User:WormTT/Adopt/Swifty

Hi Ricky, and welcome to your adoption center. This is your own personal page, where I'll substitute across lessons for you along with associated tests. The tests will generally not have "right or wrong" answers, but more be aimed at starting a discussion or getting you to think a bit about the topic, so don't worry about failing! As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. My main course may be finished, but there's always more for me to improve, so the red linked ones are likely to change. You can 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/Swifty. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:54, 27 October 2011 (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?

Five Pillars
This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There's not 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 - Yes and no. It depends on if you can find a reliable source to verify it. Just cause your friend says it is doesn't make it true as it's prior to it's release. It is subject to change before it's release. All though when thinking about it fully that does seem a bit trivial. So I'd say find a reliable source for verification, bring it up in the discussion page and wait for a consensus before posting it, if it is indeed true.

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 - No. Some may not see it as racism and it is not a neutral point of view. Again the best solution is to bring it up in the discussion page with a reliable source to confirm your belief that it might be racism and wait for a consensus before posting the information. You may believe it is racism but others may not but there maybe an editor or a news station or paper who may also think so. It always depends on if you can find a reliable source.

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- No. Seems trivial to me and of little importance. Test like that say one thing one minute then the opposite the next. It's always subject to change and really has no bases. It's just a test someone did.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - Yes. BBC news is a mainstream news source.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- It would depend on how self serving it is. It can be either yes or no depending on how well it's ran.

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- No. It's personal opinions based off of a wider community and not the Daily Telegraph itself.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - It depends on the reliability of the information that they post. I'd check it with another source to be on the safe side.

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 - Yes as it's falls under self serving. I'd use very little from it and use other sources for information.

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 - No, that is a personal opinion and should not be posted.

Results
Normally, I'd post a little comment under each answer, to discuss things further. However, in this case, it appears that your answers are so good that I don't need to do that! I will make a couple of points you missed - even though you got the right answer... Facebook is generally considered unreliable as it is self published, and shouldn't be used unless there is no alternative. On Butternut squashes and baldness, another factor is that you shouldn't add your own research (combining the two bits of research) to wikipedia. Finally, on the sky being blue - I see you changed your answer - as a matter of fact, there is no right answer, we have conflicting essays on whether you should or should not cite for the sky's colour. The fact is, if it's contentious you should source the addition of material and you should remove uncited contentious material, though it depends on the situation. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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? A - Nope. Ready for the test if there is one. JamesAlan1986 15:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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- Freddie

2) Position B?
 * A- Jane

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.

Results
Your answers did amuse me, but the point I was trying to make was on threading - the theory is that you are replying to the level of indent above. So someone with two indents is replying to the person above with one... given that, do you want to have another go? (Also on Q3, it wasn't to do with Rod, Rod's Mate, Freddie or anything - just a general question... do you think think a brand new editor who is really good at templates should be reported as a possible WP:SOCK)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay well I went ahead and changed my answer then lol! JamesAlan1986 17:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)