User:WormTT/Adopt/MelbourneStar1
MelbourneStar (talk · contribs)[edit]
Hi MelbourneStar1, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a couple of lessons for you, but I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MelbourneStar1. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see WormTT · (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar | ||||||||||
| It's taken me a little while, because I've been thinking about whether or not to give you a "final test", but looking at your edits and knowing your skills - you've done a fantastic job here and I think you absolutely deserve to graduate. Congratulations MelbourneStar, you can officially consider youself finished on the adoption course and a fully qualified wikipedia by Worm That Turned's standards WormTT · (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
The Five Pillars[edit]
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.
- 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.
Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
How articles should be written[edit]
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.
Reliable sources[edit]
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 whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception - so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. 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 notable... 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
Questions?[edit]
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
Five Pillars[edit]
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.
1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
- A - Depending in which article of the Ford Escort you choose, you may only add this to the Ford Escort article only if there are reliable sources to back up the one colour. You should not add the colour in if there will be other colours - adding in information like that, is just like adding in: The car will have four wheels OR will not even matter, due to the fact that there are millions of cars around the world that are coloured blue.
- You've got the important point down there. Hearing it from a friend isn't good enough, you need other reliable sources. You're also right that trivial information shouldn't generally be included.
2) Q - A mainstream newspaper 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 - In the newspaper case, yes it can be added, only if the newspaper has a history of such contoversey, and would have a list of them in a Controversy section. If the article is half positive (history/people/countries it serves etc) and half negative (controversy) - the racial issue won't be the minority opinion in the community, because half of the article reflects the contreversey's...therefore maintaining a neutral point of view.
- In the racism article it would also be allowed because it is still adhearing neutral point of view as it is showing confirmed examples of racism in a newspaper (there already is a racist image of a cartoon from a newspaper on the article).
- Both above, will also depend on whether the cartoon is racist, it may generally not be racist, you may just see it that way. That's why it is best you get secondary references to confirm that it was racist. Your own personal opinion is not welcome in Wikipedia, when editing an article.
- Well, the point I was looking for was that "just because you think something is racist, doesn't mean it is". Which you hit, bang on. As for whether it should be included, well, you'd need some third party coverage of the cartoon, as I think you mentioned. However. HOWEVER. "Half positive and half negative" is not necessarily WP:NPOV. We have a concept of undue weighting. If 95% of sources say one thing, and 5% say another, you can't write the article at 50/50. It's giving far too much weight the latter. What's more, I'm not keen on controversy "list" sections, they should be better written than that.
3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
- A - Comparing both the butternut squashes example and the baldness example - Anywhere on Wikipedia, should not be accepted, just because it is not encyclopedic to include. Like comparing an article that ranks the amount of tallest buildings in the Australia & another article that ranks the amount of visits the Pope made to each country - Statistics may be simmilar, but they are totally different things that are unrelated. If the reliable source you have provided for the butternut squashes has compared its statistics to baldness, then maybe you could quote them..."The National Geographic found that Ohio ranked no.1 on butternut squash eaters (ranked by squashes per head) that they later found out, that the statistics were interestingly very simmilar to the ranks baldness in the United States" (maybe not as crazy as that, but simmilar).
- You're right, but I wouldn't argue unencyclopedic information, but rather that there was synthesis. You can't take two facts and put them together for the first time, it's a form of original research. I think you got that point with your Pope analogy though
4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
- A - I would consider both BBC news and ITV a non-reliable source on The Troubles just because they may highlight there own countries opinion. ITV/BBC Won't go out of their way to make the Republic of Ireland look good, as they would do to their own countries. In other words they may be a little bias.
- The only way to make those sources above valid, is to find another news channel that is based in the Republic of Ireland to corroborate the stories given by BBC and ITV.
- That's true, though the Troubles were based in Northern Ireland, which is part of UK. Not that that matters, you've hit a salient point that there is likely to be bias. I'd disagree what the only way to make sources valid is to find another news channel, you should be aware of the bias while you write, and if possible get an opposing point of view.
5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
- A - In their article, it does not mention they have a facebook page, so No, their alledged facebook page is not a reliable source. If it was their facebook page, again, it would be a definate No. WP:OR states that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If I were to allow that, I could become famous (somehow), (let's just say there is an article about me on Wikipedia)...If I don't like what what the article says, I could go on my Facebook and say something that would totally contradict the article...and could be false. So no Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc. Other words = No social networks.
