Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Topics to cover

Some suggestion:

Editing your Monobook

Reporting and Dealing with Vandals

Sumary of Wikipedia Polices

What is Fair use and What is not?

Backlogs: Where to help and how to help

BEING BOLD and IAR: When to use and not use them

Bold, Revert Disscuss Cycle

The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion; a part on citations? Also, include stubs with categories? I'll sign up for dispute resolution. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How to construct a good short article that meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view arguably the three most critical core content policies. Jeepday (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the topics stay towards the more advanced end of the spectrum. I suspect that nobody who doesn't know how to edit an article is subscribing to the Signpost. Your target audience has probably figured that out already. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you are right, if you read the ongoing discussions on Citing Sources. Also, there are still some long time editors who do not "get it", claiming the olden days were more fun and resist citing if a tag is placed on an article they edit. I agree that the core policies need much more support than they are getting from Admin. Mattisse 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard format?

Since the tutorials will have high visibility and are setting an example of how to develop Wikipedia, shouldn't they have standard lead sections? The Transhumanist 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this project?

Somebody please describe this project in more detail. Where will it be displayed, how will the installments be announced, etc.

The Transhumanist 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This tutorial will be released one at a time in the signpost. Becasue of the way the signpost works, lead sections can not be used. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to do whatever you want, as long as it's written well. Ral315 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Permanent homes (where tutorials can be edited/updated/improved)

Each tutorial should be on a separate page in addition to the Signpost posting, since things will change and so should the tutorial, over time.

I suggest the first tutorial be copied to Wikipedia:Fundamentals of editing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that idea. But if all of them could be linked together as a tutorial series, I would be estatic. The Placebo Effect (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What about rather then having two copies that need to be kept updated they could continue to live on the naming series now being used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-14/Tutorial, Editing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-21/Tutorial, etc then linked to from a main source like Wikipedia:Signpost tutorial series with User:Enochlau/Signpost tutorial series remaining as the project control area. Jeepday (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost articles aren't "kept updated"; they are considered a snapshot, except for technical fixes (e.g., double redirects). We should put a note at the top of the article saying where the updateable version is, and that the article should be left as is, for historical purposes. Updating a tutorial should be done on a different page.

I don't have a problem with a page called Wikipedia:Signpost tutorial series as a sort of list, but it's a disservice to editors to imply that these tutorials are different than other tutorials (yes, there are others - just search the Editor's index for tutorial), or to try to get readers to start at such a page. (On the other hand, something like Wikipedia:Tutorials would be nice.) Similarly, I don't think that a navigational template solely for tutorials that happen to be in the Signpost is a good idea. A template for all tutorials - definitely. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should definitely be a separate "updatable" version, and a hat note or something similar about this being the archive or "snapshot" version. But should that version be under the official sounding project namespace, especially given the presence of other tutorials? A tutorials page with all (well known?) tutorials might work, as soon as someone defines "well known," (or even just "known") because a large number of experienced wikipedians have subpages with tutorials, and a super-long list is not the most newbie friendly thing you can make... This being in the signpost in theory should make it a shoo in for this, but without a definition, what do we do about Special:Mypage/tutorial and similar pages? A large number of editors have such pages, as I said before... sorry about the repetition, normally my brain would have filtered it out :). Also, I may be jumping to conclusion about how many "a large number" is... --Thin boy 00 @912, i.e. 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in any tutorial pages not on this list; these are the ones in userspace that I know of. In addition, there are roughly a half-dozen projectspace pages with the word "tutorial" in their title, not counting pages related to Wikipedia:Tutorial. So, not so many that I know of, but I welcome additions to this list:

User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Images
User talk:Dark jedi requiem/DYK tutorial
Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial
User:UberScienceNerd/Tutorials/Using subpages (and no, there are no other tutorials listed on the parent page)
User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Tables

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that we should have a subpage of the Signpost project page that allows for easy browsing of these topics. I agree that the Signpost provides a "snapshot" of Wikipedia as it exists when we write the articles, so I'm loathe to continue editing them (except for minor changes) after publication. To maintain some parallel with real-world newspapers, an idea is that we could have an "errata" section at the bottom of each tutorial if the contents of that tutorial has now been rendered incorrect due to more recent changes. Otherwise, I'd say leave the text alone. enochlau (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Move works in progress

