User:Bellerophon/Adoption/Rinkle gorge
Rinkle gorge (talk · contribs)
[edit]First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed: Grade A*
|
|---|
First Assignment: The Five Pillars[edit]Are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. They are summarized in the form of five "pillars":
Discussion[edit]Hi Rinkle gorge, this is your adoption page! This is where I will post your assignments as you progress. This section (the discussion section) is an area where you can ask me questions if you need help. I have waived the requirement for you to complete the 'Basics of Wikipedia' assignment because you seem to know your way around well enough. Your first assignment is above. Please read through this information to gain an understanding of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. You will notice that some words or terms appear as blue links. If you click on the blue links, they will take you to pages that further explain these words or terms. Many of these links point to important Wikipedia policies. Once you have had enough time to read through the information above, post a message here to let me know you have finished and are ready to move on. I will then post a series of questions for you to answer, on The Five Pillars. These will be posted below this section. Good Luck! Pol430 talk to me 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. The first 'pillar' talks about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Take at look at the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surinder Vasal. This is a pending submission, please do not edit it. Just read through it and tell me if you think what has been written is suitable for Wikipedia and why? (ignore any other issues like references and notability—just focus on the style of writing)
2. Considering the second 'pillar' is about neutrality. Give some examples of 'Peacock' terms or words.
3. Imagine you come across an article that is sourced only to internet blogs. Are blogs reliable sources and why?
4. Explain what the notion of 'verifiability' applies to?
5. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. It is a copy and paste from a facebook page. Is that allowed on Wikipedia?
6. If two editors have a disagreement over an article, how should they try and resolve it (in the first instance)?
7. Considering the fourth pillar is about how you behave to other editors, what's the 'rule-of-thumb' of the 'no personal attacks' policy?
Curveball question for extra points: Imagine you are patrolling recent changes. You come across a user talk page where the user connected with that page has posted a message saying: "I've had enough... I'm just going to do it. I'm going to kill myself tonight." What should be done in this situation?
Summary[edit]Well done Rinkle gorge! You have demonstrated an excellent understanding of the Five Pillars and you have successfully answered the curveball question! I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade A*. Keep up the good work! The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Second Assignment: Notability Guidelines - Completed: Grade A
|
|---|
Second Assignment: Notability guidelines[edit]Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines that cover everything from the standards that articles should adhere to, to how editors should behave. When it comes to editing articles, there are a handful of policies that are particularly relevant. General notability[edit]When it comes to editing existing articles, most of the relevant policies are covered in The Five Pillars, which you have already learnt about. When it comes to creating a new article, there are additional and very important policies that must be considered—in addition to The Five Pillars. These are the notability guidelines. For an article to stand in its own right, as an independent article, the subject of that article must be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Generally, notability is established by evidencing that the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. See the breakdown below for further explanation.
Subject specific notability guidelines[edit]
Discussion[edit]Hi Rinkle gorge, as you can see, you next assignment is posted above. Take some time to read through it and I will add some questions within the next 24hrs. There is new discussion section for each assignment. Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 10:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Are any and all reliable sources (broadly construed) suitable for conferring notability, or are there additional requirements?
2. If a company is notable enough for Wikipedia, is the person who owns the company also notable enough for Wikipedia? Explain your answer.
3. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer, you find an article submission about an NGO that helps to feed starving children in Africa. The person who created it leaves a note on the submission saying that it should be accepted into Wikipedia because it is for a good cause. You examine the submission and find that it is quite well written, and it has plenty of references to the company's website. Based on this information alone, What do you do?
4. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer again, you find an article submission about a journalist. It has 20 references that all point to columns in The Huffington Post that discuss him in detail. On closer inspection you see that the subject of the article was the author of those columns (I.e. he wrote them). Is he considered notable?
5. What are primary sources?
6. What are secondary sources?
7. What are tertiary sources?
8. Of the three types of sources you have just described, which types are suitable for conferring 'notability' on a subject?
Summary[edit]I don't need to review each of these answers, they are all spot on! Accordingly, I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 21:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Third Assignment: Copyright - Completed: Grade A*
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.Third Assignment: Copyright[edit]This is a very important assignment; because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly to policy can result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia! Glossary[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] 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 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
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) 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 is preferable to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by other projects. Copyright and text[edit]So we've discussed copyright and how it applies to images. Now, let's talk 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 below the edit window.
Now, let's think about the non-free content criteria apply to text. "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for direct overt quotes) 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 have not. Discussion[edit]Hi Rinkle gorge, This assignment is all about copyright. It's a heavy subject so take your time. Your questions are ready when you are! Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.
