User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Craddock1

Craddock1, welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will post on all topics related to this mentorship. Bwilkins, a trusted administrator, unblocked you on the condition that you make no edits to any page other than this page and your talk page without my permission, your contributions are linked here, and I will be checking them, that you complete this course to the best of your ability, and that you remain civil at all times. Should you violate any of those points at any time, I will not hesitate to contact an administrator to re-block you. Based on my reading, I think you are capable of being a productive member of the community, but remember that editing is a privelege. Please sign at the end of this paragraph to indicate that you have read and agree to these terms of mentorship. Go  Phightins  !  20:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your message, and taking the time to offer your mentorship,

Here is my signature: Craddock1 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This course will entail a series of lessons and quizzes culminating in a final exam. As you are here under different circumstances than my previous adoptees, I reserve the right to adjust the course as I see fit and may grade you a tad more harshly than others. During the final exam, you will be permitted to make edits in content areas of the encyclopedia, but until then, unless directed to by a lesson here, please refrain from doing so. Thank you. Here is your first lesson on the five pillars of Wikipedia. Go  Phightins  !  02:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lesson one
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
 * Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
 * Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
 * Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
 * Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
 * Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.

How articles should be written
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
So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

Questions?
Any questions? If not, I will post the test. Go  Phightins  !

Test
Posting the test prior to you notifying me that you're ready is something I'll only do in extenuating circumstances, such as me being away. This is one of those circumstances. I will be away from tomorrow afternoon to Sunday afternoon and therefore will not be able to post the test then, so I will do so now. If you have any questions, I will answer them when I get back or a former adoptee who helps me out with the course on occasion, Tazerdadog, may answer them for you. He will not grade the test, but if he watches this page and sees you have a question, he is certainly welcome to answer the question or provide any guidance you may need, as he has experience with my course having been the first to successfully complete it. Without further adieu: Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go:

1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why?
 * A-No - not reliable
 * True, but you could look to find a source to substantiate this. 4/5

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A-No - my opinion - might not be racist from someone else's opinon. Racisms article - possible if it is widely held to be racist by other soruces
 * Fine. 4/5

3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A-Depends on source - if reliable source / author possibly
 * This would probably lend undue weight to a fringe theory. 3/5

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A-Depends - probably yes but sometimes news sites make mistakes. Are there multiple sources from authoritative sites?
 * We generally consider newspapers, news networks' sites, etc. to be reliable. The key here is that MSNBC and FOX are competitors, and Sarah Palin is a contributor to FOX. 3/5

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A-No - managed by various people. Social accounts are not reliable sources
 * You're right on the second half, the first half is irrelevant. 4/5

6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A-No - doesn't have a right to speak for paper but it depends on who the official is.
 * OK. 4/5

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)
 * A-Yes I would object - WP: SelfSource not acceptable
 * Why would you object? For factual information (e.g., Burger King was founded in xxxx by xy) it should be an adequate source. 3/5

8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A-Yes I need a source - could be bronze if a special event happened. Depends on circumstances / context
 * See WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE for conflicting essays on this. I agree it depends on the circumstances, though. 4/5

Craddock1 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even going to start to grade. I need explanation to go with your answers. Go   Phightins  !  03:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 29/40 (73%)
 * Comments: You did all right, but I still need more if I'm going to pass you along. I've eluded to some additional policy here, perhaps you want to read up on that and give a one sentence summary of each in your own words and then I'll pass you. Go   Phightins  !  17:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)