- Yep, no social networks :)
6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
- A - Unless a representative from Daily Telegraph or other reliable sources confirm the telegraphs stance on World Hunger, I wouldn't classify it as reliable. What happens if the Daily Telegraph were to be hacked? The forum official could be the hacker just saying false things.
- Pretty much. "Forum officials" or any community role is an issue for the same reason as the social networks.
7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
- A - As the site states "Not in your supermarket" - That is probably because the site is an online store that is selling drinks (homemade?). The only issue with that is the site may be full of bias material...the site won't include the concerns or problems the drink(s) may cause, because they want to make it appealing to people. Also they may exagerate the information. They have given you a one sided opinion about their drinks, therefore you are not getting the full story. So, yes, I would have problems with that non-notable source.
- This is a borderline case to me. Yes, they are definitely a biased site as they make money from the stuff they sell, but this appears useful. There may be some information on specific brands of beers. However, overall, I agree with you - there doesn't appear to be editorial oversight, so effectively it's a shop that can write what they like.
8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
- A - I assume you mean [this page], and I say yes because there are a few statistics such as how many emplyees there is, that may be crucial to an article. I would allow it only if there were other reliable sites that confirm all the information is correct. To make sure the Xerox article is neutral, I wouldn't use its own website history as a focul source, only as a guideline, with other mainstream sources to confirm.
- Exactly - the statistics are unlikely to be informationy ou could get elsewhere and may be crucial. Other sources would of course be preferable.
9) 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 - In most cases, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue just because it is obvious information, and would be trivial to add. Rarely though, You do need to cite that the sky is blue for reasons that you may be working on an article about the sky, describing its colour...an editor may argue that the sky changes colour at night...instead of a blue colour, it's black.
- Bingo :D
Finished -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me)
Results[edit]
Wow. That was comprehensive :D I had one adoptee who just answered "Yes" or "no", which isn't what I was after. The thing about the questions that I ask is that there's generally no definitive right or wrong answer. You could spend hours talking about sources on wikipedia and everyone's got an opinion. So I'm more interested in finding out what you're thinking about and why. So with that in mind, I've commented on your answers.
Overall, very good. We've got 7 more lessons like this, you ready to carry on, or do you have any further questions?
Wikiquette[edit]
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 tildas ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
- 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]] |
How's the soup? --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane
|
- Don't forget to assume good faith
- 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.
- Watch out for common mistakes.
- Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
- Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Questions[edit]
Any questions?
Test[edit]
Have a look at the conversation below:
What's the best car in the world? -- Rod
|
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
1) Position A?
- A- In position A the Passat Lover is replying to, i'd say to Rod's Mate, because Rod's mate asks "Like what?", and Passat Lover answers him. Also for the fact that according to Wikipedia:THREAD " if you're replying to a statement that has 2 colons before it, your response should have 3 colons before it "
2) Position B?
- A- In position B, Passat Lover is replying to Rod's question "What's the best car in the world?" because of the indent, it is one (:) in front of the base question.
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should s/he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
- A- May go against procedure, but I'd first ask the editor how s/he knows so much about editing templates on WP. Anyone who is reasonably new to WP, and edits articles without mistakes could be possible Sockpuppets, so it would depend. You also would need to take in coinsideration of WP:SOCK#LEGIT -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Results[edit]
Very good. Importantly, you should assume good faith on the sockpuppet. You can't just assume they're a sockpuppet, they could be a clever person, someone who edits Wikia, someone who used to be an IP or many other reasons. Looks good though. Let's move on.
Copyright[edit]
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from 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.
Glossary[edit]
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
| Term | Explaination |
|---|---|
| Attribution | The identification of work by an author |
| Copyright symbol | © - used to show work is under copyright |
| Creative Commons | Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. |
| Compilation | A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. |
| Derivative work | A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting) |
| Disclaimer | A statement which limits rights or obligations |
| FACT | Federation Against Copyright Theft |
| Fair use | Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. |
| Copyright infringement | Use of work under copyright without permission |
| Intellectual property | Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. |
| License | The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. |
| Non-commercial | Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. |
| Public domain | Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired |
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit]
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. 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.
Commons[edit]
When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.
Copyright and text[edit]
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.
