User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Avinendra Exam 1

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q2. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Western Michigan University/Wikipedia (2013 Q2)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

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- Because a person's statement cant be reliable source for adding an article on Wikipedia, First I will check that this information can be verified by searching on Internet, reliable news sources and Harvard University official website.

5/5 Completely correct!

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph 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- Depends on usefulness and significance of the published article assuming it meets copyright requirements. If the cartoon is major part of the article and have significant controversy or popularity it can be added to the article.

5/5 Very good, this is exactly what I was looking for, and it applies to both articles.

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?

A- I don't have any clear opinion about it. I think if I state my opinion on my article it would be a biased opinion.

1/5 This doesn't really address the heart of the issue. We have to reliable articles. Our opinion isn't in question, here, it's what the facts are. In this case, the transitive property doesn't apply because correlation does not prove causation (that's worth a Google). So, just because one study links to the other indirectly, we cannot draw a conclusion based off of this, as it would be original reserach that is not based off of a well-designed experiment.

Now I got this. Actually, I dint answered this question clearly. Not having any clear opinion was exactly about not drawing conclusion based on two different reliable articles because correlation does not prove causation. Thanks for explanation.Avinendra (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?

A- Both are different news channels and can be biased based on their research and interests. I will check if any other information from any other reliable source is available somewhere.

3/5 Correct, but, arguably, every reliable source has their own research and interests. What I'm looking for here is the conflict of interest between Fox and MSNBC and the bias of Fox in favor of Sarah Palin. One needs to be conscious of such things and the applicable Wikipedia policies on them.

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

A- Because Twitter is a social media it can't be a reliable source of information. I will consider it as self published information.

5/5 Nailed it. Good job.

6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A- No, It seems more like an opinion on the newspapers stance. If the comment is taken from any other reliable source which can be verified only than I will consider it as reliable source (published books or other article published on the fact regarding "Chicago Tribune")

5/5 Very good. A forum official is not a reliable source.

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)

A- Because its a official site citation can be accepted as reliable reference.

3/5 This is kind of a trick question. WP:SELFSOURCE lists several instances in which the official website can be used as a citation. In your answer to question #5, you said that Twitter can't be used due to it being a self-published source, which was correct. I'd like you to actually read through the policy to see the instances in which you can use a self-published source and when you can't.

My mistake, According to rule "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field if instances allows. Thanks for explaining.Avinendra (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

8.) 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, Wikipedia is not about what is already known, If editor have any sources to prove sky is bronze, I will need reliable source of information to verify it's true.

5/5 Good. It may interest you to read WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:BLUE, and WP:NOTBLUE.

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 2: Wikiquette.

32/40 Good job on this test! Please review the corrections and read the applicable policies, then you're good to move on!