User:WormTT/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.

• 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.

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.

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 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 notable... 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

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

So this is like in the form of lessons, then you test me? About how long does the average person need to finish the course? What happens after the course? An editor since 10.28.2010. 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, yep. Though Ryan might be doing it too. The tests are more to see if you are thinking "the right way", so don't worry too much about getting things right or wrong. When I designed the course, it was meant to be a module each week, but few people do that. It seems a module takes about half a day, including everything, but it all depends if people are on at the same time. The fastest someone has completed the course is about a week and half, otherwise it's about 3-4 weeks.

During the course, we'll also discuss your conduct and you as an editor in general, hopefully you'll learn some stuff. You'll be getting a few special barnstars (only for the select few, my private multiple barnstar :D) and depending on your progess we'll set you free into the wonderful world of wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will definitely look forward to the barnstars, as well as the course. Thank you again for adopting. regard An editor since 10.28.2010. 21:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So do you have any questions on the lesson or are you ready for the test on the lesson now? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready, but it's going to have to wait about 12 hours, due to time zones (I'm in PDT). An editor since 10.28.2010. 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's alright, there's no rush - they aren't timed (except the final test - but we'll come to that later!) Worm^TT · (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly do you time the final test? Just leave a comment when the time runs out? An editor since 10.28.2010. 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It lasts a couple of days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh.  Adjusting estimate... Sorry. I was thinking more like, mmm, maybe, like, umm, like, ahh, an hour? Like more...“essay-like”. Or... “class-like”. But I must not forget that this is the world wide web, and people live in different continents, not just cities. Mmm... An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

I probably got most of them wrong, but here goes:

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?

A - No; my friend is not a reliable source. You need a reliable source for all verifiable information per Wikipedia:Verifiability (shortcut: WP:SOURCE).

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?

A - Yes; a newspaper is a reliable source. No; a reference on Article: Racism is not the apropriate place to put it.

Is the cartoon is racist... you clearly see it is - is that enough?

Ohhhhkay. No; it is not enough, I cannot rely on my personal opinion.

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?

A - (Question: the article (bolded) is, external, or in Wikipedia?)

Sorry, clarification above

Yes; a journal is a reliable source. Yes; it may be included in both articles.

More specifically, the question is asking if you can include the information about the correlation that you found between butternut squash consumption and butternut squash baldness. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a tough one. Hmm... Umm... Ahh... I'm going to go with: No; you cannot include it.

Right, you cannot include it because you have synthesized the information. This is original research and cannot be included. If you could find an expert who analyzed the data and published his findings to state that eating butternut caused baldness, you could include that information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and  CORRECT!

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?

A - Yes; BBC is a reliable source. No; ITV is not a reliable source.

I meant, is the BBC a reliable source regarding ITV, but why do you think that ITV is not reliable? They have a news service

Television is not a reliable source. A print cast such as neswpaper, magazine, etc., is reliable. On ITV is not acceptable, but on ITN is acceptable.

What about a "transcription" of an TV interview? I'm curious to know why one media outlet is reliable and another isn't... Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Transcripts are reliable; television programs are not. An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A - No; a social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, or any other site is not a reliable source.

Unless! (you see, there's always a proviso) - Unless the site is "official" and there is no other official site to look at. Even then I'd be dubious... Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhhkay. An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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?

A - No; forums are usually not reliable. Yes; per WP:NEWSBLOG.

Interesting, a blog is different to a forum - There's no editorial control there, and a forum official may not be employed by the paper, just moderates the forum - is that a reliable source?

Sorry, confusion. No; a forum official is not reliable.

Yep. Though if you could argue there was editorial oversight there, you might have an argument for WP:NEWSBLOG - Would be interesting. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Acknowledged An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?

A - Yes; the site is or appears to be a beer-selling site, which is not approriate for an encylopedia.

This is a question with no definitive answer so both "yes" and "no" are accepted. This page about how beer is made could possibly be used to support information in an article. They are certainly experts on the subject. The argument for no is a strong one as well. Whenever you are unsure about whether or not a source can be use or if there is a dispute on a source, you can bring it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of questions on wikipedia have no definitive answer - it's half the fun :D Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhhkay. Didn't really come to Wikipedia to have “fun” (gee, whatever that is, right?) :) An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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?

A - (Question: Xerox, as in, external source, or, c Can you rephrase the question?)

Would you accept any information from this site - like history information or annual reports as "reliable"?

Please verify the link, as it leads to a “404 Error”. No; annual reports cannot be called “reliable”.

I'd disagree with this. (That doesn't mean you're wrong - the idea of these questions are to be thought provoking!) Although they may be biased, they will contain some factually information, which may not be available anywhere else. Care should definitely be taken though, due to the level of bias and the fact that they are primary sources. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Acknowledged An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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?

A - Hmm... No; it is common sense and most reliable sources about “sky” can tell you that it is blue.

If you want to keep that information in, I could agree with you against the bronze, but what if another editor pipes up and says "but sometimes it's red" and another "it's black at night" and another "it's white where I live"... can you really just leave the fact in without a source?

Ohhhhkay. Something such as: “The sky is usually blue during daytime, however, it is sometimes black, red, or other colors. This is due to various weather conditions” or something. To answer your question: No; a source is needed, such as a photo, or newspaper or magazine reference.

This is a fairly difficult question. You may be interested in the essays Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So...did I get it right? An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends who you ask. Personally, I say it is common knowledge and does not need to be sourced. In discussions I have had with Worm That Turned, he has stated that basically if there is a dispute you should use a source to solidify your argument. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Acknowledged An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Ryan has got it right, the important thing to remember is that the onus is on the person trying to include information to either show a source or consensus that no source is needed. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhhkay. An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Worm That Turned:

Hello, WormTT. You have new messages at User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010#Temper tantrums.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, WormTT. You have new messages at User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010/Notices.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks RyanVesey. An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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 tildas ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
• 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]]

• Don't forget to assume good faith
• 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.
• Watch out for common mistakes.
• Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
• Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

Any questions?

Thanks again for the barnstar (gee, only my second). No, I don't have anything to ask, so I guess we just go right on to this test? Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing!

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?

A - Freddie.

Incorrect, try looking at the example section above and see if you can figure out the right answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was also thinking Rod's Mate.

That answer is correct. You are always replying to the person above you who is one indent in from yours. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

2) Position B?

A - Rod.

Correct Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?

A - No; a low edit count user cannot be reported as a sockpuppet just because of his major knowledge of templates (and/or coding). A sockpuppet is a person that abusively uses, edits, or manipulates from numerous and/or multiple IP addresses and/or accounts.

Any reasoning why? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See above. An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is a classic example of assume good faith. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is there a second part of the lesson test, or is this it? It seems pretty short with only three questions. Or is it in development? Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 22:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it is a very short lesson. I would substitute the next one over for you, but Worm is in the middle of reworking it. You could prepare yourself by doing a little reading at Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, and the first three links that appear on this page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

subst away, I think it's ready. (unless you think it's missing something, in which case fix it!) Worm^TT · (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)