User:WormTT/Adopt/Androzaniamy

Hi Androzaniamy, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a lesson for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Androzaniamy. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Five Pillars
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
 * 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 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 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 or would you like to try the test?


 * What do you mean by "Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!"? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you're allow to post here! it's all for you You can post on the talk page too if you want to chat more generally. I mean just that, I've seen some news papers get their information from Wikipedia. For example, towards the end of 2010, I was listening to Simon Mayo on Radio 2 when he said that Buffalo, New York had a nickname of "Stinktown USA". I thought that was a little odd. Within 20 mins he'd had lots of complaints and confessed he got it from Wikipedia. I checked and removed it. Journalists are busy people, they often don't have time to do proper research, so they just ckeck their information on Wikipedia.
 * The big problem is when we write something (which may or may not be wrong), then a journalist checks it and writes it in a newspaper, and then we source it to that newspaper. We're creating wrong facts! That's something we need to be careful of.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So does that mean newspapers and newss reports aren't reliable sources? Androzaniamy (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a very difficult question to answer. Generally, they're good, but we have to use "editorial judgement" on every source we use, considering factors like how biased the source might be to a certain point of view, if they are possibly taking information from wikipedia, if they have their facts straight and so on. A lot of tabloid gossip stories are false, whilst other stories are likely to be ok. It's something you have to be able to decide for yourself every time you look at a source. Tell you what, I cover a lot of this in the test, see if you can answer any of the questions.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.

1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
 * A - No, because you have to see from a source that is reliable and easily accessable (not everyone knows that friend). If you can find an official notice from the Ford company then that's okay to add that information on.
 * Exactly, friends aren't reliable sources - we need something to confirm it.

2) Q - A mainstream newspaper 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 - Maybe (on the newspaper's article), if it is a highly talked about incident in which other major media news sources have discussed and it has recieved lots of attention. It can't be on the racism article because there are so many types of racism everywhere.
 * I'm glad you've spotted the "highly talked about" part. If it's not highly talked about, it might be that it's just your opinion, and we can't add it into the article.

3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
 * A- If you can find a reliable source for it then why not?
 * What if you can't find a reliable source linking the two, but you can see the link? You might be the first person to have ever noticed the link! Can you add it?

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
 * A - If the BBC made a news story about the Troubles and a few other news channels have then it can be added on. BBC can be used as a source for news about ITV but only with other unbiased sources.
 * That's good. The important thing is editorial judgement. Getting more sources is a good thing, and making a judgement on whether the article is biased is helpful.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- No because Facebook isn't considered reliable as anyone can pretend to be Ben and Jerry.
 * That's very true. There are very rare situations where we can use Facebook, and this isn't one of them.

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A- As long as there is other proof about it then yes.
 * I'd say no actually, though I am glad you asked for other proof. A forum isn't a reliable source, no matter how official it is - it's just user generated content.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
 * A - I can't check the website because it is blocked by my computer (I'm on the children account). If it's trustworthy then it should be allowed.
 * Ah, my fault. Basically it's a website that focuses primarily on selling beer. As an alternative, would you consider Amazon.com a reliable source for a book article?


 * Depends on what your after, it would be good if you need to prove it exists or basic information like the author and date it was published. Maybe not so much for reviews and plot summaries. You will need review pages from independent sources or the book itself.
 * Brilliant answer, well done!

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A - No becasue it is an official page for it and is a primary source.
 * It can be used, but you must be very careful as it is a primary source, as you say. There are certain things like release dates which would be fine to use, as they are purely factual, but comments like "Xerox are the best company for printers" are purely promotional and shouldn't be used.

