User:WormTT/Adopt/Kimelea

Hi Kimelea, 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/Kimelea. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:49, 7 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?
 * OK... reliable sources. I understand the basic theory, but what constitutes reliable or reputable seems quite a fuzzy line to me, as does the distinction between 'original research' and a perfect summary of contradictory sources. I think this might just be something I have to get a 'feel' for over time, and I might have to drop them on you when I see them to ask your opinion. Can I give you two examples that DON'T look right to me? I'll post them on our talk page if that's OK because it might get a bit spammy otherwise. Apart from that, sure, hit me with the test! ~ Kimelea (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's got to be a case by case basis really - and fuzzy is definitely right! If you get the theory and you think about what you're doing, that's all we can ask. There's no hard and fast rules on wikipedia, we expect people to be bold and make a choice. If people disagree, they'll let you know. We can chat about it all you like, here or on the talk page.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:08, 8 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 - You could start exercising your googling fingers. If Ford made an announcement about it, there ought to be some reliable sources saying so, surely? If there aren't, then it's a rumour, fails WP:VERIFY, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
 * (To give an incredibly pedantic answer - you could add it to the article, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it would rightly get reverted before you could say shiny blue car.)
 * Pedantry, what am I going to do with you. You're absolutely right on all counts, even if a little annoying
 * If it's the kind of annoying that makes you smile, then you can reckon on me continuing to do it. :D Anyway I thought it might be a sneaky trick question, part of the test! Pillar 3 and all!
 * Please do. You're the first person to point out the obvious, it's nice to see!

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 - It sounds like it is you (or me) who are saying it is racist, not the paper. Sticking it up as an example of racism on either article would be POV, letting your own opinion come into it. It would also carry the implication of criticism of the paper, particularly if you put it on the paper's article, and the one making the criticism is you, not a third-party source. If their use of the cartoon got criticised by other sources, then I reckon we could write about the controversy on either article and maintain WP:NPOV.
 * What I can't quite wrap my head around is how it would be different if the paper used the cartoon to illustrate a point about racism. Say, for example, it's a story about this cartoon causing a firestorm in another country due to its racism. That definitely wouldn't belong on the paper's WP article, but it might belong on the racism article... then we are just citing the paper's coverage of this racist cartoon and we are not the ones saying it is racist. I think.
 * Oh, I'm so glad you get this. You're exactly right, it's something that a lot of people don't get. No matter how racist we think it is, if it's not covered elsewhere, we can't use it. I actually had a mentee doing something almost identical with a cartoon he found homophobic, trying to add it into the Daily Mail article. I can't disagree, it was a homophobic cartoon - but it wasn't covered.
 * I think on your second point you're thinking about that whole Muhammad cartoons controversy a few years ago. In this case, it got big enough to be on it's own article, but I think it also fitted in Depictions of Muhammad and Jyllands-Posten. If it's relevant and neutrally written, it should be able to go in each article (unless it's being given too much space!)
 * I had to puzzle over this question for quite a while before I 'got' it. I knew it wasn't right, but I couldn't put my finger on why at first - once I realised it was a POV issue, it seemed obvious. It was thinking about the Muhammad thing that made me get the distinction, though I couldn't remember the details of that story. Now I did some more digging and found an interesting piece from the Beeb about their dilemma whether to republish the cartoons as part of the story or not. ("Which group shall we offend this week by trying not to offend another group?") Presumably the BBC's coverage of the JP controversy up to that point was a secondary source, rather than content in its own right, but could we theoretically use that piece as a primary source - say, on Freedom of speech versus blasphemy?
 * Oooh that's a difficult one. In all, I'd sugegst that we don't use that source, because it's mostly primary research (a bit odd for the BBC), but they're posting people's reactions - in the same manner as Points of View. It makes for a very interesting article, and might be worth mentioning in the actual article, but the Beeb talking about itself... which is just.. hmm, odd.
 * Our article on NewsWatch (TV series) is a stub, but the website looks like meta-journalism. I don't plan to cite the Newswatch page anywhere but it's interesting to hear your thoughts about these sources.

