User:Demiurge1000/Mentor/A Wiggin13

lesson 1 done

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

User:Jimbo Wales

The Five Pillars

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.

How articles should be written

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

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?

Any questions or would you like to try the test?

Five Pillars

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?

A - No becuase your friend is not a reputiable source of information.

Just so. If a newspaper said so, or even if the Ford website said so (not an independent source!), then we could believe it. A friend, no. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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 - Possibly... I honestly am not sure on this one...

This is worth thinking about, and you should also look at the article racism to see what has been used there. How did Wikipedia decide what images were appropriate there? Can we then say the newspapers were racist? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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- I do not have enough information to make a judgement! Where did the article come from? The USA gov? The New York Times? Or some hillbillies website that lives in ohio?

The issue here is WP:SYNTH ... just because you see one thing is true between multiple sources, does not mean you can draw conclusions. Read the text in that article, which has much better examples. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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?

A - I would not on ether area. BBC vs the troubles BBC would be biased towards the British side of the story. The same problem with ITV... It's a rival of BBC so they would be a biased source of information.

An interesting point of comparison is that the British government banned the BBC from broadcasting video of Irish Republican "terrorists" speaking about their views. The BBC told the British government that it would do so anyway. The British government told the BBC that it would be illegal. So the BBC broadcasted the video anyway, over several years, just with an actor with an Irish accent speaking the words instead of the "terrorist" himself. The British government was very angry about this. So was the BBC biased?

It's certainly fair to point out that the BBC might have some bias about their competitors. Often they try not to have! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me on this point but the only version of BBC I have ever seen is the american BBC and they tend to be biased towards Britain on most political matters so I assumed... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A- No. social media is NEVER a reliable source of information.

So is their official website more reliable than their official Facebook page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's safe to assume yes it is... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2013 (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- It depends on who the "Forum Official is, but no, most of the time information gathered on forums are not a reliable source of information.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?

A - Yes. Nether provides detailed musical descriptions. In addition, iTunes is a Biased source of information anyhow.

I would agree with you there; I can sell an iTunes version of me humming, tomorrow. And sales of it won't mean much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2013 (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 - Yes. Manufacture websites TEND to be biased.

Would you trust it more than something you read on a forum? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would. But there are sources I would trust even more. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2013 (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 - Yes I need a source or sources proving the sky is blue.

OK :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

lesson 2 done

Wikiquette

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 tildes ~~~~. 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]]

How's the soup? --John

It's great!! --Jane

I made it myself! --John

Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane

I tend to disagree. --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.

Questions

Any questions?

Test

Have a look at the conversation below:

What's the best car in the world? -- Rod

Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie

Like what -- Rod's Mate

I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A

What do you want it for? -- Jane

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

1) Position A?

A- Rod's Mate

2) Position B?

A- Rod

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. Assume Good Faith

Copyright

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

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

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
Non-free images

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

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

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

This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.

Test

Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?

A-

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?

A-

Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?

A-

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-

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?

A-

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?

A-

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-

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?

A-

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!)

A-