User:Nowthis/Adoption school

Cleanup

The Random article button (located in your left-hand sidebar menu) is very useful for locating articles that are in need of improvement (although I find that 90% of the time you get a random article on either a tiny village in Poland or a species of moth). However, there are easier ways to locate articles that need attention.

When editors come across a page that needs to be improved but they are unable to do so themselves (due to time constraints, lack of sources or just because they don't feel like it) they will often tag it with a cleanup tag. As well as placing a notice at the top of the page to say what needs doing, this also has the effect of listing the article in one of several cleanup categories. You can access most of these categories here.

What I'd like you to do is this: First, locate an article in need of cleanup. I'd recommend something fairly straightforward, like a page that needs copyediting for spelling and grammar (there's a full list of pages tagged for that here). Make three improvements to the page; these can be minor changes to word order, wikilinks, punctuation or typo fixes, though I won't stop you from trying something more ambitious. When you've done this post a link to the article here - type the page name and enclose it in double square brackets, like this: [[Name of page]]. Thanthonni

Now go to the page Commonly misspelled words and select a word from the list there. Put the incorrect spelling of the word into the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, prefacing it with a single tilde, like this "~mispeling". The tilde means that, rather than searching for an article titled "Mispeling", the search engine will instead return a list of pages which contain the word "mispeling". You can now open each of these, locate the typo, and change it to the correct spelling. Post here when you've fixed three typos in this way. Bülent Bostanoğlu, Jimi Dougans. Paudel

Y Good work here. Thanthonni especially is a lot more readable now. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Markup

Wiki syntax can be confusing, to say the least. It can be learned, and eventually I found I use it without really having to think about it, but learning it takes a bit of time. Below are a list of markup tasks you can play about with to help increase your understanding. Most of the necessary codes are available at the cheatsheet.

Format the words on this line into bold text.

Format the words on this line into italic text.

Create a level 2 header for this line.

Create a level 3 header for this line.

Indent this line.

Indent this line one level further than the previous one.

Outdent this line. Put the following quote into a separate block:

"This is a quote which I'd like you to block off from the rest of the text on this page."

Turn the following into a numbered list:

1. Item one
2. Item two
3. Item three
4. Item four

Turn the following into a bulleted list:

• Item one
• Item two
• Item three
• Item four

Make the text on this line small.

Create a link to the page on Barry Manilow.

Create a link to the "Health" subsection of the Barry Manilow page. Make it display on this page as "Things that have gone wrong with Barry".

Create a link to the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.

Make this link: "Encyclopedia Britannica"display on this page as "Encyclopedia Britannica".

Add the Like template to the end of this line. Like

Make the picture of Emperor penguins at File:Emperor penguins.jpg display on this page as a thumbnail. Give it the caption: "A bunch of penguins".

Create a two column table. In column one, titled "Things", list the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. In column 2, titled "Stuff", list the first four things that spring to mind. Y Good job here...it might still be useful to do the table for practice, but I'll leave it up to you.

References

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time, it's impossible to be sure that the information contained here is always accurate. At any point, a random passerby can change the text of a page to something that isn't actually correct - many do (unfortunately). We have methods in place to prevent this, but the most fundamental one is the requirement that information here must be verifiable. If Wikipedia says something, it should be possible to locate that information in a source and check that it is correct. Because of this, we need references to reliable sources in every article.

Citing references is an area that many editors struggle with - don't worry, it looks far more complicated than it actually is. See this essay for a simplified explanation of the process (there's a nice demonstration video, too). The most common form of citation used on Wikipedia is the {{cite}} template (used in almost all automated citations) - there are variations for books, journals, web pages, newspapers and many other media. You will probably find yourself using these templates for most of your references, but it isn't mandatory, and you should try to develop at least a passing familiarity with other citation formats, such as short citations (useful in articles which rely heavily on a few extensive sources) or Harvard (parenthetical) referencing (unusual, but still totally acceptable).

The fundamental thing to remember with any reference is that you need to provide enough information for the reader to stand a reasonable chance of being able to check the reference. Hyperlinks to online sources are fairly standard (remember to add the date that you accessed the page, in case it changes), but if you use an offline source, be sure you include sufficient detail: "Bailey, 1989" is pretty useless on its own, whereas "Bailey, John; Information Science, Routledge 1989, p. 17" gives the reader plenty to go on if they want to find the source in a library or bookshop.

