User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Ghorpaapi
Hello Ghorpaapi, and welcome to your adoption center. Jackson Peebles is going to adopt you guiding you through the course. Using the American university model, consider them "teaching assistants" and consider me the "professor"...in other words, I will be around and will peek in to make sure it's going all right, but most of your interaction will be with Jackson and JHUbal. Their roles are as follows:
- Jackson: Grading tests
JHUbal27: Administrative tasks (e.g., posting lessons and tests, archiving, assisting Jackson in grading tests if needed)- Go Phightins!: Helping out if needed and explaining concepts that are of difficulty, serving as a resource via email if anything is going wrong (for Ghorpaapi, Jackson, or JHUbal)
Once Jackson and JHUbal27 have found this page, please sign below, and then notify Ghorpaapi. Thank you all for your interest, and hopefully this will work as fruitfully as it has in the past. Respectfully yours, Go Phightins! 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Signatures here:
- Ghorpaapi-Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Jackson Peebles- Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- JHUbal27- ~~JHUbal27 00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
| Lesson | Status | Grade | Pass? |
|---|---|---|---|
| One |  Done |
85% | Yes |
| Two | Done |
90% | Yes |
| Three | Done |
93% | Yes |
| Four | Done |
98% | Yes |
| Five | Done |
87.5% | Yes |
| Six | Done |
97% | Yes |
| Seven | Done |
N/A | Yes |
| Eight | Done |
96% | Yes |
| Nine |  Doing... |
||
| Final |  Not done |
Lesson one
|
|---|
Lesson one[edit]One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737. A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. 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? If not, I will post the test. ~~JHUbal27 00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Question:-
Ghorpaapi (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Go Phightins! 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Test[edit]Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go: 1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why? A- No. The reasons I would not add it before conforming it myself :
A- Tough one ! I will not include it on the newspapers article as an example immediately but search for other reliable sources instead which mention The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which was considered to be offensive and racist. Why I will choose the above process---> in order to maintain neutrality ; let us take an example, say, I am a mexican guy and The Daily Telegraph publishes the cartoon of some mexican gangs involved in drugs in Los Angeles slums or, lets consider another example, I am an American wife and my husband is mexican. Neutrality will meet the dead end sign immediately in those two scenarios. On the racism article I will mention it because there it will be an another example addition on the article space. Furthermore, for a topic like racism the more number of opinions and examples we have the better the people will try to understand it.
A- NOOOOOOOO ! Its just another example of SET THEORY which I learned in mathematics when I was in High School, I recall. I will not include any such information. My Logical Algorithm doesn't approve of it. A similar situation will be (a) if the most of the people in Japan eat rice with chopsticks and most of the people in India eat rice with hands. (b) if most of the people in Japan are expert in Karate and most of the people in India are expert in Yoga. It doesnt leads to a conclusion that most of the people who can eat rice with chopsticks are expert in karate and most of the people who eat rice with hands are expert in Yoga. 4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin? A- No ! I will not . As FOX News has been in news considering biased opinions ( as every second news channel) and when it comes to MSNBC my answer is NO. Information on Sarah Palin when mentioned by FOX NEWS could be included in the article but not as a reliable source as for Entertainment and TRPs news channels have some special programs to expose or mention something spicy about the celebrities which makes it against neutrality. Personally I will consider this situation against assuming good faith. Sarah Palin on the other hand is a living person where the biographies of the living persons comes into play, and henceforth the answer will be a big NO.
A-NO! As its a self published source and no one else with a neutral point of view has a control over it I won't consider the official Twitter page a reliable source. They will be boasting and using flashy and advertising language like expected. However there are exceptions, in case Ben and Jerry are going to launch a new product, or they mention collaboration with some other firms or have a new brand ambassador(a celebrity on contract for advertisements),also if the information published is in good faith and seems to be neutral and unbiased.
A- A partial YES ! A forum is always the treasure of public opinions which conclude a majority and which make opinions into facts. When 20 people in the forum out of 24 are speaking about developing countries in the forum it will conclude to a fact that they are talking about third world countries perhaps. But an individual opinion from one of those forums wont have the right to be included on wiki, if only the author is an expert and has already done significant work in the specific field.
A- Thank you for the Hint ! Answering this question is really like walking on a naked sword. In the beginning I will not; as I know it will be immediately considered for COPYVIO infringement. Regarding my present day knowledge about wiki policies, I will start/post a discussion on the talk page of the burger king article as I am not sure about it. I will not object; provided its neutral and factual.