9) 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 - Wrong! The sky isn't blue at all, it is actually black and only appears to be different colours depending on the sun. You both will need to re-check your answers and write down the correct answer.
 * Lol, you're right, the sky isn't always blue, that was going to be my point. The onus should be on whoever adds the information to the article to make sure there is a source. There's two interesting essays on the topic though WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

Results
Very good answers. I've asked a couple of follow up questions on 2 and 7, can you have a look at them? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done Androzaniamy! You've done very well here, I'm pleased. I've put up your next lesson below. I did want to mention though regarding sources - we don't actually need them to be easily accessible. Odd though it may seem, if you've got a really rare book, you can cite it - even if other editors might have to pay thousands of pounds to confirm what you're saying. Similarly with journals which you might have to subscribe to. Worth mentioning - and let's move onwards!

Wikiquette
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. 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, : . 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.

Questions
Any questions?

If a person makes a discussion then shouldn't every other comment be a reply to the first one?
 * Not really. That wouldn't be much of a discussion would it! Everyone should be able to reply to the first comment, which they can do by using one colon no matter how far down the conversation they are - but if people actually want to discuss things, they need to be able to reply using an extra colon. (:: replies to :, ::: replies to :: and so on)   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean all other comments have to have an intent after the 1st 1.
 * If they're referring to the first one, yes. If they want to start a new discussion on a similar topic, then they need not have an indent (you often see this when editors are !voting - not voting). We also have od which outdents if you have long conversations with far too many colons and it's getting hard to read  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How do outdents look and how do you make them? Also, what is !voting? Outdents are done with the template od, and looks like that grey line above. Try typing to make one yourself! As to your other question, !voting is the wikipedia way of voting. It stems from the computer language symbol for "NOT" which is an exclaimation mark (!) - so it's a little joke to say that we are "NOT voting". Which is odd, because almost all the time, when we claim we're not voting, we actually are voting - but the comment we put with the vote matters more than the vote itself... does that make sense? Oh, and you're welcome to ask as many questions as you like, I'm hard to infuriate! WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Outdents can also be controlled by placing the number of colons used in the previous thread into the template.  For example, if a discussion uses ::::: and you wish to outdent, you can use .— cyberpower  Chat Absent  13:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Testing.

Testing again.

Another test.

I'm ready for the test now.
 * Coming right up.   <-- note the blank space where my username isn't.

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

1) Position A?
 * A- To Rod's Mate

2) Position B?
 * A- To Rod

3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A- No because being competent is a good thing.

Results
Good answers. you assumed good faith and didn't see the worst in the editor. Well done. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from 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
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. 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 cannot be used on Wikipedia.
 * 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia.
 * 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia.

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.

What are pirate copies and why do pictures need to be shrunk?

Worm That reTurned
Nobody Ent, Cyberpower, I appreciate your help in other places, but on this adoption page would you mind not answering Amy's questions. I have no problem with you watching, but adoption is a slow process and questions do not need to be answered instantly.

