User:WormTT/Adopt/Tylas

Hi Tylas, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substitute across the first 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/Tylas. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see.  Worm TT( talk ) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am here! I feel like I am starting school again! Agggh! I have first day jitters! ~ty (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha! You needed worry, it's nothing so strenuous. Instead, this is just a few paragraphs, maybe a page, on each of the topics I'd say are most important if you want to try "coping with wikipedia". You've been around a little while, so I don't think you'll struggle with things at all. :)  Worm TT( talk ) 15:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very interested in the reliable sources section, since I am working mostly on a very controversial page and the sources are often a well... source of controversy. ;) ~ty (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that. I expect we'll move to the talk page to chat in depth about sourcing, because I don't go into it too far, besides what you have below. Generally the set of lessons is more aimed at helping users cope with the back end of the encyclopedia - at a high level.  Worm TT( talk ) 15:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On WP one does not just jump out with unexpected things. All is so visible. Yes, that would be wonderful.~ty (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for You - Can I bend you ear Dave? I am getting no where trying to debate this fringe/minority POV on the DID page. The conclusion to my trying is this from one editor: "I plan on going with WP:BRD rather than inappropriately debating."

Debating with hard core believers in fringe POV's is not easy. Is there a better way? I am by myself there, with 2 others that totally support the sociocongnitive POV - which is reading books, watching TV, poor therapy is what causes DID. I do not get emotional when debating (although do feel rushed at times and don't get a lot of work done), but I do notice the others getting heated, which is uncomfortable, and I do not want things to end up in some type of arbitration. That is time consuming and almost always seems to end in favor of the person who has the most WP experience - at least in the little I have seen. Is this an impossible project to try and make the DID page one that reflects the main expert consensus and - well that? ~ty (talk) 01:58, 14 August 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?

Oh my! I am scared. I always have gotten pre-test jitters! I am afraid, but let's do it! I should have time on Monday or so...~ty (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh! Is that my test below. Sometimes you have to hit me with a stick to get me to see what's in front of my face! I have a few minutes right now, if that is it, I can answer those questions. It's not on video chat, live, under pressure with times responses or anything? :) ~ty (talk) 17:49, 13 August 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 - When I was taking the oral exams for my MS, my main Prof looked at me (I knew I was going to get hammered if I answered this one wrong in front of the other Prof's) and asked something about a an article that mentioned physiology that was in a popular health magazine. I smiled, knowing the answer to this one since my Prof had drilled it into my head for two years! My answer is no. Unless the information is from a reliable source, I don't care about it at least in the context of WP. The source MUST be verifiable and to do this sometimes the newest information out there must be ignored when reporting on an encyclopedic format such as WP. Also "unpublished materials are not considered reliable."
 * Very good, it's a fairly simple concept, but you'd be surprised who doesn't get 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 - Reading the part of this that says - "YOU see is clearly racist" - that is "your" opinion- the WP page should remain neutral and not present personal opinion. Also, the cartoon is probably copyright material and all images and information on WP should be free of copyright issues. WP strives to describe disputes but NOT engage in them. This is crucial and a good reason that fringe ideas are not presented as equal to the mainstream consensus - the page ends up looking like a battlefield.
 * Good spot. One of my first adoptees had so much trouble with a cartoon, which was homophobic. But, it was opinion, and the article should stay clear of opinion.

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- I would call this a primary source or original research and as such it is not ready, it does not matter if you decide the material is correct or not, it is not to be included in the WP encyclopedia.
 * Exactly. Might make an interesting research paper, but not for wikipedia.

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 -A news program is suppose to be fact based, but still there is POV material in the news at times and hard to avoid when talking about a rival TV stations, but if the reported material simply reported the facts, then yes I would consider it a reliable source, but not if there were any personal opinion to the story.
 * Very good. It's a situation where editorial judgement is useful, checking multiple sources, and presenting a neutral article.

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A- No. Self published material, unless it's from an expert is not thought of as reliable. The exception: "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
 * Perhaps but I'd be concerned about that exception. Quite simply, if it's not been peer-reviewed, the expert might be inserting his or her own bias in to their article. The exception I might make is one similar to the Xerox question below, but it'd be better to get the information from the official website.

6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comment on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A- No. It's a personal opinion from a forum moderator, but if it is in the newspapers blog section, then if this forum official were also a professional writer for the newspaper AND the statement is attributed to the writer.
 * That's a lot of ifs... Very good ;)

7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?

A -WP is not a source of free advertising. Yes, I would have a problem with this.
 * Interesting. In general, I agree, but those links do provide useful information which is often not available elsewhere. Information such as track listings, or release dates. I wouldn't have a problem with a source which might be used for advertising in one context being used in a non-advertising context.

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 -Who knows the actual history of Xerox better than Xerox, but I would be wary of anything that looked like advertising on that page.
 * 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 -Consensus (a whole problem in itself) needs to be reached about whether the sky being bronze is common knowledge. On a controversial article this might be impossible, therefore reliable sources will be needed to prove this point. Sometimes the sky just might be really bronze, but some editors simply do not grasp the idea yet.
 * I've got to say, you're the first person who went straight into consensus for something like that. It's not a bad answer, and just as you say, what everyone knows isn't necessarily right. The sky's black right now, was grey earlier, with a bit of pink and orange in between. I even saw a bit of blue at some point today, been a good day :D However, common knowledge isn't expected to be sourced - it's when it becomes contentious that it should be. The important thing is that the onus is on the person adding information to provide the sources.  Worm TT( talk ) 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)