Your next task is to find a page or pages that require additional references and supply them. You can choose any page for this purpose (there's a full list of articles without sources here). Post the diffs of three edits where you've added citations below. Let me know if you need a hand, or if you want anything explained further.

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3

Reliable sources

All of the information in Wikipedia should, at least in theory, have been published already in some sort of reliable source. Deciding what is and is not a reliable source can sometimes be a tricky process. Please read Identifying reliable sources and comment on the use of sources below, answering the following in each case:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?
2. Does the source verify the text?
3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help extablish notability)

Note that the text quoted is not taken from the article - links to the articles in question are provided only for context.

Kylie Minogue

Article text: Kylie Minogue was the headline act at the 2012 Malasian Grand Prix.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

No, because it is a blog.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No, since the source is a blog with a broken link.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability

This source itself doesn't count, but it points to notability which might be established from another source.

Incisoscutum

Article text: Placoderms like Incisoscutum engaged in penetrative sex and gave birth to live young.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

Yes. It is a well-known, widely read journal.

2. Does the source verify the text?

Yes. It cites studies by professional scientists.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

Yes. It says that the information was considered important by more than one team of scientists.

Mohamed H.A. Hassan

Article text: Hassan is the Executive Director of TWAS.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

No. It's a resume, an original work.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No. It needs backup.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

No. But it does suggest notability which might be verified elsewhere.

Arthur & George

Article text: The book explains that Conan Doyle argued successfully that Edalji's nearsightedness would have prevented him from committing the crimes.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

Hmm ... No? This source is a pdf of an article with proof-reading errors.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

Sort of. The source does itself cite more reputable sources that count towards notability.

This Providence

Article text: The band's Christian morality is clearly expressed through their song lyrics.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

No. Original work, a review rather than a report.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

No. I think that this kind of review is not material for an encyclopedia.

Mount Erebus

Article text: The mountain is named after the personification of darkness in ancient Greek mythology.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

Yes. The source is reliable since it is a book whose author has published lots before on a variety of subjects.

2. Does the source verify the text?

Only halfway. It verifies the mythology reference, but it does not verify the statement about the mountain being named for the explorer's ship.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

The citation for that statement doesn't do much for or against establishing notability of the topic.

Ami Suzuki

Article text: Suzuki was born on February 9th, 1982.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

No. The source is IMDB, which a Wikipedia essay on reliable sources says isn't reliable.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No. Well, the text parrots the source, which is not reliable.

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

No

Seth Kimbrough

Article text: Kimbrough's earliest memory of BMX riding is the day that his brother taught him the "bunny hop" technique.
Source cited:

1. Does the source meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources?

No. The source seems to be an ad. An ad is inherently unreliable, I think.

2. Does the source verify the text?

No

3. Does the source count towards the topic's notability? (note that not all sources which meet the criteria for reliability automatically help establish notability)

No

Deletion

Often, you'll encounter pages that are not suitable for Wikipedia, for one reason or another. Have a read of this essay, and then refer to the deletion policy before tackling the questions below.

Politeness

The most fundamental policy governing user interaction is Civility, one of the Five Pillars you learned about earlier. Basically, you are expected to communicate with other editors in a respectful manner, assume that they are acting in good faith and avoid insulting or otherwise attacking them. Remember, behind every IP or ridiculous username is a real person, and it's that real person who is being hurt by insults, accusations and abuse hurled their way.

1. What would your response be if another user called you a "blithering imbecile"?
A. ignore Y You might want to consider warning the users, or else they may make more attacks at a later time. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 2. A source you added to an article is removed with the edit summary, "Removing crappy reference". Is this a personal attack?
A. no. it's somebody's description of the reference. Y Right. Now, that editor had better have some explanation for why they called the source crappy, of course. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 3. In the heat of the moment, you refer to another editor as an "idiot". He posts this template on your talkpage and reports you to the administrators board. You respond to the report at the admin board - what do you say?
A.If I did call somebody an idiot, I'd apologize. But it doesn't sound like me. Y That's the best policy. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

In learning about vandalism, you will have come across the idea of a "good faith edit", i.e. an edit that doesn't actually improve the article, but was made with the intention of doing so. The same applies to other editors' posts in discussions. Whilst it may seem that User:X is belittling you at every turn and is clearly biased and/or incompetent, there's actually a strong likelihood that he believes the same thing of you, and is doing his best to protect Wikipedia from what he sees as your problematic editing. In the same vein, don't automatically assume that a comment you find upsetting was intended to cause an upset - other users don't know you, and they don't know what sort of thing will push your buttons.