I am suggesting we move all the works in progress to a wiki project space named Wikipedia:Signpost tutorial series this would put "Writing an article from scratch" at Wikipedia:Signpost tutorial series/Writing an article from scratch,etc and encourage multiple editors to wikify the works as they get prepared for publication. I made multiple changes to "Citations" Diff I fear that User:Jonathan will not recognize the work when he sees the page, and there is still room left to expand and improve the article. As mentioned at Wikipedia:About wiki is a type of collaborative website having these pending articles as sub user page tends to discourage multiple users from editing and may make an single editor feel overly responsible for an article. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I support moving the project coordination and development out of my user subpage - this is a temporary home. But I'd move it to something like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial to emphasise the link to its parent publication. enochlau (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It think Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial is very workable, maybe check with User:Ral315 and if they agree, make the move. Every comment here has been supportive of a move. Jeepday (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a few tutorials

Wikipedia:Tutorial Drive#Completed tutorials, off shoot of Esperaza, who knew that would be good for something? Maybe we should revitalize it and move this there? The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That page, and most if not all of the tutorials are listed in the Editor's index. I'm going to update the index to include the word "tutorial" in entries where that's lacking, so editors can find every tutorial if they are so inclined, as well as make sure that every completed tutorial is in fact in the index.

Rather than running two parallel efforts ("tutorial drive", and Signpost tutorials), I think we should concentrate on Signpost tutorials, at least for the moment. To that end, the discussion above about moving the series out of userspace is relevant; if nothing happens in a week or so, I'm probably going to be bold and just do it, if no one else gets there first. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. I think let's have a pool of topics from which someone (me?) can pick once a week, instead of having a fixed schedule. I think having a backlog of tutorials waiting to be published would help when people get busy and can't commit all of a sudden. enochlau (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial on evaluating reliability of websources

I hope this is the suggestion box :-) I've been concerned lately at the number of editors at WP:FAC (including editors who have multiple FAs) who, when pressed to justify reliability of websources they're using, have admitted that they don't know what makes a source reliable. Ack. We need a tutorial on how to evaluate websources per WP:V. When pressed about whether a source is reliable and justification about the authorship, factchecking, editorial oversight, etc., I've gotten responses like:

Well, yes, it's a blog, but it lists it sources, so it must be reliable.

Well, yes, it's a bulletin board, but I know that author is reliable.

Well, the website mentions it has a staff, so it must be reliable.

I don't know how to explain what makes it reliable, I just know it's good.

It is a highly regarded website in the <comics, video games, music, etc.> industry. No reason why.

and so on ...

If anyone is interested, I'd like to review pre-publication. It's alarming that at the level of our "best" quality (FA) articles, we have frequent nominators who have no idea that their articles are based on non-reliable sources, and they're getting through GAC and PR with no scrutiny. I wish I had a tutorial link to post on those noms, rather than having to explain repeatedly. Not sure why they don't understand WP:V :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add that to the main project page in one of the tables. I think you raise an excellent issue, but I suspect that it might have to do with a more fundamental problem, not just on Wikipedia. I suspect that these people who don't know what a good reference is on Wikipedia don't know what a good reference would be for their term paper either... enochlau (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright compliance tutorial

As Jeepday and I just finished clearing a shameful, frustrating two-month backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, I've become oh-so-knowledgeable about this issue, and we have serious problems with editors reporting non-violations, reporting violations incorrectly, getting into edit wars over copyrights, and more. Jimbo changed WP:CSD#G12 in 2007 to include all blatant copyright violations without assertion of permission, but I don't think it's received the wide attention it deserves because a small majority of WP:CP reports are for articles that should have been tagged for G12 instead. Some people blank the page, some don't. Some use the big black-and-white template when only a paragraph of plagiarized text was inserted into an article last week; some try to deal with the problem but do it incorrectly, making the admin's job more difficult. It's been a real headache and it shouldn't have been difficult at all.

So, I'd like to do a tutorial on how to recognize and/or report copyright problems, or maybe an article on each topic. I'd rope Jeepday into this too, but he's busy IRL and probably won't be able to help for a few weeks. Both would be on the beginner level (I hope!). If I should add this myself to the not done/claimed table, please let me know. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 04:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)