Hello JHUbal27. This is going to be your adoption center for the course run jointly by User:Go Phightins! and myself. Please feel free to ask any questons at any time. Please sign at the end of this message so that we know that you found the adoption page okay, and we can get started! The first lesson is posted below. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm here and ready to go. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Lesson
Status
Grade
Pass?
One
Done
35/40 (87.5%)
Waiting for follow-up questions. Yes
Two
Done
33.5/39 (85.9%)
Waiting for follow up questions Yes
Three
Done
36/40 (90%)
Yes
Four
Done
33/35 (94.3%)
Yes
Five
Done
38/45 (84.4%)
Yes
Six
Done
No Test
N/A
Seven
Done
34/35 (97.1%)
Yes
Eight
Done
34/41 (82.9%)
Yes but waiting for the answer to a follow-up
Nine
Done
22.5/25 (90%)
Yes but Tazer do you have any follow ups?
Final
Done
134/150 (89.3%)
Yes
Sounds good. Let me know when you've read through everything and I'll post the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.
Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!
There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.
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- No. Hearing something from a friend is not reliable or verifiable. I would want reliable news sources to post that information to verify that Romney is the president of the university. I would also check the university's website.
Good. Reliability and verifiability are the two main issues here. 5/5
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- No. The information should not be included because it fails the neutral point of view policy. The information would be considered biased, and would most likely be removed.
Close, but not quite right. What if your interpretation is right on the money, and you can find reliable sources to support your interpretation? What if the cartoon caused a signifcant controversy? Does this change anything? 4/5 pending follow-up.
That is a good follow up question, but without additional reliable sources, JHUbal would be correct. Still, answer the follow-up, please. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
If the cartoon caused controversy, then I would look for other sources that can support other peoples' opinions. That would be an example of racism, but it would be difficult to use the right words witout causing any bias. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Good. in any case information like this needs to be included with absolute dispassion and rock-solid sourcing. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
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- No. There is no correlation between the statement about Americans being Capitalists and more likely to get diabetes. That would be a generalization and an opinion, which is not allowed.
Again, close. You are correct that correlation does not imply causation, and that this information should not be included, but what this violates is The policy against original research, specifically the part about synthesizing sources. 3.5/5 3/5
I changed the score for this question to a 3/5 because the answer missed the policy and, while correct in its final result, didn't get there "correctly". --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I get it now. I said generalizing instead of synthesizing. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Yes. It also violates the policy on original research.
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- No. FOX News would most likely post false or biased information about MSNBC. Also, FOX News would not be reliable for Sarah Palin because some information may be false and some factual. CNN would be a better source.
While I agree that CNN would be a better source if you could find the information there, this will not always be the case. What if the information is uncontroversial or not politically charged?
Would you object to a Fox News citation saying that Sarah palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996-2002? How about if Fox news said that MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Mathews was the highest rated Primetime news show in month X? 3/5 pending follow-up answers.
FOX News would be a good source for uncontroversal information, such as she was the mayor. I wouldn't really trust that FOX News would actually be correct in saying that itt was the highest rated TV show, but I may be overthinking this. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
It is much better to be overcautious than not cautious enough. Either way, this is a good response, 4.5/5
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
A- No. Self-published sources are not reliable. The information could be false.
The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability, and not truth. However, with that said a twitter feed is not a very good place for any type of reliable or verifiable information. It is possible that some very limited statements could be reliable, but in general you are correct. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, look for an official press release or something, but I will say that Twitter is better than nothing, though it still is far from reliable. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
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. Blogs and forums are not reliable because they are self-published. Again, that would be biased and an opinion.
Good. Just because I post something doesn't mean it's the official policy of wikipedia. The same thing applies to this situation. 5/5
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- Yes, I would object to that. Burger King's website is a primary source, and should not be used for information in its article.
While we do prefer secondary sources here at wikipedia, there are situations where primary sources can be used. Specifically if the material in question is neither promotional nor unduly self-serving, it is probably acceptable in limited situations. See WP:PSTS for more information. 4/5
I get it now. I could use their website as an external link or for official company data. By the way, Burger King's fries are the best and their chicken nuggets are the worst. (I'm not going to vandalize the article. ) JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Seeing as I haven't eaten there in about 5 years, I have to reserve judgement.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 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- No. You do not need a source for nonsense. That is an opinion and cannot be verified.
Right. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE are a pair of conflicting essays on this very subject, but consensus says no citation is needed for common knowledge. 5/5
Actually, he needs a source that says he went to a psychologist. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Be very careful about making statements like this. If this had been in a real debate, a comment like that is the fastest possible way to get into hot water. Civility is one of the pillars of wikipedia, and we will look fairly extensively at this in the future. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I went too far that time.
I've added some comments as food for thought or reinforcement. I agree with Tazer that a firm grasp of this is necessary and consequently would also encourage JHUbal to answer the follow-up questions. Good job, both of you, on this first lesson. --GoPhightins! 13:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
While this is pretty good, and would normally be easily passing, I would like you to answer the follow-up questions that I have posted. This topic is really the foundation for all of the rest, so a really firm grasp of it is essential. You also seem to have a very tight definition for what is a reliable source. While too tight is better than too loose, it still needs to be addressed. I will also post the next lesson now so that you don't have to wait for me to grade just the follow-up questions. Go Phightins!, any additional comments would be greatly appreciated
By my count this is a 34/40 for an 85%33.5/40 for an 84% 35/40 for an 87.5 Nice work! Check your talk page in a minute.
You've almost successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks.
