User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/kagalive1985 Exam 1

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. You may (on any of these tests) save the page, take a break, and come back up until you notify me that you are complete; however, you are limited to one week per exam. 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. The source is not one of a primary nature, it is second hand information that is classified as a rumor or speculation. Wikipedia is built on facts not myths and folk tales. To include this you would need many levels of 3rd party verification at the least, or preferably a press release or other more reliable source, which of course should be referenced in your inclusion.
 * 3/5 Instructor Comments: The problem is not that it is a primary source; in fact, we like secondary sources, here! You are correct that we cannot assume that it is more than rumor or speculation, however.  You're absolutely right that we'd need third party verification.  Press releases count as self-published, oftentimes, so that might not be ideal, but you nailed the answer with your final statement that we should find an "other more reliable source."

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- What one person defines as racism may differ from the next. This is subjective opinion, I suppose if there was a high level of general consensus about this racism, ie. many news sources reporting it you might make mention. Probably best to avoid. Definitely refrain from putting it on the article's page as this could class as deformation of character. In the racism article, as stated previously if the source was reliable you may include it, although generally speaking it is controversial and should probably be best avoided.
 * 2/5 Instructor Comments: I'm afraid this answer isn't quite what I wanted. You are correct that racism is a bit subjective, but the question notes that it is "clearly" racist.  Thus, one can assume that it is non-controversial racist.  We then shift our focus to the question of whether or not to include this item.  The issue comes down to whether or not the racism mention makes a positive (and we're not talking in terms of the newspaper's reputation) contribution to the encyclopedia.  If racism has been a trend in this newspaper or it was a substantial event, keep it.  It is actually more likely to make it into the racism article, and we don't avoid controversy here on Wikipedia simply for the sake of maintaining neutrality.

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists.  Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A- This type of relationship is an inference. Let's break down the logic first:


 * 1. Diabetes: America > British.
 * 2. Cancer: British > America.
 * 3. Capitalism: America > British.
 * 4. Socialists: British > America.


 * The inference suggested is Diabetes: Capitalists > Socialists. Cancer: Socialists > Capitalists.

The problem here is, there is no direct casual, logical statement of relationship between the illnesses and the political systems. The suggestion of fact is one of inference as opposed to one of reference. If it were referenced (direct relationship) then the answer would be easy - include it.

As it is not a reference but an inference my opinion is that it could arguably be included if references to the reliable sources were included with it. A modified sentence could read "refx and refy" suggest Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer.

The big winner here is the fact that the inferential relationships came about from RELIABLE sources. If the sources were in any way questionable it would not be suitable to make this inference and as such would not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (In my opinion).
 * 5/5 Instructor Comments: Good answer. I appreciated your detailed explanation.  I think it boils down to logical fallacies and that correlation does not imply causation.  Great work!

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A- Generally news sources are not without Bias, particularly with regard to political parties, or on organizations, products companies etc. where a conflict of interest exists. (EG, Fox competes with MSNBC for viewers so it is in it's interest to share only degrading news and with hold news which would glorify MSNBC.).

It is my opinion that due to this conflict of interest the source should be considered as biased and not reliable or suitable for inclusion.
 * 5/5 Instructor Comments: Correct, this is a conflict of interest on both parts. Good work.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
 * A- No. The personal or company ramblings of an individual or group are opinionated speculation which is often posted with no regard to fact. Nothing personal against this one in particular, but generally twitter is a source of opinion, not fact.
 * 4/5 Instructor Comments: Well, your answer "no" is correct, but I'd phrase the reasoning a bit differently, here. Since it's the official page, I'd treat it as any self-published source, but we definitely try to stay away from these as well as social media (especially) when there are other sources available, as they aren't entirely reliable or inclusive.

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- Here we have a person of authority making a comment. Due to the persons disposition we can conclude they are accurate in representing their stance on this issue. If there were a suitable place to display this disposition it may be included, with reference to this forum official's post.
 * 3/5 Instructor Comments: The answer that I generally get to this question is "no," and that's also generally the answer that I accept. However, you stipulate that "if there were a suitable place to display this [sic] disposition it may be included," and perhaps the question is a bit poorly phrased.  By your interpretation of a forum official, you would be absolutely correct.  If they were a spokesperson for the organization, their comment could count as a reliable source on the newspaper's stance.  However, I think this was a mere lack of familiarity with the fact that a forum official is typically a member of the community (like a moderator or, more relevantly, a Wikipedia reviewer), not an official spokesperson or even staff member.  For an example of this, I recommend taking a look at the disclaimer on many of the WMF staff members' user pages.

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- No. Although it is probably biased generally company about us pages provide factual information about the product. They may only tell the positive side of the story but generally speaking what they do say is true. I have no objection to this as long as a source is provided.
 * 5/5 Instructor Comments: Okay. Fair enough.  Remember that WP:SELFSOURCE points out specific items that may be included from a self source, though.  As long as you recognize the limitations of self sources, I have no objection to your answer.

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. The editor may be suffering from a minor stroke causing an ocular occlusion to occur! - Or he may be playing a piker and simply rambling nonsense. Perhaps he suffers dementia, perhaps he's blind drunk. Either way, his word is not gold, and it should be treated as folly until proven otherwise!
 * /5 Instructor Comments: Your answer is contradictory to your explanation. Please elaborate, below.  Before doing so, please read [WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE.

Note: Thanks for this first test I hope I did okay, some things I was not certain about so I went with my gut. I look forward to my critique so I can learn the truth about the answers to these questions, they have definitely given me something to think about and I feel I am learning already. Thanks again.

Test Completed 27/07/2013 12:41am Australian Eastern Standard Time Test Completed by: Kagalive1985 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck and godspeed.


 * /40 Instructor Comments: I hope that this wasn't too blunt of an introduction to my grading - I make note of the fact that I hold my course to be the most comprehensive and rigorous on this site. I am taking all student troubles into consideration (i.e. #2 and #6), so everything you do helps to make this course better, and I'm also really harsh.  You did a great job, and I'm really glad that you're taking part in my program.  Please work your way back through these questions and acknowledge my responses (and answer #8 differently - that doesn't mean your answer is wrong, I just didn't understand it), then we can move forward!

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page using the above button, then proceed to Lesson 2: Wikiquette. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)