User:WormTT/Adopt/The computer rocks!

Hi The computer rocks!, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a couple of lessons for you, but 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/The computer rocks!. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:01, 30 March 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 notable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia - so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here

Questions?
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
 * I'll leave the test here for when you feel ready :)

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 -No, because he/she is not a notable source.
 * Good

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 - You can on the newspaper's article,not on the racism article.
 * Why do you say that? If there is no third party sourcing to confirm that it is racist, no matter how sure you are, it should not be included on wikipedia. I've actually come across this situation, with Homophobia and the Daily Mail.

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- Yes,if a reliable source.
 * Actually no. You'd be putting together sources, creating new knowledge - otherwise known as original research. All well and good if you want to publish some research, but should not be on wikipedia.

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - Both
 * Care to expand on why?

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- No, because it is a ad
 * Fair enough. Facebook is the biggest issue.

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
 * Care to expand on why?

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - yes,because it is a ad
 * Is it though? They sell products, but does that instantly make them unreliable?

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,again it is a ad
 * Are you sure? Much of Xerox's history would be shown on that page, unlikely to be advertising, though it would probably be biased. Corroborate what you can, but I'm pretty sure it's reliable in places.

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
 * It depends. If you are trying to add information, the onus is on your to source it if it is contentious. But that should be easy to source... shouldn't it?

Results
Care to expand on some of your answers? Yes and no isn't the most helpful to me in determining your understanding.

Five Pillars
I've recreated the test. Please take your time over the questions, and give more detailed answers than "yes" or "no", explaining your thinking behind your answer. There is not generally a right or wrong answer, I'm just trying to get into your head and your way of thinking.

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 a friend is not a reliable source

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 - you are not a reliable source not matter how sure you are because again you are not 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 You'd be putting together sources, creating new knowledge

4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
 * A - Yes because it is a news station which is reliable source.So it is on both.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- Facebook is not a reliable source is The most important issue and Ben and Jerry's is a ad :)

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 forum officals are not a reliable source.

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.hopsandpips.com being used in a beer related article?
 * A - yes it it talks about how "good" the beer is it because its trying to sell beer so almost always never or never.

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 because its bias

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 -Find a source not going to be hard anyway.