User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Starship9000

Starship9000, welcome to your adoption center. It is on this page that you will read all lessons and complete all tests. The format of my course is as follows: I post a lesson, you read the lesson, ask any questions you have, and, when you're ready, request the test. I then post the test, you complete it, I grade it, and then I determine whether you performed satisfactorily enough to move on. We've already discussed in great lengths terms on your talk page, so I will not re-hash that here except to say this: I will be monitoring your contributions throughout adoption and will not hesitate to contact an administrator should you violate them. Thanks, and let's get started shall we? Go  Phightins  !  00:26, 14 February 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  !


 * Yup! Are you allowed to retake the test again if it is not that good? --Starship9000 (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only are you allowed to, you will be required to. The test is below. Go   Phightins  !  17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Test
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-Yes. Because that is one of his works and biographies about him. And it should be added in Harvard University's article because it should mention it there.
 * You heard from a friend that... is a dead giveaway. You absolutely cannot add it to the article based off of that. 1/5
 * A:No, you can't add it to the article because you heard from someone that it is a dead giveway.

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-Yes. The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which should be on the newspaper's article.
 * What if only you see it as racist? 2/5 (pending follow-up questions)
 * Then it is not included if you only see it as racist. If it only published a cartoon, then that can be included.

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-Yes
 * Why? 2/5 (pending follow-up question)
 * Because that is true.

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A-FOX News is not a good reliable source for information on MSNBC because is a reliable source for Wikinews, our newspaper project. And yes, Palin's biography is definitely a good source for information on her.
 * What does WikiNews have to do with this? I'm asking is Fox News a good source for information on its competitor, MSNBC? Is Fox News a good source for information on one of its former contributors, Sarah Palin? 2/5 (pending follow-up question)
 * A-Yes it is.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A- No because like Facebook, Twitter is avoided as a source. In fact, twitter is not a good source.
 * Right on! Social media is not a reliable source and should be avoided. 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-Yes because it is definitely a good source.
 * Can you really trust someone who is a "forum official" to form the position of a multi-national corporation? 2/5 (pending follow-up)
 * A-No

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. It would be a good source at the external links section of the article.
 * Fair enough. 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-The sky is actaully blue and that is right. Yes, because all articles still needs sources.
 * There are two conflicting essays on this: WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. Read both and tell me which you agree with. 3/5 (pending follow-up)
 * There are 2 essays on how the sky is blue including:WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE
 * adoption page stalker I can almost guarantee you that these answers are not detailed enough. In some cases you answered with a single word-answers need to be supported with either policy or a well-reasoned argument.   You probably also want to re-read WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE, as some of your answers are simply incorrect.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments
You said you wanted me to grade it even though you were warned your answers were inadequte, so I did. You ended up with a 19/40 (47.5%). I have posed follow-up questions where they are needed and if you successfully answer those, you can move on and I will award you your first barnstar. Go  Phightins  !  20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the answers and explained the answers so is it now good. --Starship9000 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Starship, I've created a retest for you here. Please complete it, and then we'll decide how to proceed. There are directions on that page. Thank you. Go  Phightins  !  19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-test
Starship, this adoption is not going very well. Instead of going off of the old questions and pontificating on them, I am going to write a new test. You will have one chance to complete this test. You must explain all your answers (at least two sentences per answer) and cite Wikipedia policy, explaining how it applies to the given situation. When you are finished, leave the ✅ template at the bottom of the page and I will grade it. You must get a 75% or higher to move on to the next lesson and earn a barnstar. Thank you. Go  Phightins  !  19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

1) While sitting in the cafeteria at school, you heard a rumor that your school was thinking about changing its mascot (nickname). Can you add that to its Wikipedia page?
 * A-Absolutley because it is important to put its nickname (mascot) when you create or edit a school article because that is included part of the Infobox school template. For example, the nickname (or mascot) of Henry Clay High School is Blue Devils and all school articles must have a nickname, including Henry Clay High School's article.
 * I agree that having a mascot in the name of an article is helpful and important, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's mandatory...as a matter of fact Kudpung would be a good one to ask about that, but that's really not the point of the question. You got this wrong the first time and this time; unless you have a reliable source, you cannot add it to the article. 2.5/5

2) Your science textbook says that evolution is real and is definitely how the world was created. You go home and talk to your parents, and they tell you that God created the earth. Can you add either of those statements to a Wikipedia article?
 * A-For the fact that evolution is real, yes it is allowed in a wikipedia article because that is part of science and how it evolves around the sun. And the fact God created the earth should not be added to a article because everybody knows good created the Earth.
 * This was a poorly phrased question; I'm going to discount it from the final grade.