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 - squashes per 'head'. :D You could conceivably find a place for your butternut squash citation on the butternut squash article, and a place for your baldness citation on the baldness article (if you could justify that they were worth including). But synthesising them to imply any correlation between squash consumption and baldness would be WP:OR, I believe, so no, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
 * Exactly. Though it might make a great research article!
 * Have fun finding a causal link on that one!

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 - Yes, I'd consider it a reliable source on the Troubles. I suppose there's an argument that it is not truly neutral because it is British and therefore might have a 'side' in the conflict, but if we got pedantic enough we could point out that every source belongs in a cultural context. I think the BBC is generally considered reputable as a news source and is trusted in statements of fact.
 * As for being a reliable source on ITV, I suppose it gets a bit more dubious because of their potential conflict of interest, but still I'd stand by the Beeb as a reliable source. Their reputation as fair and factual is important to them too, after all. Maybe it might be best to look first for other sources that aren't in direct competition with the subject, but I note that ITV does in fact have a BBC News web citation.
 * I personally like the Beeb for everything, but the point is that we must look at the source itself. Sometimes they do whitewash information, unfortunately. As long as you're using editorial judgement, as in thinking about possible biases and writing neutrally, you should be fine.
 * Gotcha.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A - That would be a self-published source on itself? I believe it's acceptable as a source, though not as the only source. Their own website would seem to be a better choice if it has the same content, because there are no doubts about its authenticity and it doesn't require registration. Secondary sources would be better yet.
 * Very true. I'd steer clear of Facebook in general - unless there's no other option. In this case, you've found a better option instantly, and you've spotted why even the better option is problematic. As for the registration, we don't mind about that - see WP:PAYWALL.
 * Ooh, I hadn't seen that one before. I misread something else that was talking about external links not citations. Groovy.

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 - Er, no. One 'official' does not an organisation make. And even if they did, there's no guarantee that this person is such an official and has that authority. And even if they did, it's an internet forum where anyone can say anything and that is not a reliable source.
 * Bingo!
 * Where was it that I saw a screenshot of a comment on someone's Facebook status used as a source? At the time I didn't know better than to scowl at it and go "hmmm". Must kill.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
 * A - Yes. That looks like link spam, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. There are plenty of reliable internet sources about beer, we don't need commercial websites as sources.
 * Sounds good to me. They may be fine, with editorial judgement, but if you can do better, then do better.

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 - I assume that is meant to say on xerox.com? That looks okay to me as a source (not the source). It's a self-published source again but there's no reason to think that their website section on their own history would be unduly self-serving or unreliable. Having said that, it's a primary source and secondary sources are better, so as with 5), let's use the secondary sources first where they are available.
 * Exactly.

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 - You've got me running all over the docs with these questions, I love it. Gut said: If someone challenges that the sky is blue, and the sky really is blue, and this is a widely known fact, then it should be very easy to find a source and settle the matter. WP:CITE says we should provide inline citations for anything that is challenged or likely to be. It has been challenged, so if you want the claim of the sky's blueness to stand, you have to cite it, no matter how obvious it might seem to you. If the other editor cites a source for his counter-claim that it is bronze, then I guess we get into the judgement territory you mentioned on our talk page. To avoid original research, we might have to dive into Google to see if any reliable source ever noticed that the sky can be both blue and bronze, and can harmoniously unite our positions with a happy secondary source. If they can't, then either the bronze claim is a minority POV that doesn't belong in our article, or it wasn't a case of 'everybody knows that the sky is blue' to begin with.
 * Very good. Interestingly, looking out the window now, the sky is grey. Last night (and it seems every night I write these...) there was a lovely sunset where the sky was red. Oh, and then a couple of hours after, the sky was black... as night. Indeed, back in ancient greek times, they didn't have a word for blue and used bronze instead, so he may have a point. There's two opposing essays WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue on this topic, so there's no right or wrong answer, but it's important to remember that discussion is key and the onus is on the person who wants to add the contentious information. If he was adding "sky = bronze", he needs to back that up. If he's removing "sky = blue", you either need to back that up to put it back in OR show that it's not contentious.
 * Gah! Curse you for broadening my mind! I was quite happy in my simplistic "the sky is blue" myth, ignoring what was outside my window ;) It makes me almost look forward to getting into a debate of this kind :)


