User:Graemerc/sandbox/resources

Learning to edit
The Art+Feminism Organization has put together some brief videos to walk you through the basics of Wikipedia editing.
 * Basic Videos = 23mins total (8 videos)
 * Intermediate Videos = 6.5mins total (2 videos) - Adding Images to Wikimedia Commons & Adding Infoboxes to Wikipedia Articles
 * Advanced Video = 3mins total (1 video) - Wikipedia Notability Guidelines

Background

 * Five pillars of Wikipedia, philosophical guidelines and best practices for editing
 * Tutorial
 * Beginners' guide to Wikipedia (account creation, article editing)
 * Training for students, a tutorial for beginners
 * Bookshelf, additional "getting started" resources

Using the Wikipedia Editor

 * Your first article (using the Article Wizard, if you wish)
 * Visual Editor User Guide
 * Wiki markup quick reference, PDF version of printed handout
 * Wikipedia cheat sheet (Bookshelf), another markup cheatsheet
 * Manual of style
 * How to edit a page

Useful Templates

 * Citation templates
 * Infobox templates
 * Artist template that you can use to structure your article.

Writing Biographical Articles

 * Writing about women
 * Biographies of Living Persons
 * Guide to Writing Wikipedia Pages for Notable Women in Computing by Susan H. Rodger (applicable to any biography)
 * Article development

FAQs

 * FAQ on Conflict of Interest Editing
 * FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure

Searching

 * Free English newspaper sources
 * List of online newspaper archives
 * List of academic databases and search engines
 * List of digital library projects - online databases of digital objects that can include text, still images, audio, video, or other digital media formats.
 * How to mine a source

Determining Source Quality

 * Wikipedia's list of sources showing which ones are reliable, debated, and unreliable. Check your sources here to see whether or not they should be used.
 * Wikipedia's list of external websites that should not (or only on specific circumstances) be linked to in an article.
 * Advice from other editors: Reliable sources checklist

Journal access

 * You can use Worldcat free to get citations in MLA, Chicago, and other bibliographic formats.
 * The Wikipedia Library Journals Project works to grant Wikipedians access to databases to help with their Wikipedia work, and reference work, and for general knowledge. You can request an account on the project pages but must do so in advance. Some journals, such as JSTOR, require editors to have at least 1 year and 1000 edits worth of experience.

What do I do if my article is flagged?
Remain calm during the flagging/deletion process and take it as a sign that the system is working. Sometimes articles ARE unfairly tagged because of systematic problems. And yet, deletions/flags do not always occur because someone was insensitive to the subject matter its often more about needing improved citation, reference, structure, or using less promotional or biasing language. Take time to understand what policies other editors were using to determine that the article needed flagging. Do not use personal attacks and remain a civil voice during the discussion process to best communicate your point of view.

Banners are part of Wikipedia’s peer review process.

Flagged for Improvement
Some Wikipedia editors focus on tagging articles that need improvement by putting| notification templates at the top of an article. Bots also put these tags on articles with regularity. Articles that are flagged/tagged then go on | lists where other editors review them, or work on completing the articles. The links within the banner lead to policy pages that offer ideas for improvement, and that after some improvements are made. Banners will say whether they can either be removed, at any time, or if there is a process that needs to take place in order to have the banner removed. The general best practice for banners that say ‘may be removed’ is to write on the talk page the reasons why the banner is no longer relevant or why the article should be in good standing. There is usually an administrator assigned to the banner. To get more information, message this administrator directly on their talk page.

If your article is flagged for improvement, take a look at the banner and the talk page of the article to see whether or not there are suggestions. If there are, try to improve the article as best you can, and leave a note in the talk page explaining why the banner should be removed.

Flagged for Deletion
Articles that are flagged for deletion go to deletion debates, where conversations occur, and anyone can participate (recruiting other editors that you know personally to participate in an AfD or deletion discussion is not permitted, but this is only flexibly enforced). That page will be linked to directly in the banner listed on the main article page. On the deletion discussion page, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly, and comment on their reasoning. There is a further appeal process if you are not satisfied with the result.

Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion or banner can simply remove the tag, but first, the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page, and also to engage in a discussion with the Wikipedian that put the banner there to resolve the issue (you can find their Username in the relevant "view history" listing). You may edit/improve the article at any time during the deletion discussion, and you may alert members of the deletion discussion that changes have been made.

If your article is flagged for deletion, go to the deletion discussion page for that article and make a case for why the article should not be deleted. Make improvements to the article to address any issues that may arise. If it is decided to delete the article, request a deletion review.

Stay Cool When Your Content Gets Hot
Here are some tips (from a longer list of tips) from experienced contributors:


 * If someone disagrees with you, make sure you try to understand why. Listen to the others, and take the time and effort to explain why you think your suggestion(s) might be preferable. Remember, you're not always right – sometimes you're wrong. Even when you know you're right, it may be better to concede to the prevailing opinion.


 * Don't label, give names or even disparage people or their edits; assume good faith for as long as possible. Terms such as "racist", "fascist", "moron" etc., may enrage people and make them defensive. When this happens, productive discussion becomes very difficult. Assume the best about people whenever possible – this includes assuming that others are doing likewise.


 * Take it slow. There is no time limit for a discussion. If you are angry, take a break from posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the change or comment you wanted while you were away. Remember that Wikipedia is a hobby and not an obligation or commitment. Keep a good community spirit up and make good edits as a community.


 * Raw text is ambiguous and is often more difficult to interpret than speech. Text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. It is easy to misjudge other editors' moods and intentions, especially when disagreements or discussions are heated. Make your proposals and responses clear; listen carefully to opposing arguments and/or criticism, and be prepared to prove that you are listening actively.


 * Think about whether each action is going to make things better or worse. If an action might make things worse, consider not doing it. Be prepared to apologize. In the heat of the moment, we sometimes say things that were better left unsaid; the least we can then do is make amends.