User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Lukeno94

This is a modified adoption course for a more experienced editor - Lukeno94. I am modifying some lessons and tests to meet his needs. Thanks. -- Go  Phightins  !  21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Lesson Eight: Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.

Glossary
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.

Image Copyright on Wikipedia
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.
 * 1) Free images
 * 2) Non-free images

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
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
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 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
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations. - Go  Phightins  !
 * Everything seems to make sense to me, at some point I'll stick a bunch of photos of cars I took myself on Commons, and maybe some other photos of mine. With point #4 of the NFI, I presume "published elsewhere" means that a scanned cover of a CD, DVD or video game is valid, as that sees the cover being published elsewhere? I'm aware that it is perfectly valid, when you follow the procedure, and indeed that's what my one upload was, but I wanted it 100% clarifying in my head. One odd thing I note is that, although the non-free guideline expressly states lower quality/smaller images, the WP:IUP makes a blanket statement that you shouldn't scale down yourself; evidently, you disregard the latter with non-free images. Luke no 94  (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
Ready for the test? Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go.

1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question
 * A-I would say it is not 100% free. The reason behind this is that not everything here is completely free of restrictive copyright, be it quotes from a newspaper, book or magazine, fair-use imagery, or the handful of minor copyvios that go unnoticed.
 * Fair enough. 5/5

2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons.
 * A-


 * A photo of the pigeon wandering around outside my window, that I took myself. I took the photo, so I own the rights to it.
 * An image I drew myself in MS Paint or any equivalent program. The image is therefore totally unique, and as it was drawn by me, I own the rights to it.
 * A scanned image of a painting of a landscape that I have painted - again, I created the work, thus I own the rights to it.
 * Three good examples. The broader answer would be when the the picture is yours, or when whoever owns it grants you permission or anything >150 years old. 5/5

3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons?
 * A-This is a tricky one, and it's one I'm not sure about, and thus I'm going to go ahead and state no, as it isn't released under either the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license. I honestly don't know the difference between these licenses, but there may be some incompatibilities, thus making it not a good idea to upload it. Of course, if I was able to contact the original author of this music file, and they stated that it would be perfectly OK to do so, I could upload the music to Commons, citing his permission if necessary.
 * You are correct. You can't upload anything published under a non-commercial license. From the Commons: "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted as well." 4/5

4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself.
 * A-No. The user may have created this specific image itself; however, it is made up of a bunch of copyrighted images, and uploading this image is actually worse than uploading the regular copyrighted images, as the user has modified the images substantially, which is forbidden.
 * Right. It's what we call a derivative work and can't be claimed even as fair use. 4/5

5.) Q- What is a derivative work?
 * A-A work that is based on another - a photograph of a painting, for example.
 * Right. 5/5

6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama?
 * A-No. There are literally thousands of times I could take an image of Barack Obama myself (well, if I was in America and near him, but you get the point), or someone else could, thus citing "fair-use" here is not going to cut the mustard, as I could get a totally free image.
 * Precisely! 5/5

7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row?
 * A-This depends highly on context. You probably could upload it, if he was in prison in the image, by citing fair use. If it is an image of him before he went to prison, then I would say no, as it would be possible to get a properly free image yourself. I would say that it would probably be best not to use an image of him, if a free alternative exists - I'm assuming here the photo is of him in prison - unless there's a specific section about his imprisonment.
 * Right, because you are not really allowed to go into a max security death row prison to snap a photo, you would probably be able to use it as fair use. 5/5

8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)?
 * A-First, I'd attempt to contact the uploader of the file, and assess the situation with them. If I failed to get a satisfactory answer, or steps weren't taken to amend this situation within a week, I would nominate it for speedy deletion under either F3 - if the licensing was there, but invalid or incorrect, F4 - if there was no license at all, or F6/F7, if the item was claiming fair use incorrectly or invalidly. (Good grief, there's a lot of similar criteria for CSD there!)
 * Good. 5/5