 * One more question about sources. I know fan sites are generally to be avoided as a source of information on whatever they're a fan of, because they are not independent, probably biased and there is little quality control. But what if you want to write on Wikipedia about something that happened within a fandom? Say for example there is massive fan interest / speculation about who a book character's father is or whether a certain film contains religious allegory. This has never been addressed by the authors / filmmakers, but it is all the fans ever talk about. (There have been much weirder fan debates!) Can you use a reputable fansite as a primary source to support a statement that fans are nuts about this question? Or is it considered not verifiable / OR unless an independent source talks about it?
 * Very good question. Well, the first question I'd ask you is how can you be sure that the fans are nuts about a particular question? Or that there is "massive" fan speculation on a topic? - The only way you can know is by reviewing the primary source and forming your own opinion. A-ha! Your own opinion. That's original research right there. It does happen that sooner or later, fan outcry is noticed by the press and they form the same opinion, that can definitely be used... but a primary source in that situation is probably a bad idea.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A-ha! Not my opinion, a random die-hard fan's opinion, 'reporting' on his or her own fandom. But yeah, I get you. The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following is a case in point. It's full of information on their crazy rituals and stuff, but verifiability is very dodgy because of all the original research and primary sources (it'd be a brave journalist who put him or herself through that!) - how much of that do you think we should tolerate, in the absence of anyone challenging it? (Self-edit: actually that wasn't a case in point about fan controversy, it was a big ol' tangent, but it does illustrate the fandoms-talking-about-themselves thing)
 * The case that got me thinking about this is a Disney character who was 'canon' until a film sequel rewrote the canon and erased him from history. Fans keep insistently adding OR about him to our articles and getting reverted - I'll ask your advice on our talk page at some point about whether there is anything about the controversy that we can publish. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That'd be Kopa, from the Six New Adventures? It's difficult isn't it - because the people who care most about canon and non-canon are the fans. So if we were to ask "should we includes someone like Kopa" in List of The Lion King characters we end up debating fandom. (It was in there for a while you know ) It gets even more complicated in programs like Red Dwarf, which change absolutely everything for a joke.
 * The Rocky Horror article shouldn't be too bad, because it's mostly sourced to a book, but I do see your point. How much should we accept? All depends. I'm not keen on people removing correct information for the sake of removing, but nor am I keen on people adding unsourced information for the sake of it. If you're interested in an article, make it better. (Wishy washy answer I know!)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Results
Jolly good show. I've left some comments, if you want to reply, go ahead. Otherwise, let me know when you're ready to move on.
 * Tally ho! What's next?

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?
 * I get this feeling you want me to assume good faith. Test please! ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You do? I'm genuinely surprised!

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- Rod's Mate

2) Position B?
 * A- 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- I don't think so. We could start by checking to see if he's actually declared a link with another account on his user page... even if he hasn't, there are reasons a new editor might know his way round templates. He might have edited similar code before, such as on another wiki. He might have a good teacher. He might be intelligent and a fast learner, who is picking stuff up by reading the documentation, exploring and making that preview button earn its wages. He might have been editing Wikipedia for donkey's years as an IP and have gained experience that way, and just recently have registered for an account. Even if he is someone's alternative account, there are legitimate uses for them - a sockpuppet is there to be disruptive, is my understanding. Let's assume good faith and welcome the newbie with the template skills :D
 * Too tired to think Kopa tonight, I'll reply there (and to your email - thanks!) when I'm a bit more awake. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect, you assumed good faith! Glad I mentioned it above... Onwards...

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 would be deleted.
 * 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.
 * 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 and upload their version. 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.

