User:Crtew/Some important topics

Some important topics to review about Wikipedia before we get started on our articles.

Let's review some of the points below looking at one article, the Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi, where your instructor took the lead in making contributions. What I tried to do when presenting this information is to write it in an encyclopedic style but as if it were a whodunnit as the double murder is at the time still unsolved. It hasn't yet been assessed but what grade do you think it deserves? Don't be too generous with me. Wikipedia uses a different grading system than we use at the University because it looks at the development of an article over time whereas we grade content in the short-term as a work in progress. Your final grade is based on the University's method, but it's good to know how Wikipedia grades "stubs", "starts" and "C" or "B" level work so that you can aim higher and do better even under our short-term perspective. In order to achieve "Good Article" status, you have to submit the work through a process and that takes time.

Do you think the material is ... ?
 * notable
 * presented neutrally
 * organized in a logical way
 * reliable
 * quality work
 * well written

Wikipedia
Read the and know the 5 pillars! Here are several big points:
 * 1) Encyclopedias organize and summarize knowledge worth knowing.
 * 2) They are one source for neutral information.
 * 3) The Wiki-part means that this project is collaborative and free!
 * 4) As so many people are working together, the project has to work on the principle, "Let's all get along!"
 * 5) Believe it or not, rules and policies exist in Wikipedia, but they developed out of community consensus.

Notability
The most important policy is the one about Notability! Not heeding this policy is one of the biggest reasons for failure. Successful articles follow these policies.

General notability guideline, or WP:GNG or short mentions the following criteria:
 * Significant coverage
 * Reliable secondary sources exist (primary vs secondary sources)
 * Independent sources

A further guideline applies to WP:Anybio:
 * The person is relatively well known or has received recognition or awards, or has been nominated for some awards, and these convey significance.
 * The person is linked with the history of his or her field.

The criteria listed under WP:Author are also used to measure the overall importance of journalists:
 * Considered important, such as evidence of recognition or awards
 * The person is known as an originator or becomes closely associated with some innovation
 * The person was involved in the creation of a significant work
 * The work of that person is canon

Qualification: There is widespread misunderstanding in the community about policies such as "Wikipedia is NOT the news" and subjects shouldn't be about "one events", which have been used against our project. While these policies exist, they are written as guidance that should be applied with nuances. Time and time again there are editors who want to see these policies as if they are "one size fits all". The subjects of our project are not news being presented in WP form! They become part of the history of the profession, freedom of expression, and the relationship between cultures and information. The policy about one event actually is a policy that speaks to whether editors should focus on the person (creating a biographical entry), about that person but within another topic published elsewhere in Wikipedia, or an event that the person was involved in.

Quality
Evaluating_Wikipedia

Major Points
 * 1) Write a clear, concise summary lead that states explicitly why the subject is notable and backs it up with reliable reference.
 * 2) Create a structure for the article that presents information with chronological flow or topical logic
 * 3) Present balanced information that covers all of the important points in proportion and avoids giving undue weight to unimportant topics
 * 4) Provide reliable sources using citation.
 * 5) Be fair and balanced to all sides.

Standards of quality
 * WikiProject article quality grading scheme

The code is easy
Here's a quick if you can't remember a code but want to use it. You'll soon learn the ones that you use often. I often look up codes using the Wikipedia search tool because I know the functions exist but I've forgotten the exact expressions since I don't use them much.

Paraphrasing

 * Classroom handout - Avoiding plagiarism on Wikipedia.pdf

Do you have more questions?

 * One great source for more information to answer questions you have is the listing of materials compiled by Cindamuse.

Project work flow

 * 1) Create an account, sign up on the course page, and learn the basics of editing and messaging using the tutorial.
 * 2) Get your assignment and focus.
 * 3) Gather all your information resources, print, web and targeted databases (Lexis-Nexis). You're going to do a search on Lexis Nexis for your person and use the cite tool in edit to reference articles found.
 * 4) Make notes in your own words about the person, place and event with meta notes to yourself about the references for the information (at this time you can fill out the infobox). When you begin to write the text, such as writing the summary lead, you'll need to begin inline citations.
 * 5) Organize your notes into logical sections. For purposes of this project, we have a set structure in the articles, but you can deviate from this structure for a better one.
 * 6) Write individual sections and use inline citation as you go.
 * 7) Copy edit.
 * 8) Peer review.
 * 9) Rewrite.
 * 10) Submit to your instructor. Submit to Wikipedia's Article for Creation.