User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/Original Authority Exam 1

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q2. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Western Michigan University/Wikipedia (2013 Q2)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. You may (on any of these tests) save the page, take a break, and come back up until you notify me that you are complete; however, you are limited to one week per exam. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go:

1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why?

A- No, my friend is not a reliable source!

5/5 Instructor Comments: Correct! You have to verify this information.

2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist (this is not part of the question - there is no doubt that this hypothetical cartoon is racist to any reader) 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- Yes, if its racism, then you can use it as an example!

4/5 Instructor Comments: Hmm. This is a bit of a trick question. The trick is to find out whether or not including an example of racism contributes to the article. If racism is prevalent in The Daily Telegraph's article or there is already a section on it, it is noteworthy and worthy of inclusion. If it's a big incident, ditto. If it's isolated, it might not be beneficial to include. As for racism, the same applies. If you're including The Daily Telegraph's example because you want to pick on them, don't do it. If it's just a good example that you can find of racism in print cartoons, more power to you! You get the gist of the question, just note that I like details and caveats.

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?

A- No, it'd have to be on a article related to the subject in question. Say the American, British, Diabetes, Socialists or Capitalists articles. If users just posted things anywhere, Wikipedia would be pointless and wouldn't really be "the free encyclopaedia" , because it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia at all.

1/5 Instructor Comments: I think that you missed the gist of the question due to poor phrasing on my part (I will regrade with full points upon re-answer). The question has more to do with (big hint) whether correlation implies causation.

A^2- Oh, thanks for the hint, in this case, the answer would be no because Correlation doesn't equal causation.

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?

A- No/Yes/ Depends, it depends if it was a news cast, and they provided links, to sources, that were in fact reliable sources then yes, I'd consider it a reliable source, but if they cited no sources, then no definitely not!

2/5 Instructor Comments: Too vague (I'm harsh, don't worry, you can correct your answer, below, if you'd like). The issue here is a Conflict of Interest. FOX (allegedly) leans right. MSNBC (allegedly) leans left. Conflict of Interest. Sarah Palin is a Republican. COI. If you can elaborate on this, below, and provide a different example of an unacceptable circumstance, I'll give credit back.

A²-FOX News I would consider reliable, but MSBNC on the other hand no, there is a clear conflict of interest going on, also there competitors.

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

A- I'm confused, about Ben and Jerry's them self, this aside. If they had the blue ticky thingy, and they were spreading things about them self, then yes, there obviously true, because it's them themselves speculating these rumors, but if no ticky thingy then nope!

2/5 Instructor Comments: No worries on being confused, we're here to learn! WP:SELFSOURCE is a good resource for this, as it includes a tidbit on social media. Social media is typically not considered to be a reliable source in accordance with WP:RELIABLE. However, you make the good point that it's their official page. However, WP:SELFSOURCE only applies on information on themselves, which isn't stipulated in this question.

6.) Q- A "forum official" (this could be compared to a Wikipedia administrator) from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A- probably not.

1/5 Instructor Comments: That's not even a real answer. I don't always require depth in answers (e.g. your answer to #1), but this requires elaboration. Why not?

A²-Ok then, no, the forum official is not a reliable source.

7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)

A- yes, it's about themselves.

5/5 Instructor Comments: Correct, WP:SELFSOURCE says that you can use a self source if it is information pertaining to the source in question.

8.) 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- Actually the sky is black, but putting that aside, yes he needs a source, I could say that William Hartnell will be returning to Doctor Who as the 12th incarnation, I could be lying, I'd need a source.

4/5 Instructor Comments: Haha, read WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE for an interesting "debate" on this. Either answer would work.

Not done /40 Instructor Comments: I am holding off on grading this until corrections are made.

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page using the above button, then proceed to Lesson 2: Wikiquette. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)