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.
 * Oh dear - my normal approach doesn't work here, this subject isn't intuitive at all. I've now read through your tutorial three times on three different days, and I think most of it went in, but it still feels fuzzy and the policy docs only confuse me further.
 * Indeed - it's only intuitive if you learn copyright law. Which I didn't. So I've spent a lot of time getting my head around it... but I'm hardly perfect...
 * This whole fair use thing. Your tutorial says "fair use is not permitted" in Commons. I don't understand that. If fair use of something is not permitted, what is permitted? Unfair use? Or does the phrase 'fair use' never apply to stuff that is in the public domain or released under a free licence, even though that is also a case of waiving copyright?
 * Well, what I mean by "fair use" is "fair use of items which have not been released under an appropriate license". In other words, we can legally and morally ignore copyright in a few situations - but Wikimedia Commons needs to be completely "free" - cannot have unfree items in it at all. That's what "Commons" means.
 * The glossary definition of 'fair use' says that the circumstances where copyright can be waived are 'specific to the country'. Which country? If it means the country where the work was created, does that mean that for works created in a country with really tight laws, we can't claim fair use at all?
 * Ah, now this is where the law and policy don't quite match. It actually means "Florida, USA", because that's where Wikimedia's servers are, and that's where they'd have to be prosecuted. Most (if not all) countries have some sort of fair use waiver, and Wikipedia's waiver is actually stricter than them. For example, we do not allow fair use for living people, because a free equivalent is plausible. I don't believe that would be a legal requirement, but it is a Wikipedia one.
 * The image in this tutorial (the little flow chart about licensing) doesn't seem to cover non-free works at all. It just says you can't use anything you didn't make yourself unless you have permission. Is that because it's very basic and only aimed at preventing violations, or is there some subtlety I'm missing?
 * Indeed there is. That's a flowchart for Commons. Non-free works are not permitted. A flow chart for Wikipedia would be much more complex.
 * Justifying the use of something in the waffly permission boxes you see on every file page - the licence and so on. How do you know which boxes you have to fill in? I haven't dared to try uploading or linking to anything yet, free or non. Is there a helpful form that gives you boxes to fill in? Are there sample free-use-rationale summaries somewhere, or do you really have to write the free licence or the fair-use rationale out of your head every time you upload or link to anything?
 * When you try to upload things, there are helpful boxes. You click on a button to say it's non-free content, and then it asks you all sorts of questions about what sort of non-free content it is, and which article it's going to be used in and so on. It then auto-magically generates the box for you. You can use custom ones there too.
 * If you want to use a copyrighted image on an article, I understand that you have to write a fair-use rationale for that image on that article. CC-BY-SA is a 'free licence', but still has "some rights reserved", and if you want to use a 'free' image that is under that licence, you don't have to write a fair-use rationale, right? How do you comply with the attribution requirement? Is it enough just to make the image linkable back to the image page where the licence is? Does this happen automagically?
 * You are right, CC-BY-SA does have some limitations, the primary one being attribution. On Wikipedia for text we're happy that the history counts as attribution, and linking through to the image with all the details is sufficient for attribution. That's why the File: command automatically links to that page.
 * The flow chart says that your photos of old stuff are not copyright violations. Presumably this is because the old stuff is in the public domain due to its copyright expiring - fine. But it gives the examples of art, statues and buildings. Buildings?? Buildings are copyrighted? Who owns the copyright? If I upload my own photo of the street where I live, am I violating the copyright of all the people who own all the houses on the street?
 * Good spot! Not all buildings are covered by copyright, but some certainly are. For example, every building in the USA since 1999. BUT then we've got something called "freedom of panorama", which allows you to take pictures of copyrighted items, as long as they're not the subject of the picture. So, if you take a picture of a field with a copyrighted piece of art in the middle, it's allowable. (Of course, that gets complicated if you then crop the picture or use it in a way that makes it clear that the copyrighted item is the subject)
 * In your street, freedom of panorama will take precedent. I think there's some weird laws on this though - like, in the UK you can take a picture of a building if you are standing on public ground. Oh and in the UK, Freedom of Panorama does not apply to 2D items. All sorts of weird stuff.
 * If copyright covers more than just text and works of art, then what else is copyrighted? Where do we draw the line? Does IKEA own the copyright to my bookcase for designing it, or do I own the copyright for assembling it, or is the bookcase not under copyright?
 * No, you own the bookcase, but not the copyright. Spot the clever use of the word "copyright"... "right to copy". In other words, you can't go round making lots of Billy Bookcases, because you bought one. It's easier to see in computer games, you own the game, but not the right to make lots more of them and give them out/or sell them. Just about all intellectual property is copyrighted - though it can be released under license.
 * I have seen people stating on their userpages that they release their contributions "into the public domain". This userbox does the same. Do they mean that they release their file uploads on a really-really-free licence, as opposed to the "some rights reserved" kind of 'free' licence like the one on our picture above? Or do they really have the ability to release their text content contributions under a freer licence than the ones that apply to everything we write (CC-BY-SA / GFDL)?
 * Yes, you can release anything on a broader license and still use it on Wikipedia, but not on a stricter license. Practically, it makes no difference on text, because the final text is all mixed up - but on a photo it would make a difference. At that point, anyone can use it for any purpose without attribution.
 * Time for a cup of tea... PHEW! ~ Kimelea   (talk)  21:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for answering inline - hope it doesn't make it too complex to read, but I think I answered everything!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it makes it easier to follow. Thank you for your patience! I actually understood all that! (And I may have slightly read "Freedom of Panorama" as "Freedom of Paranoia".) ~ Kimelea   (talk)  13:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Fancy the test?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, let's go. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Test
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
 * A- I think Wikipedia strikes a fairly happy note on the fair side of free. From my understanding of completely free content ("you can use this stuff for anything, even copying it and claiming it as your own") it encourages immoral use of somebody else's work. Wikipedia is free to use so long as you give credit to where you got it from.
 * But then, people can't redistribute and modify the non-free stuff on Wikipedia the way they can with the free stuff, and I haven't quite figured out how that works practically and morally, so my answer to this question is subject to change. :p
 * I think that's a good answer. It's not quite free, but it's close to free. Did you know the German Wikipedia uses only free content? It's possible - as this interesting parable shows.
 * Oooh. That was fun to read. It's a bit of a straw man though, as "the free encyclopedia" doesn't actually say anything about freedom to redistribute... the encyclopedia is entirely free to use. Applying the veganism example directly would imply that readers have to pay to access the non-free content. Anyway I went off on a click trail from there, following the debate, and found the example comparing the English Tintin article with the German one. I have to say that I think the German article really suffers for not having any samples of the art.

Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
 * A- If you own the copyright and are willing to release the picture on a free licence, or if it is somebody else's work on a free licence or in the public domain.
 * Very good.

Q3) You find music displaying this licence (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
 * A- Yes, I think that's a free licence (similar to the licence for Wikipedia's content) so we can, as long as we attribute it properly.
 * It's a terribly mean question, I don't know if anyone has got it right yet. Maybe one... Anyway, no, we can't. Wikimedia may be non-commercial, but the content must be released in on a license at least as broad as CC-BY-SA. That allows commercial reuse... which this doesn't. (If you want to sell all the images from commons, as long as you give attribution, you can... I think there's a calendar business there!)
 * Gah! Okay, you got me. I wonder how many people uploading their photos to Commons would be a bit pissed off to see their work in Calendar Club. However - we could upload the music to Wikipedia directly, right? State the non-commercial licence and then use it in an article about the band?

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- It may be his composition but it is a derivative work of non-free material, so he doesn't have the right to release it on a free licence. But can he claim fair use? I'm really not sure. Where would we use it? I would say the most logical article would be The Beatles discography. It would be useful in context and, with a lot of waffle on its file page, could attribute the source of every one of the album covers. It could be shrunk to a low enough resolution to ensure that it wouldn't be used for piracy. And in my opinion it would be a much better illustration of the Beatles' discography than the current image of the four band members. But does it meet content criterion 3 (use as little as possible)? Maybe not. It's not strictly necessary to show all the album covers to illustrate the concept. Where do we draw the line between improving the understandability of the article, and using as little as possible? Don't know. Help!
 * Good spot - can it count as fair use. Well, last time I checked, we wouldn't allow a fair use compilation of Doctor Who Companions, you might find an old sig of mine in there! Having said that, it was a fairly close call and others are allowed these days, so perhaps? There's no right or wrong answers! Just opinions.
 * See below!

Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
 * A- No, the Pope is alive so I could go and take a picture of him in public and create a free alternative.
 * Yep

Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
 * A- Hrrrrr. You said Wikipedia doesn't allow fair use for living people, but I don't see any way to create a free alternative when the person is in prison and will probably be inaccessible to the public until his or her death. Is this a case of ignoring all rules? I'm going to go with yes, we could justify fair use of the press image on this one.
 * Again, no right or wrong answer. I'd personally agree with 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- I could first check the cited sources for the text (if there are any) and just make sure the text isn't under a free licence or that the person who copy-pasted the text isn't the copyright holder. I could post on the article's talk page and the contributor's talk page (having checked the history to find out who the contributor was) urgently asking for explanations, while assuming good faith! Failing that, I think we have to assume it's a copy-paste copyright violation. It sounds like it's the whole article that's affected so according to WP:COPYVIO, if I can't revert the page to a non-infringing version or rewrite the article from scratch in my own words, I'd need to tag it for speedy deletion.
 * But this does beg the question: if I rewrote it in my own words, the page history would still have an infringing version saved and it could be restored by another editor at any point. Aren't we still violating copyright by hosting it in the page history?
 * Unfortunately, we're between a rock and a hard place there. If we can delete revisions without affecting other editors work, we'll do that, but if it does - there's not a lot we can do more than fixing it. But well done  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I suppose most copyright owners aren't really going to care a great deal if their work is buried under layers of page history.

Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
 * A- Yes. We'd lose the page history, and with it the attribution for the content. We need to move it properly to retain the history with the content.
 * Yep

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- File:Versions_of_the_Doctor.jpg
 * A photoshopped composite of the eleven incarnations of The Doctor. The summary says they're all BBC promo photos but sources are only stated for eight of the eleven Doctors. Is it pushing its luck?
 * Oh look, we're back at the Doctor Who. I think you'll find my earlier comment interesting! But yes, well done.
 * So if the companions image wasn't acceptable, why is the Doctors image? Were there just too many problems with the companions image and too many companions on it? People are aware (judging by the talk page) that source information is missing for three of the Doctors, and it surely wouldn't be that hard to find a sourceable picture for each incarnation. Or is it just waiting for someone who cares enough? The BBC apparently don't, since it seems they reused this image themselves to make a prop :)


 * By the way, what does the BY in CC-BY-SA stand for? I assume the CC is Creative Commons, and SA is Share Alike, but BY? ~ Kimelea   (talk)  20:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OBVIOUSLY... it stands for "attribution". Um. Yeah. I know, there's no connection, but that's what it means according to the Creative Commons FAQ.
 * I'm so thick.
 * Actually that could kind of make sense, if you take 'by' as a word. Saying this photo is by so-and-so is attribution. Well that's how I'm going to remember it anyway. :p

I've tried to put theory into practice by uploading and using an image for one of the Tintin articles, while I was sniffing round them. It's at File:Tintin - Thomson & Thompson.png. If you have a moment, would you mind checking it to make sure it's all OK and my rationale for using it is sound? Thank you. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did it perfectly well to me. I think we should move on, because the next less is VERY relevant!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask.

Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution

Assistance
If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion
You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.

Request for Comment
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there.

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?