1. You add a large amount of sourced text to an article, which another editor removes. When you discuss it on the talkpage, the editor argues that your source "was written by an incompetent sot" and implies (but doesn't directly state) that you must be equally incompetent to have used it. How do you respond?
A. ignore. move on to the next edit. Y You're just going to drop the whole thing and lose all the hard work you put into the section? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 2. You encounter a new editor who is removing sourced content from a biographical page, claiming that it is disrespectful to the subject to include it. How do you explain the situation to them?
A. explain that wikipedia is not about judgment--good or bad--but about facts. if he doesn't buy that, i move on. Y Probably also a good idea to link them to the relevant policy. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on community consensus. This means that we are largely unconcerned with issues of right or wrong, true or false, correct or incorrect - what matters on Wikipedia is what the community decides. Because not every user can be involved in every possible discussion, we have policies and guidelines that have developed widespread consensus for use, and these serve to provide the opinion of Wikipedia editors in general. For example, in an Articles for deletion discussion or a Request for comment, only a handful users will participate - but by quoting relevent policies (such as WP:What Wikipedia is not) they are able to convey the established view of the Wikipedia community as a whole.

For this reason, local consensus does not override policy - if you can get three people on a talkpage to agree to include a link to your fansite on your favourite actor's article, that doesn't mean you have the authority to override the policy on external links.

That said, it is important to get agreement from the community for any potentially controversial edit or action you wish to make, even if you believe it to be in line with policy. If you make such an edit and it gets reverted, the appropriate response is to discuss it with the user who reverted you, ideally on the article's talkpage so that other users can comment too. Only when there is clear agreement (not necessarily unanimous, but definitely obvious to an outside observer) to include your revision should you go ahead with it.

1. At Articles for deletion, a discussion has taken place in which User:X proposes deleting a page (because after much searching, no-one has been able to locate suitable sources for it) and User:Y proposes keeping it because they have found it useful for a research project. Four other editors chime in to support the Keep vote, all with the rationale, "per User:Y, page is useful" or something very similar. You are the admin closing the discussion; do you close it as Keep, Delete or No Consensus, and why?
A.keep because of consensus N Arguments at Articles for Deletion should be based on policy. "It's useful" isn't a policy-based argument. In this case, since there's just one delete vote, I would close it as no consensus, not keep. See also WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 2. On an article talkpage, three users disagree with your addition of an external link to the subject's official site, even though such a link is allowed under the External links policy. No other editors have supported your position. What do you do?
A. move on Y There are options you can pursue if you feel strongly enough about adding the link. These are detailed at WP:Dispute resolution.

Resolving disputes

If two or more editors are unable to agree on some aspect of an article, and no consensus seems to be possible, then continuing to argue on the talkpage is somewhat futile. Recognising this, Wikipedia has developed a number of processes for resolving such disputes. In rough order of escalation, these are:

• Third opinion. If only two editors are involved, they can request that another uninvolved editor examines the dispute and gives their opinion. This is not binding, but the fresh perspective can sometimes break the deadlock.
• Request for comment. Starting a Request for comment (RFC) on the article's talkpage will attract other editors who are not involved with the dispute - basically, a whole load of third opinions. RFCs are usually constructed around a simple yes/no proposal, e.g. "Should content about the subject's hairstyle be included in the article", which editors either support or oppose. RFCs typically invite comment for a month before closing. The results of an RFC are not technically binding, but they are generally considered to be indicative of consensus and so are usually adhered to.
• Dispute resolution noticeboard. Reports posted on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) are viewed by numerous editors who will try and mediate the disagreement. The DRN is often used for disputes which are more complex than the simple support/oppose mechanism of an RFC, such as disputes involving accusations of sockpuppetry, multiple pages or several interrelated content issues.
• Mediation. The Mediation Committee is a small group of trusted editors who will formally oversee a structured debate on a disputed issue. All involved parties must agree to mediation, and are expected (though not obliged) to abide by any successful outcome.
• Arbitration. If all other options in resolving a dispute have been exhausted, the case can be brought to the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). This is a panel of editors (almost always highly experienced administrators) who have been elected by the community to provide a final resolution to disputes. Decisions made by the Arbitration Committee are binding, meaning that users who edit in defiance of an ArbCom ruling may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.