Tazerdadog (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm ready for the test. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 16:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
A- Assuming good faith means having benevolence, or the desire to do good. If another editor disagrees with you, then try to work it out with them. If you disagree with another editor, remain calm because they were most likely assuming good faith.
Not Quite. Assuming good faith is not "benevolence, or the desire to do good" yourself, it is assuming that othersare acting for this reason. Your desire to remain cool is admirable, however. 3.5/5
2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
A- I'm going to start with the note on my talk page. First, I would remove the notice on my talk page and keep my cool. I was just assuming good faith by fixing the formatting issues. I would explain to him what I was trying to do and about good faith. I would help him in reverting edits and trying to recover his data, if I can. I would also go to the AN/I board and explain that I was acting in good faith, so that the discussion is closed. The editor and I would shake wikihands (where did that come from?) and end the dispute. Never mind about the wikihands, I would give them a WikiLove cup of tea because we ended the dispute.
Again, not quite. You know that you were acting in good faith, the assumption that you need to make is that the new editor is as well. Your desire to stay cool is once again, excellent. I generally as a rule of thumb don't touch wikipedia for 15 minutes after I see a nasty note, lest I do something I regret. Wikilove is always good too. The folks at AN/I rarely get it wrongm so you would be OK here. Also, you should show the newbie how to correct an edit conflict. (Hit the back button when you get the error conflict message.) 3/5
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
3a.) Position A?
A-He is replying to Rod's mate. (Like what?)
Correct. 2/2.
3b.) Position B?
A- He is replying to Rod. (What's the best car in the world?)
Again, absolutely correct. 2/2.
3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
A- Absolutely not. An editor with a low edit count has a perfectly good reason to be competent with templates. They could have learned it from someone, but a low edit count does not mean they are a sockpuppet. There is always a possibility, but the chances of that are low.
Correct, the idea is to assume good faith. There could be all kinds of reasons why a new editor is familiar with templates. He could be taking a cleanstart, or could just be an experienced programmer. 5/5
When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism.
I actually took my time on the test because these lessons are for my own good. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's good that you can make the mistakes here and now, instead of on the big, bad wiki where they would really matter. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
By my count that's a 15.5/19 for a 81.6%. While this is good enough to move on, I really would like you to read WP:AGF through one more time. Please tell me when you've done this, and I'll post the next lesson. Go Phightins!, if you have any comments I'm all ears. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Right on Tazerdadog. (I feel like I should be some old cranky professor with a cane pointing at a chalkboard or something every time I chime in here...) Assuming good faith means that you always act as if someone is here for the betterment of the encyclopedia unless proven otherwise. GoPhightins! 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I read WP:AGF. I would be indifferent about someone going on my talk page and posting a note. I wouldn't care unless it was a threat. I originally put "Assuming good faith is taking responsibility for your actions." Would that have been closer? Assuming good faith means that you have an intention to do good. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Still not quite right.A good-faith edit is one designed to improve the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually does so. A bad faith edit is ine that is designed to harm it. Assuming good faith means everyone is making the first kind of exits until proved otherwise. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna finally get this right. An example of good faith is a user requesting deletion of a page because they know that it does not meet the policies. Also, a user reverting his own edits because he knows it was vandalism. A user who assumes good faith has an intention to improve the encyclopedia. Is that right? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 21:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is something between one editor and another. There is a difference between assuming good faith and acting in good faith. The examples that you gave are examples of acting in good faith. Assuming good faith means that you believe everyone ELSE (you do not apply this to yourself) is also acting in good faith (i.e. trying to build up the encyclopedia rather than tear it down.). Assuming good faith is for relations between more than one editor. An example of assuming good faith would be if I came to your talk page, and butchered the formatting on a template, causing a mess. While it was a bad edit, it should not be seen as malicious unless there is overwhelming evidence that my intent was to harm.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Example (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC).
You did upload this file, but the permission is clearly stated on the website to upload under the copyright licence you uploaded it under, so you know you are in the right on this one.
example shamelessly stolen from my talk page
A- The administrator was assuming good faith in you because they were unsure that you did have proof and just wanted to clarify. Their intention was to make sure the photo had correct copyright licensing.
Yes. The administrator was applying Assume good faith here. You are also assuming good faith here because although you didn't say so in so many words, you assumed that it wasn't personal, and the admin was trying to thelp the encyclopedia. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
2) You remove a large portion of copyrighted text from an article, and nobody challenges it.
A- You were acting good faith by removing copyrighted content that will improve the article.
Again, yes. Assuming good faith has no role here, as there is nobody to make that assumption on. You know you were acting in good faith, and nobody challenged it. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up question (reminded me of something) Was it okay to blank someone else's sandbox for it being a how-to guide on being a hacker? It was written in a different language, so I looked it up on Google Translate, blanked it, and nobody challenged it.
3) A new editor comes to an article you are working on, and replaces the whole body of text with "TROLOLOLOLOOLL!!!!!"
A- An editor is not acting in good faith by vandalizing an article.
While you cannot know that for certain, that is a reasonable assumption to make. You should assume that everyone else is trying to help the encyclopedia unless there is obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This qualifies as overwhelming and obvious evidence. We will talk more about editors who make these types of edits in the next lesson on vandalism. 4/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
4) A new editor makes a change to an article that you are working on, and adds a fact that you don't think is correct without a source.
A- The new editor was acting in good faith by adding a fact. You could leave a friendly note explaining that it needs a source or just add the citation needed template.
yes, this is the assumption you should make, and the probably the right course of action. 4.5/5
I did the follow-up test and put some thought into my answers. If I still don't understand the concept, please let me know.