Questions[edit]
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
Test[edit]
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
- A- What I personally think, is irrelivant. Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia" - says it right there. But is it? No. I know it's not. And that is because many editors have taken it upon themselves to add non-free content, which is not only damaging the encyclopedia's integrety, but destroying the "Free" part of the logo. So no, its not free. Maybe in the sense that everyone can edit, members don't have to pay etc, but not in the sense of the content added - not always in some cases though.
- Good answer - though there is an argument that it is still free as the non-free content must follow stringent "fair use" criteria. But I'm glad to see you understand the issues around what counts as free and what doesn't.
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
- A- You need an account to upload pictures to Commons. Reasons are for the obvious - additions of non-free content + super-innapropriate images etc.
- Yes, my question was more pointing to the second half - when it's free and and when it's not super-inappropriate. But good job :)
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
- A- Love trick questions :/ I will take a shot the air, and say yes. At first I would have said no, since I thought you could only upload images to commons - unitl I saw this. But since you can upload music/sound files to Commons, and because Commons is non-commercial, I would say yes.
- Yeah, it's mean. Actually we can't - items on commons must be at least WP:CC-BY-SA, and that means that it must be allowed for commercial use. The idea is so that people can create educational resources using it - even commercial ones... and so you could create a book of "the best Commons pictures" and sell it. But good try, it's clear you were thinking about it.
Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
- A- Compilation - A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. - Yes - but I'd feel a lot safer with the permission to do so.
- Nope. Because the top works are under copyright, the derivative works are also under the same copyright (along with the additional copyright from the user). In other words, we couldn't take a photo of a press image and claim it's our own.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
- A- Press image of the Pope? Don't see that too oftern, but I would say, yes you can. I really don't see why not. With the appropriate permission, offcourse.
- It's the appropriate permission that's the problem. The press image is owned by the member of the press - and not released under free license. What's more, it's possible to create a free image of the pope, turn up on a Sunday and take a photo. Therefore, it cannot be a fair use image.
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
- A- I don't think so. Either because Wikipedia says so, or you're simply not allowed to take a photo of a prisoner facing death row. Is it even legal? I really don't know. Ironic, how I want to work in law - Have no clue
- The problem here is actually that you cannot easily create a free image - so is it fair use to use the press image? Well, there are ways and means to get photos of living people, writing to people to ask for photos for example... but it's an odd one :)
Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
- A- Revert. Warn. Proceed. I personally coudn't care less if there was no copyright laws broken - you can't just copy off a website regardless if it's a company or not. One source is definately not enough for an article. Barring that, many 'About Us' pages on a companies website don't go by WP:NPOV policy. I follow my own policy known as: "better be safe, than sorry". Simple and easy to stick to! :D
- Bish bash bosh. Exactly right.
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
- A- LOVE THIS QUESTION! :) Okay, where do I start?
- Never, ever, cut and paste. My school for an example, Saturday detentions are implemented if you cut & paste for a project (etc.), followed by the lovely 0%. This should be implemented to Wikipedia - cut & paste (any content - free or not free), you will be warned followed by the block handed down on a goldern plate. I have major issues with editors who do this - it's blatantly wrong. We are supposed to be a the free encyclopedia. It's not Wikipedia - the Not free encyclopedia. We're not a mirror, we're our own reflection. Quotes are fine (not terribly long ones) then again there's WikiQuote, but plagerising to me, has no real place here - in an established encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Lazyness always comes to mind when I think of Copy & Paste. And finally, as I mentioned before, the easy way out, copy & pasting, just destrorys the integrity of the encyclopedia. Other words, not a fan - at all.
- I bow down to you my man.
Q9) 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!)
- A- File:Casey Novak - SVU.jpg - Now, what would be more awkward than producing the wrong image - would be myself, being the uploader of the image and it not following policy. Fingers crossed it's alright.
- Not only is it right as a question it looks good to me as an upload too. (Though I'd probably make it smaller on the page).
Comments by Student:
- The word "hard" doesn't cut it. I would say damn-right difficult! ;) Hopefully I haven't done too many mistakes, and hopefully you can understand me! If there are any mistakes, concerns, please point them out. Thank You :D -- MST☆R (Happy Halloween!) 12:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution[edit]
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.
I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.
Simple Resolution[edit]
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.
Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.
Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.
When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the 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.
Wikipedia dispute resolution process[edit]
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution
Assistance[edit]
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.
Third opinion[edit]
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP
Mediation[edit]
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates.
Request for Comment[edit]
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.