No questions on this section; the above is provided purely for your information. Hopefully, you'll never have to use any of it!

Alright, so I'm noticing that a lot of your response are something along the lines of "drop it and move on." It's nice that you want to avoid conflict, but that shouldn't come at the expense of Wikipedia's quality. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandals

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, not all the edits that are made are constructive - some, in fact, are deliberately disruptive and need to be reverted. Please have a read of this essay and this guideline, then answer the questions and perform the tasks below. There's no time limit for this, it's more important that your work in this area be accurate than fast. If you aren't sure whether it's vandalism or not, it probably isn't.

Copyright

You probably already know that copy-pasting text from elsewhere is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. It's one of the things newer editors often fall foul of. Copyright, because it has legal ramifications in the real world, is one of the most important things to get right here, and for the same reason, is also a bit of a minefield. I've prepared a short quiz to test your understanding of the major issues, however you'll need to do a bit of background reading first. The principal pages that cover copyright issues are as follows:

• Wikipedia's official copyright status and licensing
• Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations
• Wikipedia's policy on image copyright
• Instructions on donating copyrighted material

All the answers you're likely to need should be in one or more of these pages.

1. You find a book on Amazon that appears to be reusing the text of Wikipedia articles - in fact, they proudly announce it on the cover! The book costs $20.00. Are they allowed to use other writers' work to make money in this way? If so, why? If not, why not?
A.

2. Is it ever permissible to copy and paste text from another website to Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances would this be allowed?
A.

3. A new user uploads a picture of Tony Blair from a newspaper article in the free newspaper The Metro. The newspaper has national circulation, and is read by millions of people daily, so the image is already readily available; it's also easy to find on Google Images. Is this picture:

a) Acceptable under "fair use"?

b) Acceptable because it's in the public domain?

c) Acceptable because it doesn't cost anything - the newspaper is given away for free?

d) Acceptable for some other reason?

e) Unacceptable because it's under copyright?

f) Unacceptable for another reason?

Please give a brief reason for your answer.
A.

4. You find a new article that appears to contain a block of text (about half the article's content) which has been copied directly from a non-free source. The rest of the article seems to be original material. What do you do?
A.

5. An editor adds some text from a website that he owns the copyright to. He has issued a statement on the original website saying that, "the content of this site can be freely used on the English version of Wikipedia". Is the text acceptable? If not, why not?
A.

6. A user uploads an image that he has created, a Microsoft Paint version of a diagram from a copyrighted work. His version is all but identical to the original, but is definitely his own work. Can this image be used on Wikipedia?
A.

7. Some images may be better off being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. To which project would you upload the following:

a) A screenshot from Doom 3'.

b) An image from Flickr that had been released under a CC-BY-SA licence.

c) A scan of a medieval painting, dating to 1223.

d) A photograph of Ian Botham that you took yourself at a cricket match.

e) A picture of your hand, taken by your cousin (he says he's happy for you to use it however you see fit).

f) A low-resolution copy of a company logo.

A.

8. The subject of an article, a minor local celebrity, has uploaded a promotional photo of himself, taken at a book signing, to use on his Wikipedia page. Does he own the copyright to it? Can it be used on Wikipedia?
A.

9. A new editor wants to use text from her website on Wikipedia. Assuming that the text is suitably impartial and that she isn't affiliated with the subject, what would you advise her to do in order to allow Wikipedia to use her work?
A.

10. An editor adds the text, "Carter's discovery of the tomb created a sensation in London, where he was widely celebrated. Banners were hung in his honour, and a national holiday was declared," to the article Howard Carter. The source provided for this text (a recently published book on Carter's life) contains the wording, "His discovery of Tutankhamun's grave created a sensation back in London, where he was heavily feted. People hung banners from their windows in his honour, and the Queen declared a national holiday." Has the editor committed a copyright violation?
A.