to begin to ascertain how well the answers match local consensus. Hope this helps. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing in Wikilawyering....[edit]

Object to the test for lacking specificity and using ambiguous language. Each section is numbered singularly but contains multiple questions. How is the test taker to know which question of the multiple questions in "Question 1" is really the singular "Question 1?" Is the second question in the section "Question 1" really "Question 2" and the headings are inaccurate? Points are listed after multiple questions without any reference as to whether they apply to singular question or the section or the mislabeled section. Motion for wikilawyer summary grade of A+ submitted. ;) --DHeyward (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should only see what a real law school exam is like.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

If I answer this test in full or in part will you mark it? I wouldn't want to waste my time! I think I'd do pretty well cause I saw an episode of Perry Mason once.81.98.14.109 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]