User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Tattoodwaitress Exam 1

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- I could add this to either page as long as I do some research of my own first and find verifiable information from reliable sources. My friend in and of it self is not a reliable source. Furthermore, when working on biographies/biographies of living persons I must always be sure that the information is absolutely true and verifiable before adding to any article on Wikipedia. NPOV, V, and NOR to be used. Being a notable person adds to Mitt's importance. One would also have to be sure that there is a position of "chancellor" at Harvard rather than a president etc.

• 5/5 - Honestly, I think that's the best answer that I've ever read to that question. The basic answer is correct - your friend is not a reliable source. You must find reliable sources (and cite in the article, if you do find them). Great policy references and excellent point that you must make sure that "President" is the appropriate title. I have a feeling you'll be quite thorough in your edits, which is of vital importance. Since Romney is is notable person, he is subject to the extra protections of Biographies of Living People.

Thank you for the compliment.

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-If the cartoon is CLEARLY and absolutely racist then I would have to say yes it could be added to either article as long as the cartoon itself was going to add something to the articles. We don't just fill articles with images for no reason. The fact that I perceive the cartoon to be racist does not mean that it is. Once there is an article published on Wikipedia about a particular person or company they are not solely used for the purpose of promoting good/fine/commendable aspects. Sometimes there is information added to articles that the business/person may not wish to be there but as long as it is true, verifiable, not original research it could be added. The articles are used for factual information to enlighten people.

• 3/5 - I think that the main missing item here is that the only reason to include racism in an article on The Daily Telegraph would be if that was a major component of the newspaper or a major controversy; a single isolated incident isn't necessarily noteworthy. Your answer certainly applies to the racism article, however; if it contributes to the article, then, yes, you can add it (assuming it meets copyright requirements, which we'll address later), and you really do answer the gist of the question by saying that it needs to add "something" - that "something" must also be notable/relevant, though.

Oh ok I get it now. Thank you. Yes notable/relevant was the words I was looking for =)

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- Hmmmmm, I am not sure about this one. My first thought would be to say no. That would be adding my own opinion about my combined knowledge of the two reliable sources.

• 5/5 - Fair enough, I'm glad you said that you aren't sure if you aren't. Your first thought would be correct; the transitive property does not apply to a situation like this, since "correlation does not imply causation." This would be a sort of original research, so your mention of it being an opinion is right, also. Even though you weren't sure, you were right.

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

A- I would have to say that fox news and msnbc are competitors so that it would be possible for fox news about msnbc might be a biased source of information regarding msnbc. I would cross check information. I would cross check information that I find about any topic anyway but especially when there is a possibility of bias. I have also heard that fox news isnt always accurate and that they bloat the information or even lie.

• 4/5 - You got the essence of the answer correct. There is a conflict of interest between them (note that I'm linking to the mainspace article, not the Wikipedia COI, since that covers more of COIs with editors), and they have radically different viewer bases. Also, since Fox is generally viewed to be a supporter of Republican values, they'd be a biased source on Sarah Palin (arguably, but we don't like to argue on Wikipedia). If, by cross-checking, you mean checking other articles - yup! I also would simply use those other articles, if reliable, as the citations if the information does pan out.

Ooooh conflict of interest better choice of words than bias. Yes I understand now. And yes cross checking I mean looking to see if there are other articles or reliable sources out there that state the same info in question.

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

A- I would consider it first hand (original research) information about Ben and Jerrys so no not a reliable source... its more of a blog post social media and not a good source of information.

• 3.5/5 - This isn't original research. It's from the official Twitter page. Rather, it's an example of self-published research (see WP:SELFSOURCE), so your answer is correct, but the rationale is not (except that social media is not a good source of information, which is correct).

Ok good to know re: self published information, I was a little sketchy on the original research vs self published.

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 would not be a reliable source if it is his opinion on the newspapers stance. Who is the "official"??? .... is he a writer? Has he published books or other articles based on facts regarding the Chicago Tribune? Is he commenting FOR the Chicago Tribune. I would need more information to make a decision on this question.

• 5/5 - The fact that you ask all of these questions is the answer I'm looking for. A forum official is not a Chicago Tribune official. He is voicing his own opinion, in this case.

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:SELF SOURCE)

A- Not as long as it adhered to these "rules".. "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;the article is not based primarily on such sources." quoted directly from the wp self source.

• 5/5 Not much to add, here. Directly referring to official policies is almost always a safe bet (unless a pillar disagrees).

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 you would need a source for information that is contrary to what everyone already knows to be true. Its not what you know its what you can prove. Its not about your personal opinion its about the facts being stated in a neutral manner.

• 5/5 - It was sort of a trick question - see WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. As long as your logic is backed up with policy - such as WP:CITEKILL - you're in the right unless the context of the article necessitates otherwise (I like to use Pink lake as an example of this - water is blue in lakes, except when it isn't!).

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

Thank you for all your comments on my answers that really helps me to understand more. I appreciate your dedication to this. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

34.5/40 Y - Great work! You can proceed to the next exam! Please feel free to ask any follow-up questions on my answers, and congratulations! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)