P.S. I left a follow-up question. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey JHUbal, Ryan Vesey here, editing while logged out. There's still some issues with your understanding of the concept evident here, but rather than pointing them out individually, I thought I'd give you some advice and see if you can update your answer. (Sorry in advance to your adopters if this is out of line) When someone assumes good faith they assume that another editor is acting in good faith. Some of these questions above involve acting in good faith, but not assuming good faith. Can you identify which ones involve acting in good faith rather than assuming good faith? In another note, in regards to the question related to "TROLOLOLOLOOLL!!!!!", would your answer change after reading the fifth sentence of Wikipedia:Assume good faith?165.123.232.31 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the side note, the page in question would violate WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Since nobody raised any concern with your blanking of the page, I wouldn't change anything now (the page content hasn't been restored, correct?). In the future, we have a miscellany for deletion process that you could go through. I believe you'll touch on this a little bit later in the course. It's also a good idea to discuss it on the user's talk before taking any action. Hopefully the editor will blank it themselves and will learn something in the process.165.123.232.31 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
@RyanVesey Adoption page stalking is not only permitted but encouraged. The more opinions and methods of explanation we have, the better
@JHUbal you are getting two very similar, but distinct consepts mixed up. There is assuming good faith, and then there is acting in good faith. You and only you know whether you were acting in good faith. Similarly, I and only I know if I was acting in good faith. Acting in good faith basically means trying to help the encyclopedia. It contrasts with acting in bad faith, which is trying to harm the encyclopedia (usually through vandalism). Assuming good faith, on the other hand is what you should do regarding other editors. I don't know if your last 10 edits were made with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, you and only you know if they were made in good faith. What I do, per WP:AGF, is assume that they were made in good faith unless I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and then base further decisions off of that. You can't say if any other editor was acting in good faith, but your job is to assume that they were, and go from there.
Regarding the follow-up question RyanVesey is absolutely correct, the correct way to handle it in future is talking to the user or aking it to WP:MFD if that fails. However, if it hasn't been restored or challenged, it's probably better to let it rest.
I would encourage you to look at the follow-up questions one more time with all of this in mind, and take another stab at them. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did the follow-up questions again. I have a feeling I'm still wrong. Acting in good faith is something only you can acknowledge and assuming good faith is somehting everyone acknowledges. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This is much better. There are still a few wrinkles to iron out, but I think that you probably have it now. We can safely move on to the next lesson, which is vandalism. By my count, the follow up test was an 18/20 (90%), which combined with a 15.5/19 on the previous test results in a 33.5/39 for 85.9% overall. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.
To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).
What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.
The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)
[1] If this isn't blatant vandalism, then what is?
OK, I think we can both safely say that is vandalism by any reasonable definition.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
[2] This is an example of blatant vandalism, but would you like me to find a more subtle one?
[3] I get the idea of vandalism in general, so never mind the second question. (You just said 3 vandalism edits)
These all look like good examples of classic vandalism. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.
Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.
When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.
The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.
Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Your vandalism-identifying looks good. Please tell me when you are ready for the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I am ready for the test, but I'll probably do it tomorrow, maybe some tonight. You are in the Mountain Time Zone right? So that means it would be 8:25 PM now. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am in the Mountain time zone, so your conversion is correct. The test is below.
I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now.
1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism.
A- Vandalism is any intentional attempt to harm the website. It occurs when people are bored and are acting in bad faith. For example, blanking a page and replacing it with nonsense is vandalism.
Optional probing question: How do you know blanking a page is vandalism? Couldn't it just be a test edit? What's the difference between vandalism and test edits? GoPhightins! 02:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If a user blanks their own talk page or user page, then that is not vandalism. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Good. The definition is right on the money. While inserting nonsense is almost always vandalism, there is an (admittedly small) chance that blanking a page might not be. I'm going to give this a 4.5/5 and strongly encourage you to answerr Go Phightins probing question. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes?
A- If large amounts of content is removed from a page (indicated by -10000 bytes). If it says something like, a possible vandalism tag, it wouldn't hurt to check the diffs. Also, something like "replaced page with..." is an indicator of vandalism.
Yep, more or less right. Basically any computer generated tag should be checked out carefully by a human. Although this is controversial, I also think that edits by IP addresses deserve a little more scrutiny due to their higher proportion of vandalism edits. Just remember that Ip's are human too. 4.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page?
A- For the first time, I would add {{uw-delete1}} and proceed as the user continues to blank content.
That produces
Hello, I'm JHUbal27. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!
If this was the first time, this warning is probably best. 5/5
4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use?
A- Depending on my mood, I would add a level 3 or level 4 warning.
These warnings are {{uw-npa3}} or {{uw-npa4}}
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
or
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
First of all, you should make your mood as much of a non-factor as possible. The level three warning might be a little harsh, but might be appropriate depending on what exactly was in the personal attack. The level four warning on the other hand is definitely too high unless the editor had been previously warned. If it was so egregious as to merit that kind of warning, {{Uw-npa4im}} should be used. 3.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A- WP:AIV is administrator's intervention against vandalism. You should use it when a user continues to vandalize Wikipedia after the 5th warning. Also, when a user obviously intends to vandalize Wikipedia, an administrator will look into it and block the account.
Are 5 warnings really necessary? Do you have to step straight through the levels one by one, or can you skip levels? The reason for WP:AIV is to alert the admins to editors who won't listen to the warnings. We do not have the tools to block vandals, and so must ask admins to do this for us. 3.5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so).