3) You read an article from the The New England Journal of Medicine which says that British people are more likely to get diabetes than Americans, but Americans are more likely to get heart disease. You find another article from NBC News that says that British people are Socialists, while Americans are Capitalists. Can you then assume that Capitalists are more likely to get heart disease while Socialists are more likely to get diabetes and add it to the respective articles?
 * A-No. You cannot assume that Capitalists are more likely to get heart disease while Socialists are more likely to get diabetes. And it should not be added to the respective articles.
 * Absolutely! Great job! You can't synthesize that information to come up with a new assertion, as that would be original research. 4/5

4) Can you use Twitter or Facebook to cite information for a Wikipedia article on an amusement park? Why or why not?
 * A-You do not use Twitter or Facebook to cite information for a Wikipedia article because Twitter and Facebook are avioded as a reiable source. For example, when you add a source for the Carowinds article, Carowinds facebook page is avioded as a reliable source and and Facebook is a Social media. In fact, twitter and facebook are aviodable sources for all articles, not just the amusement park articles like Carowinds or Luna Park Sydney.
 * Right, social media is not a good source because it is almost always very promotional and certainly does not represent a neutral point of view. 4/5

5) An aide to the United States Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services releases a statement saying that the President of the United States supports gay marriage. Would that statement carry the same weight coming from the aide as it would coming from the White House Press Secretary? Why or why not?
 * A-Yes because is actually a fact about it coming from the aide as it would coming from the White House Press Secretary.
 * This question requires a little background knowledge...the White House Press Secretary is the President's spokesperson, while an aide to the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services would be an assistant to an assistant to an assistant to the president. So, which is more reliable: the Press Secretary or the aide to the Deputy Secretary of HHS?
 * The aide to the Deputy Secretary of HHS
 * No; someone who is an aide to the president is far more reliable than someone who is the aide to the aide to the aide of the president. 3/5

6) Do you need to cite a reliable source to tell you that the grass is green?
 * A-You do not need to cite a reliable source to tell you that the grass is green because everybody knows that the grass is green.
 * Okay; what if someone contests it and says the grass is brown? Then what do you do?
 * A-Then you cite a source
 * Right on. 5/5

7) Is there ever a time on Wikipedia when you can ignore the rules? When?
 * A-Absolutley not. You are not allowed to ignore the rules at all because you have to follow them our else it can lead loss of editing privilages.
 * Actually, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the subject of this test, allows one to ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia. You are right that violating policy over and over will get you blocked. 3/5

8) If you create an article on a new roller coaster that you think is amazing, are you allowed to tell another editor to go away when he tries to rewrite it from a neutral point of view? In other words, do you own the articles you create?
 * A-No. Editors are allowed to help improve articles and rewrite it from a neutral point of view. Telling a editor to go away when he or she does that is very disrespectful to the editor becuase they are trying to help you with it and try to rewrite it from a neutral point of view. No, you do not own the articles you create.
 * Right on! 5/5

9) Is Wikipedia a place where someone can get famous?
 * A-No. Wikipedia is not a place where you get famous. It is a serious project, not a place where you get famous.
 * Right on again! 5/5

10) If you write a really great article, is someone else allowed to come along and put it on their website without giving you credit?
 * A-No. He or she cannot do that without giving you credit. If they give you credit, then that is fine.
 * Well, technically, Wikipedia is free content, so anyone can use it for any purpose without giving you credit...you don't own what you create on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia editors, however, we must attribute non-free content to whom it belongs. 3/5

✅


 * Grade: 35.5/45 (76%)
 * Comments: Persistence pays off. Ideally, you should be scoring in the 80-85% range at least, but since we really worked hard here, I'll let you move on. Go   Phightins  !  00:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesson two
You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:

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 tildes ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * 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.


 * 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.

Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. Go  Phightins  !
 * Is this test going to be easy? -- Starship9000  (roller coaster fan)  01:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Test
You be the judge.

1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith.
 * A-A fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
 * What kind of principle? 1/5

2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario.
 * A-A block
 * You're not an admin; you can't block someone. And doling out blocks are almost never the solution to a civility problem, at least not initially. 1/5

3.) Have a look at the conversation below: Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

3a.) Position A?
 * A-Passat Lover
 * Nope. 0/5

3b.) Position B?
 * A-Passat Lover
 * Nope. 0/5

3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A-No he should not be reported as a possible sockpuppet. He would be only reported if he was a account of a sockpuppeteer such as Heyj00 and 204.195.0.161 or if he used those accounts to abuse our privilages.
 * Right, but the reasoning is because you should assume good faith. 3/5

When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism. ✅ ✅ ✅


 * Unfortunately, most of this is simply incorrect. I would recommend rereading WP:AGF and WP:THREAD, and then revising your answers.Tazerdadog (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Grade: 3/25 (12%)
 * Comments: Starship, I told you and Tazerdadog told you that your answers were pretty much wrong. If you have questions, you ask me. That's the whole point of adoption. Since you have refused to do so and are unable to grasp simple concepts like threading and what it means to assume good faith, I think we're going to take a break from adoption. Please take Ryan Vesey's advice; why don't you take a one year Wiki-Break and next year at this time we can resume adoption. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  04:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)