Summary[edit]Well done! You have demonstrated a very good understanding of copyright policy, I grade this assignment as Grade A*. Pol430 talk to me 17:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Fourth Assignment: Deletion - Completed: Grade A
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fourth Assignment: Deletion Policies and Process[edit]Deletion of an article, or any other type of Wikipedia page, occurs when the page would require a fundamental re-write to conform with Wikipedia's accepted standards for content of the encyclopedia. There are many reasons why a page would be deleted. Only administrators can delete pages, but any editor can 'tag' a page for deletion.
Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD)[edit]The fastest way a page can be deleted is through speedy deletion. If a page meets at least one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, it must be tagged for speedy deletion, the creator of the page should be notified, and the page be deleted as quickly as possible. Here is a list of all general criteria and important article criteria. For a complete list please view WP:CSD. General criteria[edit]Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.)
Articles[edit]I have only listed the most important article criteria here. These criteria apply only to articles. This means Articles for Creation submissions do not count.
Proposed deletion (PROD)[edit]If a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but you feel that it can be deleted without any controversy, you can propose it for deletion via WP:PROD. To propose an article for deletion, tag the article with {{subst:prod|reason}} and then notify the page creator. There is only one disadvantage to proposed deletion. Anyone, even the page creator, can prevent the proposed deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted if that happens, open an Articles for Deletion debate, which I'll explain about below. If the tag is not removed after seven days, the proposed deletion will expire and so the page will be deleted by an administrator. PROD of unsourced BLP's[edit]A biography of a living person that does not feature any references needs to be proposed for deletion. Do this by tagging the article with {{subst:blpprod}}. Unlike regular PROD the tag can only be removed after there is at least one reference to a reliable source. The page is deleted if the tag is not removed after ten days, or if there are still no references. Deletion discussions (XfD)[edit]
Deletion discussions (XfD, stands for 'Anything for Deletion') allows Wikipedians to discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. The result of the discussion depends on consensus. Only policy based arguments are considered when the discussion is closed — Deletion discussions are not a vote. Deletion discussions last for seven days, although the duration can be extended if the consensus is not clear after a week; likewise, they can be closed early if a consensus would be clear. The template on the right shows all types of XfD's; the most common is AfD (Articles for Deletion). Cool tools[edit]Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it! Discussion[edit]Hi Rinkle gorge! This assignment is on deletion; this one has questions and a 'sort of' practical test at the end. P.S. I have responded to your comments in the discussion section on the copyright assignment ;) Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable.
Practical test[edit]Please take a look at User:Pol430/Sandbox5. This page contains seven examples of new pages that may be suitable for Speedy Deletion. Please read through it and explain below which CSD criteria would apply to each example—if any!
Summary[edit]Good work Rinkle gorge! You have demonstrated a good understanding of deletion processes. I've left a couple of notes above on some of your answers -- unfortunately you didn't quite get the curveball question so I have marked your progress in this assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 09:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution - Completed: Grade A
|
|---|
This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution[edit]No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, and no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely 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 Rerverts 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 editor's 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, and 2): It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, 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). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes. 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 its 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 where 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. Discussion[edit]Here is assignment five, just three questions for this assignment. However, question number 3 will be added to with 'follow-up' questions once you have answered it. There will be several follow-up questions for question 3... :) Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Imagine you have just reviewed a submission at Articles for Creation. You have decline the submission because it is about a non-notable person. A short while later, the author of the submission leaves a message at your user talk page saying: "why don't you just fuck off!" they have also undone your review of the submission which has resulted in the submission being placed back in 'pending review' status. What do you do?
2. Imagine you add some well referenced info to an article about a living celebrity. The info details some negative media attention the celebrity received last year. The info you have added is attributed to multiple, reliable sources and is written from a neutral point of view; it is relevant to the article and is proportionate; it fully complies with WP:BLP. Not long after this, you get a message on your user talk page. It is from a newly registered editor who claims to be the legal representative of the celebrity in the article. They threaten to sue you for liable because they believe you have added negative information to their clients Wikipedia page. They state that they are going have your account traced and start legal proceedings against you. How do you react?
3. You have made five edits to an article, making minor improvements. Another editor comes along and undos all your edits without leaving an edit summary to explain why. They do not leave a message at your talk page, or on the article talk page either. How do you react?
Summary[edit]Excellent! you will have no problem dealing with challenging situations on Wikipedia if you follow what you have said above. I'm particularly pleased to see you are happy to consider weather you should just let it go... as this is one of the best ways to minimize Wikidrama. Equally, remember that you are not a doormat -- but you strike me as the kind of person who is very capable of articulating their views when required. :) Grade A Pol430 talk to me 09:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Graduation statement
[edit]
Done- You have completed all the required elements of this course and your editing has been under assessment throughout. I am very pleased to say that you have graduated Summa cum laude. It has been a pleasure to mentor you Rinkle Gorge, you have worked extremely hard and consistently achieved high standards. I wish you many years happy editing on Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
