User:WormTT/Adopt/Walter55024

Hi Walter55024, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a lesson for you - feel free to read it at your leisure and let me know at the bottom when you're ready for your first test. 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, I'm not sure if I ever will - 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:WormTT/Adopt/Walter55024. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:54, 27 February 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? i will take the test.--Walter55024 (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:52, 28 February 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 -so that everyone can know that im friends.
 * Q - Do you really think that you can add information which cannot be checked to a wikipedia article, just because your friend said so?
 * A - sure.

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 would be racism.
 * Q - I didn't ask if it was racism, I asked if you could add the information to the article. Why or why not?
 * A -

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 say they would have to merge.
 * Q - Do you really think that we should combine the articles on butternut squashes and vegetables?
 * A -

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 - no
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
 * A- yes
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

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- yes
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
 * A - no
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
 * A -no
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

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 -yes
 * Q According to the instructions, yes and no are not sufficient answers. Please explain why or why not.
 * A -

i am finished.--Walter55024 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have written follow up questions to every answer.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)