A- No ! I have sufficient sources to prove it that its blue. That one editor might be on mushrooms or drugs or Meth. If he thinks it is bronze it is opinion but it doesn't change the fact. Done.
|
Lesson two
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
Lesson two[edit]You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below: 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.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. Go Phightins! and Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC) :Hello and greetings to Jackson, GoP and JHUbal27 ! Thank for the corrections and the feedback in the first test. It went worse than I thought because the questions were quite simple and in three months I came to know the basics quite well . But I am satisfied with the results.
Test[edit]Thank you for the answers Jackson, gradually I am exploring how deep and vast wiki policies are getting. A lot to remember. I believe,I am ready for the test. Ghorpaapi (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Without further adieu, here is the test: 1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
Be Civil, Be Calm, Be Honest, Be Mentoring, Be Good, Do Good and Make Others Good by showing wiki-motives and humbleness.
2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
3.) Have a look at the conversation below:
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In 3a.) Position A?
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) |
Lesson three
|
|---|
Lesson three[edit]What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect. To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds). What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant- replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases. The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.) IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: Ghorpaapi (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC) How to Revert[edit]Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE Vandalism and warnings[edit]You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short,assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read. Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first. When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway. The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is amagic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist. Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found atWP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Test[edit]The first item you posted was vandalism, the second, probably not, and the third, probably not as well...the second was likely made in good faith, the third, well, any user is allowed to archive their talk page. Granted, this user had some problems in his history, apparently, but I am not sure I would have rushed to call that vandalism. I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did 1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it?
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
--Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Lesson four
|
|---|
Lesson four[edit]After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle. Talkback[edit]Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use. RPP[edit]You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit. AIV[edit]You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern? Tags[edit]The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know). Rollback[edit]The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do. Welcome[edit]The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template. Questions[edit]Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case). No Questions ! Ready for the test ! :) Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Test[edit]This test should be relatively easy. 1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user.
4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
|
Lesson five
|
|---|
Lesson five[edit]Dispute resolution[edit]No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.  I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking. Simple Resolution[edit]No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask. Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise. Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss -one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor reverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia dispute resolution process[edit]If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution Assistance[edit]If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation. Third opinion[edit]You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP Mediation[edit]If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates. Request for Comment[edit]You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified. Arbitration[edit]I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there. Reports[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse. Any questions?[edit]Questions about any of the above? Test[edit]This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless 1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
Overall, good answers! I don't think any follow-up is necessary if you read my comments. Posting lesson six now. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
Lesson six
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lesson six[edit]Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and thedeletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below. Deletion Policies[edit]While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things thatWikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion. Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide byconsensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures. Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort. Questions[edit]Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? --Go Phightins!
Test[edit]I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
1.) Scenario I
2.) Scenario II
3.) Scenario III
4.) Scenario IV
Have been really busy at work in the last few days and also had to prepare for a couple of conferences. I think a message or an update for the next inactivity with you or GoP would be a good idea. JHUbal27 is not active on wiki as well and is this the reason why his name is being striked out because of no activtiy in the program ? Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Lesson seven
|
|---|
Personal Break[edit]You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian. 1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
It feels good to let people know about something personal. Of course, now this page will be stalked by a lot of people who have been bothered by me or I have been bothering in the last few months. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
|
![[19]](http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/38891800.jpg){kind=link}
Lesson eight
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copyright[edit]Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] 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 theWP: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 afree 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
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.
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
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.
Test[edit]Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go. 1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [20] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
9.) Q- 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!)
I was really avoiding this lesson since a long period of time to be honest but it had to be done. This morning I decided that running away is not helping and my touch to wikipedia is missing (although my girl is really happy about it as she had more time with me ;)): I am sure there are follow up questions coming . I am prepared. Greetings Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
|
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.
Consensus
[edit]Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this isWP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.
Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.
There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people andcopyright violations.
Community
[edit]The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.
Policy and guidelines
[edit]Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.
Ignore all rules
[edit]What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.
Questions
[edit]Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
- No! At the moment it seems to be an interesting topic ! Might be that I will choose it for my later activities. Please post the test :) Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wonderful! Here you go! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Test
[edit]On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.
1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
- A-
- Policy includes the standards what the editors and contributors should normally follow.
- Guidelines on the other hand are the set of best practices and are supported by consensus. There is no obligation to follow them but editors should try to follow them.
- Essays are the advices from one editor or a group of editors for example when I ask you or GoP a question and you advice me in your own words about a particular topic from a page which is created specifically for adoption program will be considered as an essay. But the links like [WP:POLICIES] will be a link to policy where the proper guidelines will be mentioned.
2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
- A-
3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
- A-
4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
- A-
5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
- A-