Good. The revert was absolutely correct. The warning might have been a little light, but it is probably better to go light than heavy on a first offense, and the difference between a level one and a level two warning here is probably a matter of taste. 5/5 Tazerdadog (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
[5] I am proud to revert this edit! I'll admit the warning was a little harsh, but you don't just change someone's name.
Good revert. I actually like the warning you gave, although it is important to remember to assume good faith. How an editor manages to get two warnings for one edit perplexes me though. Phightins, if you have any more clue what exactly happened, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, I can see nothing wrong with how you handled this, so 5/5. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
[6] Classic vandalism. I warned the user with a level 2 because of 2 vandal edits. Please check history page and it should be the -16 one.
Good, clean reverts, and the warning, while a little harsh, is justified in my opinion. There was absolutely no doubt this was vandalism, and it was repeated. 5/5Tazerdadog (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
By my count, that's a 36/40 for a 90%. Good Job! I would encourage you to answer the couple of folloe-up questions I asked, but I think we can safely move on to the next lesson. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).
Tazerdadog (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
One question. Can you use rollback only on the latest revision? That's my only question and I'm ready for the "test" to do after school. I previewed lesson 5 and I probably will spend a lot of time on that. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 11:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is the case. The test is below.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
A-
Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry Tazer, it defaults to Go Phightins!
Good, it does that because we are in his userspace. 5/5
2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
Not thrilled with this one. I would have liked it if you had gone through the contribs a little more carefully and fixed the (borderline vandalistic) edits that this user made. A standard welcome was probably not best. 3.5/5
Normally, I go through their contributions more carefully, but okay.
4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
A- {{Uncategorized|date=February 2013}}
Good. 5/5
5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
A- I would report a user to an administrator as a vandal if their account was a vandalism-only account. I would have warned them with an only warning or level 4 warning tag and then report them.
Do you have to be the one to give the warning? 4.5/5
By my (occasionally suspect) count, that's 33/35 for a 94.3% Good Job. You seem to have Twinkle down-pat. Let's move on to the next lesson, on Dispute Resolution, shall we? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like 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.
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
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.
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 editors 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 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.
Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP: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.
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.
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
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There used to be two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) has been closed, leaving the more formal (WP:RfM). The editors at WP:RFM specialise in sorting debates.
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.
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's 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.
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.
No questions. I think I'm ready for the test. I'm sorry for waiting so long, but school is more important than Wikipedia and I need a wiki-break. I'll do the test and come back next Friday if I can manage to stay away.JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your priorities are absolutely correct. School (and real life in general) must come first. Here is the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !
1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
A-
Editor assistance: An informal way to get help/advice from multiple other editors if you are involved in a dispute. An informal way to ask other editors for advice or help on what to do in a dispute.
Not necessarily from multiple editors. This is the lowest and most informal of the content dispute levels. It is used when you want advice from the community, but you don't necessarily want or need the community to step in. However, more often than not, you will get a single editor helping you. 3.5/5
Better. Note only that you might not want the editor you are getting advice from to actually step in. 4.5/5
Third opinion: Another informal way to get help/advice from one other editor who is not involved in the dispute. An informal way to ask another editor to step in and give you advice to help you with a dispute.
While third Opinion is still pretty informal, it is a little more formal than editor assistance. However, it is used when you have a dispute with one and only one editor. While you will likely only get one editor helping you, this is not always the case. (the dispute is between you and exactly one other editor, so you ask people to come in and give another opinion) 3/5
While third opinion does ask the other editor to step in, you are still missing that the dispute must have originally been between you and only one other editor. 3.5/5
Mediation: If you still have a dispute after Editor assistance and Third opinion, Mediation is a formal way to get help from experienced editors.
Good. Mediation is more formal, and good for more complicated disputes. 5/5
Request for comment: After every other level, if the dispute is not solved, several people from the Wikipedia community can help. If two or more users are having a problem with the same editor, people can comment on that edtor to end the dispute.
Good. I would only note that it has to be the same problem with the editor, and that you can skip levels if the dispute escalates quickly. 4.5/5
Arbitration: This is the absolute last level after everything else has failed. If the dispute is still not solved, the best of the best experts will try their hardest to end the dispute.
Yes. Note that what the arbitration committee says is binding. If they say you're topic-banned (or whatever), that is the last word. (Jimbo could technically overturn ArbCom, but he doesn't). 4.5/5
2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
Part A) Is this edit warring?
A- Two reverts is not enough to be considered an edit war. They did not violate the three-revert rule.
Follow-up question: Does the three revert rule have to be broken for edit-warring to occur? If not, what is the bright line? 2/5 pending follow-up.
The bright line is 3 reverts. I don't understand the question. No, the three-revert rule does not have to be broken. As long as two editors disagree more than once. I guess so.
The idea is that this is a classic example of BOLD, revert, discuss. A made a bold addition, and then B reverted it. A should now begin discussing the change. Instead, A reverted again, which made this edit-warring on A's part. B rereverted, making this edit warring on B's part.
Right, edit warring is any time two editors revert instead of discuss. We even have the one revert rule for certain occasions. GoPhightins! 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
A- They should have followed Bold, revert, discuss. They should discuss the matter on the article's talk page and come to a compromise.
Good, this is exactly right. 5/5
3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
A- I would give them a gentle warning for "attacking" me, like
Hello, I'm JHUbal27. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
I would then talk to the other editor, and explain my stance with supporting evidence. On the dispute resolution pyramid, I would be using a counter-argument. I would then request editor assistance if I can't get the other editor to agree with me. I would continue through the process as necessary.