Arbitration[edit]
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected 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.
Reports[edit]
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.
Remember: you could be wrong![edit]
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.
Any questions?[edit]
Dispute resolution[edit]
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
- A- My understanding BRD, is:
- 1. Be bold in making the edit. Wait for the Most Interested Person (person who thinks/knows otherwise to your edit) to revert.
- 2. Most Interested Person makes their revert.
- 3. Instead of Edit Warring, discuss civily with the MIPthat sounds funny :) eachothers edits, and what you two are trying to accomplish - and try reach a compromise. If things may heat up, WP:DS is a good idea.
2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
- A- I think there would be a couple ways of answering this question - I have a gut feeling, that my first answer may be the correct one. Awkward if it's not
Okay:
- Person 1 - edit (--)
- Person 2 - Undo/Revert (1st)
- Person 1 - Undo/Revert (1st)
- Person 2 - Undo/Revert (2nd)
- Person 1 - Undo/Revert (2nd)
- Person 2 - Undo/Revert (3rd) - Final revert allowed
- Person 1 - Undo/Revert (3rd) - Final revert allowed - Winner
- Personally, I believe no one wins. Ironic coming from someone who has been in countless wars, I don't believe I have won an edit war - neither has the editor I'm opposing. Edit warring just shows both editors don't know how to discuss on the article's talk page.
3) What is vandalism?
- A- Vandalism on Wikipedia, is when there is an edit that is intentionally meant to be abusive and or disruptive. "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." (WP:VANDALISM). Examples of vandalism, include: Additions of Nonsense; Deliberate factual errors; Silly edit tests; Removal of Content etc.
4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
- A-
- Editor Assistance - is where editors may ask broad questions, relating to issues they may be experiencing (Not disputes w/ editors). New editors who are unfammiliar with the encyclopedia, generally ask questions on where to locate things; how to do specific tasks...etc.
- Third Opinion - is where there is an edit dispute between two editors, and a third person- an "outsider" with a NPOV (unbiased) -'s opinion is requested to help fix the dispute.
- Request for comment - is an informal way of getting an outsiders opinion on something - whether it be simple questions - or disputes with another editor (RfC helps resolve the dispute).
_________________________________
- Done! ~ I have answered all questions, to the best of my abilities - however, unsure if all correct. Read this after a good cup of tea! ;) Thank you! -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion Policies[edit]
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.
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
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. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. 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.
Questions[edit]
Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"
Deletion[edit]
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
- A -
- I would use PROD for this article, because it asserts notability, as well as the fact it has three external links (although not closely tied with the subject)
- I would use AFD for an article that has been edited by many editors; may have an impact on the community; a more established article than the PRODed articles - simply, an article in which may require a discussion. CSD's have hours; PROD's have a week~; AFD's have a longer period of time, that way there is a clear understanding of what the WP communiy would like.
2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
- A -
- A7 is appropriate for articles that lack notability to the extent they have no sources, whatsoever - are very short. Articles include a band, club, or company, (not including educational institutions), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This Here can be an example of A7: "Uremarkable Person".
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them?
- MSTAR: I use Twinkle, by the way - just so we're on the same page
3)First
- A -
- Twinkle= CSD= Notify page creator if possible= A7: "Uremarkable Person" -
- Danielle Spross is:
- Pretty
- Amazing
- Not-Notable.
4)Second
- A -
- Twinkle= PROD= BLP PROD - If Zack de Vries is a model, who has atleast some notability, for: "...walked in Los Angeles Fashion Week, Paris Fashion Week, and New York Fashion Week for designers like: Ralph Lauren, Carolina Herrera, and Yves Saint Laurent. He has also appeared in numerous ad campaigns. He had a billboard in Times Square for H&M." ~ then I would give the page creator a chance to get reliable sources, regarding the subject.
5)Third
- A -
- Twinkle= CSD= Notify page creator if possible= G2 - Looks like a Test page to me.
6)Fourth
- A -
- Twinkle= PROD= PROD - Event seems notable, going through the External links. However, no reliable notable sources? no spot on the encyclopedia.
7)Fifth
- A -
- First: Twinkle= CSD= Notify page creator if possible= G3
- Second: I would laugh uncontrolably, until I start tearing up! "...the only time he was ever afraid, was during the time when he was whacked by that brick. He didn't cry though - he was unconcious" LOL!