 * This is possibly the most important lesson for me. In online communities I've previously been in, there has always been some form of readily available leader or helper with authority in conflict situations. Here, there are so many aspects to dispute resolution that it's dizzying. So many help pages, noticeboards, guidelines, mediation venues, places to get comment... you can drag the whole community into it... when all you really need is someone to say it's ok, here's what you can do. Good thing I have one. :)
 * I love that pyramid. Hope I can keep on the topside of it - should be an interesting learning curve. So far... touch wood... so good. Hit me with the questions, Mr Paxman. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! Shinies! Thank you for the barnstars!!! :D ~ Kimelea   (talk)  21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't given you questions in 2 weeks! What a failure I am :(
 * Don't be daft. Would you call me a failure if I took two weeks to answer them? I hope not. When I needed your help urgently, you were willing to drop everything. You can hold your head up. :) ~ Kimelea   (talk)  20:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aww thanks.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
 * A- If you want to make a controversial edit, you have two options for getting it accepted by the community. One, discuss it first and get it 'right' before adding it. This is generally my style, but it does mean we sometimes sit around for days or weeks waiting for discussion that doesn't happen. Two, add it first and see if this stimulates discussion. If it is reverted, then talk about it and bang out a balanced solution with whoever cared enough to dive in.
 * The trouble with BRD in my opinion is that it seems to get people on the defensive. Adding controversial edits without prior discussion, and reverting good-faith edits, can both get people's backs up. You might as well call it "bold, revert, defend" because when discussion starts, it's already a little hostile. So we either end up with BRRRRR (edit war, with useful discussion not happening) or BRDDDDD (discussion ad nauseam, no improvements to the article). In the arguments I've looked in on, I often see someone editing the article in the middle of discussion - this is encouraged as part of the BRD process, as a series of "how's this?" suggestions until finally a compromise is reached. But more often than not, it is reverted by someone who informs the editor that their version should not be added while the subject is still being discussed.
 * I think it's fine when it works, but different discussion styles make it problematic. You have the bold editors who want to provoke a chain of bold productive edits, and the discussers who feel threatened by bold edits happening mid-discussion and think it is an attempt to bypass discussion or ignore the other editors involved. And then you have people who really do bypass discussion when they get fed up with it, and would be just as hostile to further bold edits as they are to the dicussion. No wonder we need dispute resolution! Short version of my answer, I think BRD is misunderstood and it's sometimes very hard to deactivate your own defensiveness to accommodate someone else's discussion style.
 * I think you've got a very good understanding of the problems we face on wikipedia! As a wiki, and with so many articles, and lots of editors who edit on lots of different things, 99 good edits out of 100 do not get noticed, let alone discussed. If we were to discuss every edit before it happened, nothing would get done. So, bold editing has to be the way forward, for almost all situations. That leaves the 1% of situations where people disagree and that's where the RD comes in. RRRRRR doesn't work, no one ends up happy. DDDDD, well, that's what our dispute resolution is for.

2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
 * A- Hah! They both lose. Wikipedia is not about winning, and edit warring is a fail. Hopefully they'll use the end of their revert 'allowance' to sit down and work together on it.
 * Exactly. Or to put it another way, "only losers edit war".

3) What is vandalism?
 * A- A deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by deleting useful content or inserting rubbish. As opposed to other disruptive actions like edit warring or inserting passionate POV, which may be detrimental but are still made in good faith.
 * Deliberate being the most important word. You're exactly right.

4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
 * A- And that's only three of them, I have trouble remembering it all. We need a flow chart! Anyway, from what I understand: Editor assistance is a way of getting advice from a more experienced editor to help you solve a particular problem - the helper may not actually enter the situation as a participant. A bit like micro-adoption for unadopted editors who are having trouble. 3O is a request for one uninvolved editor to join a content dispute between two other editors, to help resolve a stuck situation with their outside opinion. And RfC is an invitation to the whole community to join an open discussion about content, conduct or Wikipedia. I hope. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  20:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment I think the one you're meant to go to is the dispute resolution noticeboard - but I don't really know about that. However, you've got a good handle on all three.


 * I'm going to make that flow chart one day, just watch me. Meanwhile, I've officially had enough of drama and won't be going looking for it any more. :p Next lesson please! :) ~ Kimelea   (talk)  14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Policies
While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion.

Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
 * General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates db-nonsense or db-test.
 * G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with db-vandalism
 * G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with db-repost
 * G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with db-attack.
 * G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. db-ad
 * G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio"''. If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with
 * Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
 * No non-copyrighted content in history
 * All copyvio content added at once by one user
 * No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.

Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
 * Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with db-empty.
 * A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with db-bio, db-corp, db-band, or db-web.

If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author,.

Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures.

Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort.

Questions
Any questions or would you like to try the "Test"