OK, just be very careful not to escalate the situation. It might be possible to avoid the whole dispute resolution process entirely. Ideally, I would let someone uninvolved do the warning, although you can do it if it was really egregious. A case can be made for not replying at all, which sidesteps any dispute. 4/5
4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
A- Refuting the central point and refutation should be combined. Also, responding to tone and ad-hominem should be combined. After name-calling, the last level should be personal attacks. That's all I guess.
Unless some of my answers are too vague, this test was easy. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 04:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
By my count, that's a 36.5/45, for an 81.1%. I'd like you to answer the follow up question I posted, and take another stab at explaining editor assistance and third opinion, but this is pretty good, and certainly good enough to move on. Go Phightins!, if you have comments, I would love to hear them. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
After Follow-up questions, that's a 38/45 for an 84.4%.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian.
1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so?
November 21, 2012
I continue to edit because it is fun and there is lots of potential for new content.
2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters?
3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit?
A- I'd like to improve school and airport articles. I'd also like to revert vandalism.
4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia?
A- I'd like to be an administrator. (NOT!) That would be too hard and too far down the road. I would like to become way more experienced than I am now.
OK, sounds good! Your answer to #4 shows how thoroughly WP:NOBIGDEAL has gone down the tubes, but that's a commentary on wikipedia, not you. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below.
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.
Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}
Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
No non-copyrighted content in history
All copyvio content added at once by one user
No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.
Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.
Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}.
Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.
Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.
Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? Tazerdadog (talk)
Yes! I have a very important question before the test. Also, I can't keep away from Wikipedia. All that aside, I came across an article while I was patrolling new pages. The article is called Truth or Death? and I hope it was deleted. I could not find the right speedy deletion criteria. It was a fictional story that had no purpose to be on Wikipedia. Was it vandalism? Did it violate WP:NOT? I just proposed deletion. Can you help me please with this scenario? Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Based on what you told be, there would be no speedy condition that the article really fits. A7 is the closest, but does not apply, as this is a fictional story, and not about a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". Therefore PRODding it was correct. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply! In that case, I'm ready for the test.
I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace.
Broad questions
1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD.
A- Unsourced Biographies of Living People (BLP)'s is a scenario in which you'd use PROD. All BLP's must have at least one reliable source. I did that once with Barry Engel, which now has more sources.
Indeed, unsources BLP's should be prodded. 5/5
2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do?
A- This should be taken as a deletion request. The A7 should be changed to G7.
Correct, if the author is the only significant contributor, and blanks the page, this is a G7. Make sure he is the only significant contributor though. 5/5
3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3?
A- A user may have created the page and will add more content later, so wait before adding A3. Also, a user may have created a page and will add references for context later, so wait before adding A1.
Precisely, the article is likely undergoing extensive development. 5/5
A- I would wait to see if the user will add sources, then propose deletion of the BLP because the article has no sources. The person would be notable if there were reliable sources.
Perhaps. I think your approach is conservative, he looks like he meets A7 to me. However, this is thin, and there is nothing wrong with your approach. 5/5
A- I would wait, then add {{db-context}}. The article needs to be more specific with its information.
db-context is thin but reasonable in this. The problem is the criterion states that it applies to only very short articles. I would have prodded this or tried to fix it with the sources. 4/5
I think number 4 might be wrong, but I'm Done with the test. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 02:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
By my count this is a 34/35, for a 97.1% Excellent Job! You seem to have a really firm grasp on this. It's time to move on to the next lesson, on copyright. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.
Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.
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
If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
There must be no free equivalent
We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
Must have been published elsewhere first
Meets our general standards for content
Meets our specific standards for that area
Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
Can only be used in article space
The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
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)
Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
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 makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.
So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see 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 there
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - 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 are not. Got it? Good.
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. Tazerdadog (talk)
Actually, I did have a weird situation. I uploaded File:Noodle and Doodle logo.jpg and it was a television screenshot. It asked me to provide a fair use license and a non-free license. GP said I just need the non-free license. Do you know anything about this. Thanks.
Also, you may post the exam tomorrow or Saturday.. I'm still here, don't want you to forget about me. I'm glad you're my instructor instead of GP, he can be a little...uhm...strict? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail
Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.
1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
A- Oh my gosh, this is a hard question. I'm gonna say no. Not all images can be used anywhere because some are fair use. Use on other websites would be copyright infringement.
Fair enough. 5/5
2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
A-
It is your own work (easy one)
Yep. you would then have the ability to release it under a compatible license. 2/2
The image qualifies as "fair use"
No. Yhe commons is only for public domain or certain creative commons licenses. Fair use images cannot be uploaded there, these must be uploaded locally and are subject to a number of other restrictions. 0/2
It is in the public domain
Yep. 2/2.
Follow-up: Find the last case when you can upload to commons.
Answer: If the work has already been released under a less restrictive license.
OK, this works. If the original author releases it under a compatible license we can use it. 1.5/2
3.) Q- You find music displaying this license [11] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
A- Yes, as long as you attribute the work to the original author.
No. This license is non-commercial, and so is not compatible with the licence Wikipedia uses. ( CC-BY-SA 3.0 License). 2/5
4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
A- This is another question I'm debating on. I'm going to say...no...because the idea, while creative, is not suitable in the context of the article.
