User:That Coptic Guy/sandbox2
Coptic Guy
[edit]Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.
Instructions: That Coptic Guy, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. You cannot possibly over-ping me.
Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.
Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.
It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme! All set with part 1. I took the time to review the page curation video as well as the charts beforehand, prior to answering part 1.
- Looking forward to your reply :) — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)
[edit]- Notability, as defined on Wikipedia, discerns whether a subject (human, event, animal, or otherwise) or, generally, a given topic is worthy of having an article written about it. It is misunderstood as solely relating to widespread fame or popularity--those characteristics alone do not define a topic from becoming worthy of being noted, although they are important to consider. Essentially, with notability, we as reviewers are asking if the topic is suitable enough for its own article to be created. "Notable" need not be restricted to widespread coverage only, but should include verifiable and legitimate impact on culture, history, literature, science, and so forth.
- WP:GNG offers a general scaffolding for which we are able to say something is "notable", or worthy of article creation.
- At the outset, the topic at hand is presumed to be notable if it has received significant-enough coverage from resources that are NOT associated with the subject (i.e., primary sources, sources with ties to the subject, autobiographies These guidelines put forth the presumption that a topic is suitable for article creation, but is not a standalone guarantee that this is indeed the case.
- Coverage of the topic needs to be in such a way where content or understanding behind that topic isn't assumed or trivially mentioned. This is to say that there should be reliable sources that could substantiate details about the subject at hand, staying away from passer-by mentions, so to speak. The example provided of Bill Clinton's high school band is one such instance, where the band itself is really only mentioned in passing, with not much else.
- Sources need to be reliable. Per WP:RS, such sources should generally be published and available to the public (as opposed to relying on anecdotes or hearsay for example).
- Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources, particularly those that are independent of the subject. Such sources are ones without a direct tie to the subject or context at hand. Secondary sources discuss information that is presented separately from the secondary source itself.
Nice. Just want to add a bit about "trivial mention". We do not want to conflate "trivial" with brief, or a few sentences, or short paragraph. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS If the mention is something noteworthy in passing, that is not "trivial". If it is mentioned as a source, or to cite a quote, that is not trivial. If the introduction in a study or research paper includes or names the subject as part of the study, and doesn't consistently name it throughout even though the study is focused on it, that is not trivial. If there are enough of those types of mentions, they can be stacked to count toward N. That is where common sense kicks in and critical thinking tells us if they are mentioned or cited in that manner, there is bound to be a RS or two about it somewhere. We then check WP:TWL Atsme 💬 📧
- SNGs are subject-specific notability guidelines that editors and reviewers must follow when dealing with a particular topic for which a guideline is written. SNGs provide guidance on when topics can or cannot have an article written about them, or regarding sources or coverage that is deemed appropriate for determining notability. SNGs exist for a wide variety of subjects and can differ from the GNG and offer specifications, such as the one that exists for geographic features or academics and professors.
- Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest
- The central issue at hand in this SNG is whether or not it would be appropriate to dedicate a Wikipedia article for a certain organization, product, or service. Strictly defined, an "organization" is one that gathers a large group of people who are formed for an express purpose (hospitals, nonprofits and other charitable organizations, social clubs, etc.). This definition does not include smaller groups of people, such as families, co-authors, or any otherwise small gatherings of people. This SNG specifies that there is no such thing as "inherent notability"; i.e., on their own, organizations aren't notable just for the mere fact that they are an organization that exists, again emphasizing that notability is NOT synonymous with fame, but is instead connoting to "worthy of being noted". In accordance with with notability is, organizations or products must have had legitimate effects on culture, society, entertainment, science, etc., where such an impact is able to be backed-up by verifiable, preferably secondary sources. An organization's notability is not inherited by ways of association with a notable person or notable subsidiaries, or "child" companies. Reviewers and editors must also be wary of WP:COI, as companies may sneakily make their way onto Wikipedia for the mere purpose of promoting their company, or worse, paying someone to do so for them to escape culpability.
- On Wikipedia, multiple sources are considered as a single source especially when it comes to wire service articles. In terms of calling a source a "reliable source", such sources should have a reputation of accuracy and fact-checking preceding them. These sources cannot include unpublished texts or an editor's personal experience at al. They must be published and available to the public in some way--they should be accessible in some way, either in physical or digital form. Sources need to be directly related to the topic at hand and support the claim or piece of information it is citing in the article. Newer sources are preferred especially in science and medicine-based articles. Peer-reviewed publications, other journal-based sources, and take precedence. Additionally, sources must be free from bias and should come from reputable sources known for their rigorous standards/reputation in fact-checking and accuracy.
- Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
- The article needs to have citations to support its claims--otherwise, an article with no citations at all meets one of the WP:CSD, and I would tag it and move on accordingly. The article needs to satisfy other basics such as having been written in English. I will also need to ensure that is is not merely a promotional, attack, or test page. If the article does satisfy these basics, then...
- The article will need to have sufficient context and be free of any possible copyright issues (in either its text or images).
- I will then check notability, first starting with WP:GNG generally, then going on from there to explore the corresponding SNG. If the article chronicles a living person, it will need to follow WP:BLP and turn up reliable sources (with characteristics that were previously explained) that elucidate the notability of this individual.
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
[edit]- This is a fundamental policy I deal with often when dealing with vandals! Before close examination, at the outset, we must assume that any comment, edit, or article proposal/creation was made with good faith. That is to say that we assume that those editors have the best intentions in mind as opposed to deliberately trying to be disruptive, harm Wikipedia or otherwise. Especially when it comes to article creation, an editor who may make an article that could be construed as offensive may not know of some of the specificities of Wikipedia policy--most new editors haven't yet had the chance to be acquainted with how we define what/who is notable, article formatting (including citations, headings, etc.), and so forth. So with every edit and every page creation or proposal, we must assume that the editor in question has the best intentions in mind and if they have erred, we calmly nudge them towards the right direction in accordance with WP:CIVIL.
- WP:BLP is a strict set of conditions that must be followed for any article dealing with a living person. High-quality, verifiable sources are a must, and these sources need to have been published and factually accurate, such that WP:NOR will not be an issue. Additionally, a neutral point of view should be used throughout the article and the content of the article must be free of any semblance of biased diction. Any potentially controversial pieces of information would do well to have an inline citation included. Our main goal with WP:BLP articles is to offer an informational outlook on the person being chronicled. It is not our position to lambaste the person or include scandalous or similar details as a tabloid would do.
- Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
- WP:COI outlines Wikipedia policy on what must be done in the instance of an editor(s) who may be connected with the subject area they are interested in. An blatant example of this would be an employee editing the article of the company they work for at the behest of their employer. In these cases, we would warn the editor in question (WP:AGF) and ask them to disclose any potential COIs. Further violations of this policy or a failure to disclose will probably warrant a block. WP:UPE falls under the umbrella of WP:COI and is a more serious variant of a COI violation. Editors who are possibly being paid for their contributions to Wikipedia must disclose all details and parties relating to this payment. Such editors are employed by a PR company or something similar, and edit articles on behalf of a client--usually the subject of the article. Wikipedia mandates full disclosures of any/all conflicts of interest that may interfere with the neutrality of an article.
- That Coptic Guy, hope everything is ok on your end. I usually don't review portions of a section "Part" until it is completed but I went ahead and reviewed these 3. If you are not going to complete this tutorial, please let me know so I can either close it as incomplete, or leave it open for you to finish. Atsme 💬 📧 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia--or more formally, the WMF--does not own copyright on the text of Wikipedia article nor the illustrations therein. Text in articles liberally licensed under WP:CCBYSA, whereby any entity that decides to use, share, or alter anything outside of Wikipedia promises to attribute said work to Wikipedia (a link back to the article satisfies this CCBYSA licensing requirement).
- As for importing copyrighted work for implementation into a Wikipedia article, an editor must make sure that permission is granted by the copyright holder for use of the material. Similarly, linking to copyrighted works (when citing claims) is allowed, as is including links to an archival form of depreciated/dead links (WP:ROT). Use of public domain works are preferred over those permitted under use or fair use so as to be able to redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible.
- Public domain works, or works ineligible for copyright protection--those that don't hold any intellectual property rights-do not fall into this category (example: officially released images of politicians, federal employees, which are public domain by statute).
- Editors with repeated copyright violations may be blocked from editing pursuant to WP:COPYVIO. In fact, there's a big, glaring notice on the top of the page I am editing on that affirms that any copyright-violating content will be rightfully deleted.
- WP:COPYWITHIN: Copying text from one page to another within Wikipedia carries a risk of violating an attribution clause. If an editor does decide to do this, good practice will involve a thorough edit summary for the destination article that includes a link to the source article along with a talk page notice. This should be repeated for the source article (good edit summary plus talk page notice).
Communications (Pt. 3)
[edit]This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
- Discussions with creators of new pages
- Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
- Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
- Wikilove/positive comments
Deletion (Pt. 4)
[edit]Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
[edit]NPP Exercise
[edit]Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.
I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so try not to wait too long after I've added them. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Discussion
[edit]Evaluation
[edit]Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.
Tips
[edit]- User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
- Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
- User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
- User:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
- User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.
Userbox
[edit]This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.
.svg){kind=spacer} | This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!! |