_________________________
Done!:) Again, I've tried answering all questions - unsure if correct/incorrect. If there are difficulties trying to understand how I've answered the questions, please give me a buzz! Thank you! :) -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not bad at all :) I'd say the third one should be G1 - it's patent nonsense, but I can understand a G2. The 4th one, I'd suggest turning into a stub or even merging into another article, seems notable to me and I don't see that the sources are particularly unreliable (associated with the university). But at least with PROD you are allowing them a chance. For the last one, I can see vandalism, but I'd probably assume good faith and go for A1, no context. The only other thing worth mentioning is A7 - which is about "credible indication of importance" and is much more lenient than notability. WormTT · (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Consensus[edit]
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 decisions are not made based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of the 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.
There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decreed from the Wikimedia foundation or through WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations.
Community[edit]
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. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now.
Policy and guidelines[edit]
Everything we do in 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; they describe how the community works, and in general that remains fairly constant at the policy level.
Ignore all rules[edit]
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." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind.
Questions[edit]
Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy?
Policy[edit]
1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
- Policy: Policies describe the general standards that editors are expected to follow.
- Guideline: Guidlines are created by consensus - used to guide an editor - also editors should attempt to follow.
- Essay: Essay's are not policies or guidelines. They are created by a group of editors or one editor; expressing advice or opinions. The opinion/advice does not represent the entire community. The essay has not been established via consensus like Policies, or guidlines.
2) Can Policy change?
- Policies can change, just like they were created. Via Consensus. Once a policy may be outdated or even require change, Consensus may be able to change it or even an RfC ~ eg. Wikipedia:Verifiability was to have "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" removed (to knowledge) - an RfC went around (I think it was.. ;) ) and editors all over the WP community were allowed to have their own say.
3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
- I think No, and a little bit of a yes. Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy - in the way that editors are "elected" in certain fields (ie. Administrators) - However, I'm actually going to go by gut feeling, and lean more on it not being a Bureaucracy. Wikipedia is unique to many internt sites - infact most if not all. This site encourages userd to RfC...come up with new ideas - maybe even challenge the current ones. Editors can test their boundaries. Whereas in real life - like where I'm from, there is rules and regulations that are not only expected to be followed - but must be followed - or there will be serious consequences. So, No, WP is not a Bureaucracy. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
_______________________________________
- Hope I did alright. :P There will be errors as per usual, please identify them, so I can learn ;) thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- You did very well. I'm not even going to critique the answers, there is nothing wrong with them :D Pity that some fool (along with two others) closed that RfC on WP:V as no consensus... WormTT · (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Templates[edit]
Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly braces}}. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below:
| What I type | What appears | Comments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{user en}} |
|
This calls Template:User en. All content there (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the template code. | ||
| {{Worm DYK}} | {{WormTT DYK}}
|
I get a red link because no page exists at Template:Worm DYK. | ||
| {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}} |
|
When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox I have at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work. | ||
| {{User DYK}} |
|
I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. |
One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. {{w-basic|anon=true}} sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as {{template|2=foo|1=bar}}. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links).
When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.
| Code | What it does |
|---|---|
| {{{1}}} | Causes a parameter "1" to display at that location. |
| {{{name}}} | Causes a parameter "name" to display at that location. (Calling the template {{Template|name=Worm}} will cause "Worm" to display at that location) |
| {{{1|foo}}} | Sets a default value "foo" for parameter "1", which prevents the parameter from displaying as it does in the userbox above. This can be blank: {{{1|}}} |
| <includeonly>foo</includeonly> | Causes the text "foo" to only appear when the template is called. It will not appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called. |
| <noinclude>foo</noinclude> | Removes the text "foo" from the template. Documentation (notes on how to use a template) is always included with these tags so that it is not called along with the template. |
| {{{1|lorem ipsum}}} <noinclude>dolor sit amet</noinclude> <includeonly>etc...</includeonly> | When this template is called, it will display parameter 1 first, followed by "etc...". If parameter 1 is not defined, the template will display "lorem ipsum etc..." |
Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics.
I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above: {{template}}. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call: {{subst:template}}. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within <includeonly> tags. See below.
| Code | Displays | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| {{CURRENTTIME}} | 01:59 | Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page. |
| {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} | 22:56 | Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page. |
| {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}} | 15:56 | Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on the main adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown. |
This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates.
Templates Test[edit]
Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test.
Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/MelbourneStar1/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template.