9.) Q- A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using File:IMAGENAME. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
 * A-If I cheat, I can reference the image I uploaded, namely File:Flying_Heroes_(2000)_front_cover.png . By not cheating, I'll reference the F1 logo: File:F1 logo.svg . The former is fair-use as it is the cover art of a game, so no free alternative can exist, the latter is an organization's logo, and thus no free alternative of that can exist either.
 * Both are being claimed under fair use. Good. 5/5


 * Hopefully my answers are up to scratch! Luke no 94  (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 43/45 (96%)
 * Comments: You seem to have a pretty firm grasp to me. Where to next? Go   Phightins  !  22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Gah, dropped two points. :P Let's try lesson 5, or maybe lesson 4 (I've never used Twinkle before!) - don't mind which :) Luke no 94  (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
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?
Questions about any of the above?
 * Not particularly, everything makes sense. :) Luke no 94  (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless !

1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A-


 * Editor assistance: An editor, previously uninvolved, whom has been requested to help out with resolving a topic dispute, without directly stepping in
 * Right. 5/5
 * Third opinion:Basically the same as editor assistance, except the editor actually directly joins the discussion.
 * Correct. 5/5
 * Mediation:Specialized editors whom act mostly as dispute resolution, this should be used if multiple commenters haven't resolved the situation
 * The mediation committee has numerous experienced mediators. 5/5
 * Request for comment:Create a community-wide discussion on a section of disputed edits.
 * Yup. 5/5
 * Arbitration:The very highest court (for want of a better term), for serious disputes that have been ongoing for an extended period of time.
 * Right; their decision is binding. 4.5/5

2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * Part A) Is this edit warring?
 * A-Yes, it's the early stages of an edit war. It can still be headed off without too much issue, and no violation of WP:3RR has occurred yet.
 * Edit warring does not have to violate the 3RR, remember. It is essentially any time when two editors revert rather than discuss. 4.5/5
 * Part B) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A-Discuss the edit calmly and coherently on the article talk page (or, if they'd rather have a slightly more private discussion, on their own talk, although this is not as good)
 * Good. 5/5

3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A-If at all possible, ignore them. Privately, laugh at the ridiculous over-reaction to a simple discussion - if the community decided it was a valid article, then it would stay, otherwise, it wouldn't.
 * Whatever you do, don't feed the trolls. You can scream or throw something off-line, or laugh your head off off-line, but make sure that you stay calm online. 5/5

4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change?
 * A-Probably the fact that WP:DRN was missing - also I'm not sure if RfC and Mediation should switch places, if pushed, I would say they should, or be parallel - they're two quite different approaches to fixing the issue.
 * I volunteer at WP:DRN; that's for content disputes, not conduct disputes. Either way, you're analysis is fine. 5/5

5.) I don't normally have adoptees do this, but since you are a little more experienced, I'll have you do it: provide a third opinion and link the discussion.
 * A- there you go.
 * I have to dock a point here as you didn't stay around until the dispute was resolved, but nevertheless your opinion was valid. Good work 4/5


 * Grade: 48/50 (96%)
 * Comments: Great job again. Twinkle next? Go   Phightins  !  15:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've started using it but am not 100% confident with it yet. I followed the dispute to ANI, by the way. :) Luke no 94  (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lesson four
After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle.

Talkback
Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use.

RPP
You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit.

AIV
You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern?

Tags
The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know).

Rollback
The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do.

Welcome
The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template.

Questions
Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case).
 * Late reply, don't know why I didn't keep up, but seems good, thanks :) Luke no 94  (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Test
This test should be relatively easy.

1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI.
 * A-==Talkback==

Luke no 94 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC) For some reason, Twinkle put it on your talk page, unless I was supposed to do this manually? *confused*
 * I should have created a sandbox or something. My talk is fine though. Whatever. 5/5

2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback.
 * A- Diffs:


 * Rollback AGF-
 * Rollback-
 * Rollback Vandal- - although, for some reason, it doesn't explicitly say vandalism, this was one.

