User:The9Man/Adopt/NixV

Hi, and welcome to your adoption center. I will set up a lesson every day for the next 7 days. You can complete these at your own pace and order. Whenever you complete a lesson and ready we will have a test and assignments on that. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to ask. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks The9Man! I'll check these lessons out. I'll let you know when I'm ready to take the tests/assignments, probably around next week. :) NixV (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, this isn't adoption-related, but I have a question about article creation. I've been spending the past couple of days working on a draft of The Ocean Race Europe. I would ideally submit it for Articles for Creation, but as it's a current sporting event I'm not particularly sure what to do, since getting an article reviewed takes several weeks - by which time the event in question would be over. NixV (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper but an encyclopedia. So getting the article on time doesn't matter unless it has large significance. You can do two things after the completion of a draft article: 1. Submit the article for review when you are ready. (Which you have already done in this case.) 2. If you are confident about the article passes the Wikipedia guidelines, you can move the draft yourself into the Main namespace using page move function and wait for new page patrol. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 06:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

5PILLARS is the summarization of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is one of the most important essays in Wikipedia.


 * 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.

Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that.

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 editor's 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 saying 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 whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full-size equivalent.

A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception - so self-publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting side point 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 notable... 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? '''


 * Hey there - I've managed to have a look at this, thanks for the info! A question I have: If you're citing sources for a specific event - e.g. a sports event - would citing the event's page be permissible? Or would it be more ideal to cite multiple sources (including the event's page)? Thanks. NixV (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any article in Wikipedia should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to make it notable. You can use the primary sources, but it is compulsory to have multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS. More about general notability and subject-specific notability guidelines are here. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey there! I think I'm ready to take the test/assignment on Five Pillars now. Let me know when you're ready. Nix</b><b style="colour:#3D0008">V</b><sup style="colour:#1F1F1F"> (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your test follows below. Read WP:THREAD to learn how to reply on the threads which is a part of WP:Wikiquette. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Test

Hope you are doing well. Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests.

1. A blog titled “Katy Perry Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that Katy Perry will be performing in Sydney on 10 August. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not?

2. Is the official Facebook page of Coca-Cola a reliable source?

3. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do minor copyedits and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?

4. Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?

5. Your friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not?

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 highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental and within the scope of WP:5P4. 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 editor's 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. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
 * Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . 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. Will be covering more in the dispute resolution.

Questions?

Thanks for the info - it's really helpful. A quick question: When I started out with editing, I got some notifications saying a user 'thanked' me for my edits. What is this feature and how does it work? <b style="colour:#000000">Nix</b><b style="colour:#3D0008">V</b><sup style="colour:#1F1F1F"> (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an easy way to express the gratitude and give positive feedback to the fellow editors. You may read more here - H:THANK. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)