User:Ebe123/Adopt/ReelAngelGirl
 |  |
barnstar(s)
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please do not touch until the end of this adopt-a-user course. (Note: When the background colo(u)r becomes green, you may take the barnstar) | |||||
|
Lessons
[edit]Here, I will add all the lessons. There will be a new sub-section at each different lessons. There will be a timestamp with it.
Copyright
[edit]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 (block as we will discuss later) 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[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference. Feel free to come back after your mentoring is finished.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] 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. 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
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.
Commons[edit]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[edit]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 at the bottom of the editing screen:
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
[edit]This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
The Five Pillars
[edit]One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.
- 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.
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.
How articles should be written[edit]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[edit]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?
[edit]Any questions or would you like to try the test?
- Can a book be used as a source and if so how could that be cited?
Projects
[edit]- Last project timestamp:
Here will be the projects.
Quizes
[edit]All the quizes for the different courses will be here. There will be a new sub-section at each different lessons. There will be a timestamp with it.
Copyright
[edit]Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
- A-Yes
- This is pretty much a personal opinion question, and I will not correct it.
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
- A-When it is released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL.
- Partly correct, we can hold images with the Art Libre licence, like the padlocks here, images in the public domain, and copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation.
- 1₧
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
- A-Yes
- Sorry, but it must be commercial.
- 0₧
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-Yes
- Why, might I ask you.
- Actually, upon re-reading it, no. It is still fair use and would have to have a specific article use.
- Correct
- Actually, upon re-reading it, no. It is still fair use and would have to have a specific article use.
- Why, might I ask you.
- 2₧
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
- A-No
- Why?
- Because there could be a free equivalent
- The license is what counts. So Incorrect.
- Because there could be a free equivalent
- Why?
- 0₧
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
- A-No
- Correct
- 2₧
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 can rewrite it in my own words.
- That's good, but remember about reliable sources and 3rd party refs. Also about close paraphasing.
- 1₧
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
- A-Yes. There is a possibility of copyright issues.
- Correct
- 2₧
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:WoT04 TheShadowRising.jpg
- That's a good example.
- 2₧
Ending
[edit]At the end, there is some steps before the diploma.