1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
2) My name is MelbourneStar1 and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
3) My name is MelbourneStar1 and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
4) My name is MelbourneStar1 and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)
NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D
- And finished. Expect errors; I see a no successful future of me making templates, so I think they should avoid me, and I should avoid them. Play it safe! -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism[edit]
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:
- (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft)
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 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.)
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 (-- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:
Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
- Diff 1: [2] Why you think this is vandalism: Editor inserting obvious nonsense into a article - deliberately.
- Diff 2: [3] Why you think this is vandalism: Editor inserting obvious nonsense / profanity into a article - deliberately. Also violation of WP:BLP.
- Diff 3: [4] Why you think this is vandalism: Editor inserting obvious nonsense into a article - May not have been intentionally but it doesn't take a wise person to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that encyclopedia's don't usually have people communicating with others inside an article. Per WP:FORUM, that would have to go aswell, if it were at the article's talk page. Not only is that disruptive - it's annoying. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
How to Revert[edit]
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
Vandalism and warnings[edit]
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.
Questions[edit]
Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :)
- Can I start this test now? -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 09:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's stuff for you to do within the lesson first :P - Sign where I say, find vandalism. WormTT · (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done :) -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's stuff for you to do within the lesson first :P - Sign where I say, find vandalism. WormTT · (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism[edit]
Q1) How would you define vandalism?
- A: Vandalism is anything added or removed from the Wikipedia that is deleberately done so to disrupt the encyclopedia, and usually diminishes the integrity of it too.
Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
- A: I think four levels are appropriate. The first level is the one that warns the editor on unconstructive edits - using words such as "seem" to be vandalism - so not saying it definately was. The second level is usually to warn an editor who is most likely vandalizing - and it is still asking them nicely to persist with the unconstructive edits. A third level is the first of two (other being L4/L4im) that is actually warning the user that if they continue disrupting the encyclopedia, they may be blocked from editing. The fourth and also Final level, is telling the user this is their only/final warning, and that they may be blocked from editing.
Q3) Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to WP:AIV
- A: No, an Administrator does not need all four levels to block an editor, every day or so there will be a severe breach that there only be one or two warnings, and an administrator has no choice but to block. I would think they need atleast one, or two to block. It would depend on how severe the unconstructive edits are. If an editor has been warned 4 times about their unconstructive editing, that month, they can be reported to AIV - Another editor may have made more severe contributions (threats; etc.) and after a L3 or 4 warning, AIV should be notified.
Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
- A: The Only warning (4im) for vandalism should be used in much severe cases, that do tend to happen.
Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
- A: Yes...and No. I have a real issue with editors who remove a bunch of warnings of their talk page, if it's in that month or so. If it's only one warning - go ahead. If its a lot more than one, they should go directly to jail and not pass go or collect $200. These warnings are not here for them to read and just disregard then and there. They're here to remind them that they need to stop their unconstructive edits, and start contributing to the encyclopedia, in a good way.
Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
- A: If the editor continues to upload copyrighted material, after being warned, then yes it's vandalism. Copyrighted material destroys the encyclopedia's image and integrity. A big 'no no'.
Q7) The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should wikipedia require registration?
- A: That would ultimately defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia's slogan, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Wikipedia is unique compared to the vast majority of other top ten sites. YouTube; Facebook; Twitter --- they all require a password/email. Wikipedia does not require, just simply asks if you'd like to log in.. and lets IPs decide at their own discretion.
___________
I loved this Test. I don't know if there is error's, would be interested to know them too. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Working the encyclopedia[edit]
Final module, well done for getting this far. I don't know if you realise, but the other 8 modules dealt with the theory of wikipedia, and 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.
Building[edit]
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! I've managed to do a few so far, you can have a look at mine if you like I keep a record at User:Worm That Turned/DYK. 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.
Join a Project[edit]
Have a look at your favourite 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
Deleting[edit]
Why not mozy 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.
Patrolling[edit]
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 change 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.
Cleanup[edit]
- 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. As an example, I had a go at the . When I got there, there were 400. I chipped away at them at about 10 per day, many were no longer contradictory or mis-tagged. They're now at around 70, a much more respectable number. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.
Help the encyclopedia move forward[edit]
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.
Questions[edit]
Think there's stuff their you can do? Are you ready for the final exam? I have to warn you, some of these will be involved in the practical test... oh yes, there's a practical test. ;)