3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user.
 * A-

4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page.
 * A- - Twinkle won't let me paste maintenance tags xD
 * Works. 5/5

5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal.
 * A-User has posted content that is abusive to a living person or group of people.
 * Okey dokey, but give him a warning first.

Not gonna bother grading the rest of this. You did fine. Go  Phightins  !  21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I'll do the final exam now, I think - if there's anything I balls up on, I can always do that lesson xD Luke no 94  (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Final
Congratulations, new user! If you have been given the link to this page, Go Phightins! believes that you are almost ready for graduation from the Adopt-a-User program. Well done!

If you're not supposed to be here, award yourself a Wiki-Love food item and bill it to me. I don't know, do something, but do not advance past this point.

Anyway, back to those of you who were actually supposed to come here....

About The Exam
At this point, I, Go Phightins!, your adopter, feel that you have learned enough during this training/mentorship/adoption/whatever-it-is program to be unleashed upon an innocent and probably quite terrified encyclopedia.(KIDDING! Don't panic!)

Your options
You are not required to take this exam. If you feel that you've learned enough and are competent enough with that information (or you're just sick and tired of me at this point), you are free to simply end the adoption program now and be on your merry way. Just remove the adoption template from your userpage and leave me a message to let me know you're running off. This allows you more time to be on your own and perhaps gain a social life that I, as the grueling taskmaster, have been hiding from you. On the other hand, this will make me very sad and I'll probably mope around the project for weeks on end pondering whether it's really worth it all. Not really, but I will be slightly upset.

If, however, you choose to take the exam, there are several benefits in doing so. You actually confirm that you do indeed know all that information and are competent with it. You will have a wonderful feeling of personal satisfaction at having graduated. I'll put up a userbox that says I'm proud of you and your accomplishments that will undoubtedly be well above those other new users who were not adopted. And I'll find some sort of appropriate shiny award to give to you as my thanks for being a good adoptee and putting up with me this whole time. I won't say what the award is, because I don't even know. It will be suited to you, and what I observed of you during our time together. However, you must pass this test to graduate and receive that award.

Yes, it is possible to fail. If I give you the link to this page, I do not believe that will happen. But it is possible. This is an exam. Take it seriously.

Format of the exam
The exam consists of two parts - a practical test, and a written test.

The practical test involves me setting a series of tasks for you to complete within a certain time period. Failure to complete all tasks before the time alloted will result in the deduction of points. If you have concerns in that horrid thing we call "Real Life" that must take precedence, MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO. I will not be an anal prick about this because some relative passed away. Those things do happen, and Wikipedia most certainly should NOT get in the way of dealing with them. The tasks set will be different for every user, and may be more or less depending on what I believe the user to be capable of. If I pile a lot of work on you, that's because I believe you can handle it. So suck it up.

The written test consists of a series of questions, displayed below, relating to Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures. Points will be awarded for correct responses, and partial credit is available. If you wish to debate a question I have marked incorrect, you are free to do so, HOWEVER I do have the final say as adopter, test-setter, and far more experienced user. (So there. :-P).

A passing grade is considered to be 75% or higher. Lower grades will result in a longer adoption period. If you completely blow the test off, I'll apply for adminship and immediately abuse my powers by blocking you indefinitely. Just dare me.

The Exam
THE EXAM (Last chance to turn back!)

Do not post answers to your written exam here. In a moment, you will create a separate page for your exam. This page will have the questions for your written test preloaded, and will allow you to access your tasks for the practical test. Once the page is created, you will have exactly one week in which to complete all questions and tasks.

Once you are ready to begin your exam, replace the word "USERNAME" in the box below with your user name (e.g., "Go Phightins!". Don't add the "User:" prefix)