Right. This is a derivative work, and so all of the components must be released under a compatible license. Fair use would bevery, very difficult (probably impossible) to justify. 4/5
5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
A- A derirative work is a work derived (taken) from another work. An example is a cropped image.
Good definition, and the example is ok, but it also includes more substgantial modifications. 4.5/5
6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
A- No, because the photographer has not released the copyright and there is a free equivalent because anyone can take a picture of him.
Right. If it was taken by the government it would be in the public domain, but as a press photo it is not eligible. A free equivalent exists. 5/5
7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
A- Same as #6 (I think).
There is a difference. I can get off of my duff and take a picture of the president, but I can't really can't do this with a death row prisoner. Therefore, a fair use claim would likely work. You would have to do things with it, such as lowering the resolution however. 3/5
8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
A- I would tag the image for speedy deletion for copyright infringement.
Right, but you should also check where it is displayed and remove the pictures ASAP. 4/5.
9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Feel free to leave all the followup questions you want, as I simply gave my best guess on some of the questions. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to add a bonus point for this. By my count that makes it a 32.5/41 for a 79.3%. I would strongly reccomend you answer the follow-up question I posted. This is good enough to move on, but I would also recommend reading the applicable policies one more time as well. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
After grading the follow-up that's a 34/41 for a 82.9% Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests.
Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight.
Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up.
The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment.
Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level.
What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it.
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?Tazerdadog (talk)
No questions. I think I'm ready for the test. By the way did you see that Johncheverly got a 100% on this test? Impressive! JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The old crank regrets that he has been busy lately and has been unable to check in as often as he would like to. Do either Tazer or JHUbal have any questions or concerns for the old crank, who is currently enjoying referring to himself in the third person? The old crank is pleased by the progress of both the adopter and the adoptee and hopes that both go on to successful wiki-careers at the conclusion of this adoption. The old crank is eager for your feedback. The old crank is signing off. GoPhightins! 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The teenager (me )—wait come on GP you can't be that old, 40?—is a little shaky on some lessons. He is definitely shaky on copyright and dispute resolution. Do you have any suggestions for him? JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 20:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
GP is not going to reveal his exact age, but will say that he is <40, but likes to play that he's older than he his for the fun of it. Anyway, GP thinks JHUbal is doing fine, but should probably just slow down, make sure he asks with any questions, and understands the policies. GP thinks that the final exam will give JHUbal a good indicator of where he is in his comprehension of the material; if he doesn't do so well in a particular area, GP or Tazer will be happy to do some "tutoring". GoPhightins! 21:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I originally said you were 30 . If Tazer is creating the final exam (if there isn't already a preset set of questions), is it the same idea as this.
“
JHUbal27 is being guided through the course, with me [you] just peering over their shoulder as a guide, if necessary.
”
I'll read through lesson 9 this weekend and take my time. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Go Phightins! assumes that Tazer will use the same final GP gave him a few short months ago, but he (Tazer) is of course welcome to modify it as he sees fit. GP will likely assist Tazer in grading it, at Tazer's discretion. GoPhightins! 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That was the plan, I figured we would grade it separately, then look at both together to resolve any discrepancies. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to GP! GoPhightins! 12:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go.
1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay.
A- There is not really much of a big difference, but I'll explain it like this. A policy is a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow (i.e. no original research). A guideline is a principle supported widely by consensus (most accept it) and sometimes common sense. An example is assume good faith. An essay is an not an official policy or guideline and it is not supported widely by consensus. It contains the opinions of one or more editors and people may or may not necessarily agree with it. A random essay that applies to me () is WP:Guidance for younger editors. I'm 13, most of that is common sense. Oops, I just broke the first rule. (I'll strike it out, pretend you never saw it.) You're not going to judge me by my age anyway, I'm mature. Right? Never mind.
Well, I disagree with your intro sentence that there "is not really much of a big difference"...in some cases you may be right, but there's a big difference between User:AutomaticStrikeout/Applying IAR and WP:IAR, an essay and a policy respectively. The rest of what you said is mostly valid. 4/5
2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de factobureaucracy.
A- To break this down, "de facto" means concerning facts and "bureaucracy" is a group of people who uphold the rules (in this case administrators and bureaucrats). So, is Wikipedia de facto bureaucracy? No, considering there are no official rules and the "rules" do not necessarily need to be followed. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Obviously Wikipedia is de facto because there are official policies widely accepted, like no original research, verifiability, and notability. I added an original research comment without a source here and it was reverted right away. The warning I got was that all information must have a source. Also, that same user PRODded Most Extreme Airports (my article) because of notability. I sent it to AFD like a stupid person instead of removing the PROD tag. Wikipedia is de facto but not a bureaucracy.
Okay, I didn't know what the heck they meant, thanks for clarifying. Yes, Wikipedia is a de facto bureaucracy. If you ignore the rules, you are at risk for being blocked. You may not know this, but I was actually blocked for two weeks by Reaper Eternal (what a scary name) for sock puppetry on Get Squiggling. (One article!) I was only on Wikipedia for less than a week, therefore he was not assuming good faith and was biting the newbie (I.e. me) It is always important to log in every time and that's why I stay logged in. Actually, I did do one vandalism edit while logged in (nothing too bad), which probably didn't have to do with my blocking. My "sockpuppetry" made it look like there were two different contributors on the article I was productive on and intended to fix. Also, I uploaded a copyrighted image, which was deleted immediately. Administrators, bureaucrats, and even Jimbo uphold the rules (even though there are no "offical" rules and policies do not necessarily need to be followed). If you choose not to follow them, you run the risk of being blocked or even banned. And you thought I was a good boy.