Amy, I've left you a message on your talk page with respect to your attitude, which you need to adjust, I'm hoping that'll the end of it. As for your question, the guys are completely correct above. Images which are not free to use, such as this lovely picture of two rabbits I took. Now, that image can be used by anyone, for anything they want, as long as they mention I took it. If someone was so inclined, they could take that image, put it in a calendar, and sell the calendar - without paying me a penny as long as they mention me. I've released all the rights. Now, if someone were to take, say an DVD cover, and put it on wikipedia to show what the DVD looks like, we don't want anyone taking it and selling it - the rights are still owned by someone else. So what we do is reduce the size, enough so we can still see what the DVD looks like, but not so much that anyone could copy it. Does that make sense? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's Worm That reTurned?
 * Still me, but I was making a little joke because I was "re"turning from holiday. I'm not a very funny person.  Worm TT( talk ) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get pirate copies.
 * Well, let's forget about pirates. Let's think about an imaginary photo of David Tennant, taken by Billie Piper and a copy is given to you as a present. Now, the question is "who owns the right to make more copies" of that photo - the "copyright". It's not the subject of the photo, and it's not the person who owns a copy (not you or David) - but it's Billie, the person who took the photo. That person has the right to sell copies the photo, give copies to friends or license it out.
 * Wikipedia is free, so we only accept images which meet certain criteria - ones that have been given an appropriate license. The license should allow people to make copies, make new images based upon the original or even to sell the image. The only stipulation is that the people who make the copies, new images or sell the image state where it came from, "attribution". Are you still with me?
 * Now here's where things get a little complicated. Wikipedia also allows us to use images which are not free in very limited circumstances. They boil down to "there's no free version of this image" and "the person who owns the image can't lose out because of us". Let's imagine the DVD cover of Doctor Who, series 1 box set after the reboot. That photo took a lot of work to set up, with Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper going to a photo studio, with expensive equipment. Then lots of editing happened to the photo to get the background to look like space and movement, along with the design of the logo. Lots and lots of money spent there - to get people to buy the DVDs. If we then put that on wikipedia, the people who own the image would lose out, because anyone can take a copy of the image and sell it. We don't allow that. Does that make sense?  Worm TT( talk ) 09:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would they lose out?
 * It's to do with the way that people make money from photos. Photos can cost a lot to make, maybe because the photo taker has to get up at 6am to get the light just right, or has to pay people to pose for them, or has to spend money on expensive editing software. They want to make some of that money back, and possibly a profit, so the law has given them rights to choose how their photo is used. If people use their photo without permission, they lose out on any money they could have made by that person asking for permission and paying for it. It's especially bad on wikipedia as there the information here is replicated so many times (hundreds of websites re-use wikipedia content), so if someone puts a photo up, the person loses out every time it's replicated.  Worm TT( talk ) 07:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you make money from photos?
 * There are a number of ways. If you know the right people, you can sell the photo to magazines other publications. Sometimes people are commissioned to make a specific photo, and they will paid as part of that commission. If you sepecifically want to make money from your photos, there are a number of websites online where you can post them and if someone sees it and wants it, they can buy it.

So if they're paid already for one use why would they lose out if other people use it for free?
 * Are you suggesting that song writers should only be paid once, no matter how well their song sells? Film makers only paid once even if their film is a block buster? It's the same with photos. The person who owns the rights to the photo has the right to make as much money as they can from it, for around 70 years (depending on country). If they choose to let people use it for free, then they can, but it should be their choice, no one elses.

So is getting a picture from Google Images and using it for a project wrong?
 * 99% of the time, yes. Othere sites are not nearly as careful as wikipedia, because wikipedia is so much larger than them and can't get away with it. There are certain circumstances where you can use a picture from Google images, but it's so rare that I recommend you stick with only uploading photos you've created yourself.

What about for school work?
 * Putting it on wikipedia for school work is just as problematic as anything else. Using them specifically for school work shouldn't be a problem as your school work is not published, you are only using it for private use.

What if it's put on the school website?
 * I'm a little confused as to your question. If want to take an image from the school website and put it on wikipedia, that's not allowed, unless the owner of the image has given permission (there's a complex route for this). If you want to take an image from Google Images and put it on your school website, that is copyright infringment, but it's the owner of the school website who get in trouble.

I mean what if you made a piece of work using images from the internet and they put it on display on the school website? By the way what's copyright infringement?
 * Copyright infringement and copyright violation both mean breaking copyright law. In the scenario you described, the school is breaking copyright, but it's unlikely to have any repercussions.

Why not?
 * Because your school's website is small, and wouldn't cause any major international company to worry. Whereas Wikipedia is the 4th biggest website on the internet, meaning it would cause a lot more harm.

What if it's a really famous school like Cheltenham Ladies'?
 * The bigger the school, the more people who will view it, but even the biggest school doesn't get as many views as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world.

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- Yes, it does not cost any money to view.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- If it is yours or you have permission to do so.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A-

Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
 * A-Yes because he made the poster.

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- Yes if you took it

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- If the police and the prisoner let you.

Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
 * A-

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A-Yes, it's copyrighted.

Q9) 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-