User:Cassiopeia/CVUA/Yerkes-Dodson

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at User talk:CASSIOPEIA/CVUA/Yerkes-Dodson.

Make sure you read through Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.
 * How to use this page

Good faith and vandalism

 * 1. Twinkle is a very useful tool when performing maintenance functions around Wikipedia. Please have a read through WP:TWINKLE.
 * Enable Twinkle (if haven't already) and leave a note here to let me know that you have enabled it.

Answer: Done! Yerkes-Dodson (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before completing the following tasks.
 * 2. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF
 * 2. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF
 * 2. In your own words, why it is important to WP:AGF

Answer: Per WP:HUMAN, approximately 92% of all Wikipedia edits are productive and constructive. Thus, most people who edit Wikipedia are not purposefully malicious and are not seeking to vandalize Wikipedia. As such, it's important to assume good faith, even if edits are seemingly counterproductive or seemingly vandalizing in nature. Research has demonstrated that assuming good faith and avoiding biting the newcomers increases long-term participation on Wikipedia, which is beneficial to the whole project and all involved editors. AGF provides and opportunity to teach instead of punish. Yerkes-Dodson (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 3. Please explain below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

Answer: Good faith edits and vandalism edits are distinguished largely by their intent. Good faith edits, while possibly inaccurate, stylistically wrong, or biased (non-neutral), are made with good intent and without demonstrated malice, perhaps by a new editor or somebody less familiar with all Wikipedia guidelines. Vandalism, on the other hand, is intentionally malicious and, at its most extreme, changes content beyond recognition. When differentiating between the two, it's important to identify intent and always assume good faith, when in doubt. Let's look at two examples:


 * A user edits an article and adds an unreliable source. While not the most constructive edit, adding sources to an article is almost always beneficial. Thus, because the general action is generally beneficial and made with good intent, the specific action is assumed to be made with good intent.
 * A user adds the following string of characters to an article in four places: "adsfasgasgasgas." Because the string of characters could, in no way, be regarded as meaningful, the edit is assumed to not be made in good faith.

In short, if an edit could, in a slightly different manner (different style, different point of view, etc), be considered beneficial or meaningful, the edit is deemed to have been in good faith. Otherwise (if there is no way the edit, or a small variant thereof, could be construed as beneficial of meaningful (large blanking with no reason, uploading shocking images, which are also irrelevant to the article at hand, adding graffiti or nonsense, etc). Yerkes-Dodson (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Answer:
 * 4. How do we deal with a bad faith registered user and how do we deal with a bad faith IP editor?


 * 5. Please find three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please revert and provide reason/explanation and hist diff(s).

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:


 * Vandalism

Answer i:

Answer ii:

Answer iii:

- Good day. Any question regrading the assignment, please let me know here. For other questions not relating to the assignments, ping me on the talk page of this subpage  Here. See above the first assignment. Ping me here when you are done with the assignement and ready for a review. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, please note that the name of sub page has changed to User:CASSIOPEIA/CVUA/Yerkes-Dodson, so please make a bookmark in your computer. Sorry for the inconvenience cause. Thank you.13:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)