Definition of de Facto
Try this one again. "De facto" is a Latin term that means "unofficial, but in practice" (e.g., User:Jimbo Wales is the de facto head of Wikipedia) in contrast to "De jure" which means the official law-abiding (e.g., The Wikimedia Foundation is the head of Wikipedia). So the question is: is Wikipedia a bureaucracy in practice? In theory, we are not, but the question is are we a de facto bureaucracy? A bureaucracy is a system in which "officials within a government or other institution that implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of the institution". In plain English, a bureaucracy is highly "hierarchal" that has lots of rules that must be followed to the letter. So to summarize the question, based on what you've seen in Wikipedia in your time here, do you think we are a de facto bureaucracy?
That's a reasonable explanation, I guess. Wikipedia, is in theory, not a bureaucracy, but we tend to lean in that direction at times, for better or for worse. 4/5
3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so?
A- Yes, of course policies and guidelines can always change. Over time, people may have different interpretations of them. Any autoconfirmed user can click the edit tab and edit it (WP:BEBOLD). They should be careful, though. Major changes should be discussed on the policy's talk page and should reflect widespread consensus.
Right on! 5/5
4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR.
A- From personal experience, I would ignore the conflict of interest guideline. As long as you have sources, you could greatly improve the article and add interesting encyclopedic information.
OK. Be very careful when applying IAR (and for some handy dandy advice, check out User:AutomaticStrikeout/Applying IAR NOT! but it's still a humorous read!) and when in doubt, start a discussion. 4.5/5
5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community?
A- Decrees are laws (or in this case rules) and the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that makes this website possible. Any decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation are subject to change the community. These must be adhered to (or you could ignore them) if you don't want to get blocked. These are rare, and would be something like the addition of a new policy (like the BLP policy.)
That's right; what the WMF says goes. 5/5
Grade: 22.5/25 (90%)
Comments: I am going to leave this open until Tazer shows up again, I am sure that he's just swamped in RL (our favorite little acronym) as there is nothing else before the final and, since he's your primary adopter, I want to make sure he thinks you're ready. Feel free to peak at the study guide on the adoption page. GoPhightins! 02:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm in NO RUSH to complete the final exam. Tonight and tomorrow night is the play and I want to take the weekend off from Wikipedia. Basically, I will force myself to not check Wikipedia until 6:30 am Monday morning. I am actually taking a Wiki-break this time. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 10:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
All right. I would say break a leg, but with my luck, you probably would and then I would feel bad. So I'll just say good luck in German: Viel Glueck! GoPhightins! 10:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about my recent busy-ness. Yes, it was real life that was sneaking up on me. These answers look good, and I think we can move on to the final when you're ready JHUbal. I will post the study guide now, just tell me when you're ready for the test.Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks GP and Tazerdadog! I'm using the Wikibreak enforcer so I will not use Wikipedia until Monday afternoon. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 19:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how Wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
Have a look at your favorite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D
Why not head over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.
There's a lot to maintain at Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
Recent Changes Patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.
WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on Wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do.
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.
Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there!
Following are your tasks for the practical exam. When a task is completed, replace the {{Not done}} template with {{Done}}. You may also use {{Doing}} to indicate a task that is currently underway. All tasks must be marked completed before the time stated above. Even if you have done these tasks in the past, please do them again during this exam period.
Done Patrol five new pages in new page patrol. Post diffs here:
Overall, for your efforts in NPP, you have earned a 23/25.
Done Nominate at least one article for deletion in AFD with a well-reasoned nomination explaining why the article should be deleted. Post the link to the debate(s) here: (I did two because I felt like it.)
[18] (PRODding could have been an option, but I just sent it to AFD)
Good nomination rationale, though if deletion was not your goal, then you could have started a different type of discussion. And I always accept going above and beyond...
Done Participate in at least two AFD debates with well-reasoned comments. Diffs:
Cleanup is pretty straightforward, but often goes ignored. Good job! 10/10
Done Revert at least eight instances of vandalism and warn the vandals appropriately. Post only the diffs of the reversions themselves, not the warnings.
A violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? Yes. Vandalism? Possibly not; assuming you reverted as a BLP issue, then you used an incorrect warning template. This one is not one of your better pieces of work.
There’s some clear cut vandalism. I would have gone with at least a level two, perhaps even a level three warning template, though. He has a history. And in answer to your question, I believe Cluebot only will revert an editor once per article; it will not edit war with a user.
Overall, vandalism is somewhere where, to steal some terms from academia, you are proficient, but not advanced. 33/40.
Done Join a Wiki-Project of your choosing. Diff: [32] Joined WikiProject Schools
OK. 5/5
DoneExtra credit! Upload a file of some kind (picture, sound, etc.) with correct licensing information to either Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard or the Wikimedia Commons. Add the item to an article and post the diff of you adding it to the article here. [33]
Cool! I was never good at Legos and K’Nex, but you evidently are Good job! +5
In the event you attempt to do a task above but a bot beats you the the task a ridiculously obscene number of times, please make a note of that here. I've tried to do similar tasks before and been incredibly frustrated by the automatic bots. You should be able to demonstrate that you put an honest effort into completing the task.
What is consensus, and how does it apply to Wikipedia policies?
A: Consensus is the way the decisions are made on Wikipedia. It applies to even the simplest of decisions, like editing articles, to major decisions like the addition of a new policy. When addingproposing a new policy, it is important to know that consensus is not a vote. It is an approval from the community with strong arguments in a discussion. Unamity is not required, but most editors need to approve of a policy before it is added. Even when previous consensus is reached, a policy is subject to change or be removed as time goes by. New consensus can always be reached through discussion or boldly. Another important point is that the Wikimedia Foundation and other superior offices Like what? have the right to add or change important policies without community consensus.
Good. Just a few minor points of inquiry. 5/5
You add a PROD tag to an article as it doesn't seem to be notable, but it gets removed by the author ten minutes later. You don't believe he's addressed the notability concerns, so what is one step you could take from here?
A: After a PROD tag is removed, it should not be replaced. The next step is sending it WP:AFD with a nomination like "PROD tag removed by author. Still no evidence of notability." Leave a message on the talk page of the author explaining why.
√ (ok that's a square root symbol, but you get the idea) 5/5
Flip that situation around. You come across a PROD that you don't think should be deleted, and remove the tag. Your edit is reverted and you get a nasty note on your talk page. What do you do?
A: I would remove the note, first of al. Then, I would leave a message on the editor's talk page, and even with the nasty note, assume good faith. It would be something like, "Please do not personally attack me. Personal attacks are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You may disagree with me and that's okay, but do not comment on me. [(Not included) Depends on what you mean by "nasty note", which is vague.] Next time, comment on the content of the article and do not replace the PROD tag. Send it to WP:AFD, where editors argue discuss whether or not an article should be deleted. When you nominate the article for deletion, explain why you think the article should be deleted. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)"
OK. 5/5
Define vandalism. When is it appropriate to report a vandal to administration?
A: Vandalism is any intentional attempt, no matter how subtle, to harm or destroy our website. For example, blanking a page is vandalism if the user replaces it with crude content or something similar. A user who blanks their own talk page is not vandalism. Other examples of vandalism are advertisingNot necessarily; could be a misunderstanding of rules and deliberate factual errors. It is important to assume good faith except in the most obvious cases of vandalism. Users who have a vandalism-only account and have been warned after the level 4 or 4im warning should be reported to WP:AIV, where administrators will take care of them.
Not all of your examples are necessarily vandalism. Remember, vandals can change. I believe I was a vandal once as either an IP or an old account that I've long since forgotten. Granted, that was at least 4-5 years ago, but still... vandals can change. 4.5/5
You mark a non-notable article for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Moments later, you notice in Recent Changes that the page has been blanked by the author. What do you do?
A: First, make sure the author was the substantial contributor of the article. Then, mark the article for speedy deletion under G7, assuming the author requested deletion by blanking the page.
√ 5/5
You revert something thinking it's vandalism, but you get a rather irate reply on your talk page: "That's not vandalism! This is a serious fact covered my many research articles! How dare you accuse me of (insert type of vandalism here, as well as more complaints)!" You check, and sure enough, he's right. What do you do?
A: First of all, I would apoligize and ask the person to not personally attack me they are talking about content, not about you . I would ask them next time to assume good faith. I thought that was vandalism, so I acted in good faith by reverting it.
Make sure you fix the problem as well. 3.5/5
You found an image on a website of a person that could be really useful in an article you're writing about them. The website doesn't say the image is copyrighted, so what should you do to upload it to Wikipedia?
You've been a frequent contributor to an article and have helped get it so it's almost ready for nomination as a featured article. You log in one day to find that it's just been put up for AfD by a new user. Nobody has commented on the debate yet, so what should you do?
A: I would ask the editor why they nominated the article for deletion, assuming good faith. They may have made a mistake. If no one commented on the debate and the editor has no valid reason for the nomination, I would ask an administrator to close the debate. The result would be speedy keep.
√ 5/5
How does the child protection policy apply to editors like yourself and what are two ways you can protect yourself?
A: The child protection policy is designed to protect my safety. On Wikipedia and anywhere online, there may be child predators or pedophiles. Most (or all of them hopefully)SOME are banned from Wikipedia. Thankfully, I trust Wikipedia is a safe website. Just in case, to protect myself:
1. I will never give out any personally identifiable information (full name, address, phone number, social security number, etc.) I really shouldn't give out my age either, but very few people here know that.
Anyone who wants to can look at your user page... it says you are in middle school (12-14).
2. Another way to protect myself is creating a separate e-mail address just for Wikipedia. That way, I can be safer because people won't know my name (or even part of it). Were you thinking of another way GP?
Second way is solid.
I don't trust that Wikipedia is a safe website. If it was, WP:OUT and WP:OVERSIGHT would be unnecessary. Granted, they help a lot, but nowhere on Wikipedia is safe, and you should always remain vigilant. Your answer, unfortunately, is rather naἳve. 3/5
You're working with an new editor to cleanup a page they created. During the course of your discussions, you realize that the content of the article is an exact copy of a textbook the other editor is reading off of. What should you do?
A: Mark the page for speedy deletion under G12, referencing the plagiarized textbook. Explain to them that plagiarism is wrong and tell them not to do it again. The page specifically says to address the editor and tell them about the guideline. Also, I would tell them to fix any other plagiarized articles or request speedy deletion under G7 How would G7 apply? The author hasn't requested deletion. of plagiarized articles in good faith. I would help them again, provided that they reference the textbook and do not plagiarize or closely paraphrase from it.
I enjoyed doing this quiz and tried to demonstrate my best work. I've been sort of a perfectionist, as you can see with the history page. I like the idea of a #9 being customized instead of that "foo" question. Thanks for working so hard on my adoption. You guys are the best! ~~JHUbal27 17:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
