User:Keilana/Brybry1999 Adoption

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.

User:Jimbo Wales

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.

• 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

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 try the test thank you User:Brybry1999
• Please send test
  • Here it is. Good luck!

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 - No, You cannot go by word of mouth, or from one source as a friend. Unless it was from the actual Company itself.

Good; another reliable source for this would be a car industry publication. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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 - I wouldn't think having an article in the newspaper that was racist would be exceptable moraly. Therefor I would not use it in any article, do to it being only a few peoples opinion and not from numerous sources and or people.

Ok, what in Wikipedia policy says that you can't use this?

• A2 - I'm not sure, I was thinking moraly on this one. I guess you could use an article showing an example of racism. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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- Depending on where the article is from. Unfortunatley, you cant go by that source. Because there is no way, you can ask every single person in every single state if they like or eat squash, you can only go by a certain amount of people. Example like the article probably performed a survey or scientific experiment on 500 people from each state for both articles. So if you added to the "Butternut Squash" article or "Baldness" article, you would have to specify how the numbers where attained.

Do you think this information is relevant to include? If you assume they are related, could you include that? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• A2- Yes I would venture to guess that might work to be included in the article. Im still not fully understanding the question maybe. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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 - I would consider using BBC news yes, because who else gives you information, than reporters on scene of the issues in Northern Ireland. I would use both news sources, being they are both well known.

OK, do you think BBC would have a bias at all in either situation? What could be a better source? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• A2 - Im not sure of a better source, other than maybe a newspapers and or documentaries...These are tough questions. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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

A- Not really, alot of times, major companies dont really deal with facebook as a reliable place to "tell all". I definately would go to Ben & Jerry's Home Web page first.

That's fine, what would be another reliable source? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A2 - Maybe some Icecream magazine (seriously), or food/desert book. Keilana you should be a teacher, Dear Lord I feel like an idiot. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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- It could be a reliable source, but I would also look into several more sources to go along with information and statistics about world hunger. What countries have more hungry people. What countries are helping with the avalible resources they have to combat their hunger epic.

Actually, I'd say here that a "forum official" isn't really reliable. I'd look to a press release from the official spokesperson or something. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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 - Yes and No, Yes because it would be kind of using wiki as a commercial for the music article, showing what music companies are availble. But I would also say No, because those two companies are really part of the music world, and would be "musical history".

Inserting commercial links is rarely a good idea. I'd steer clear. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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, because the source is the actual Company's information. Its information released to the World by them.

OK, but what else would you have to do to comply with Wikipedia policies? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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 you need a source possibly from a group of scientist and or a technology college that proves and has done test on why the sky has a blue color, then again...maybe the color of the sky is bronze but the human eye see's it as blue. Again science would be a great source.

• • Question> May I ask, are you from the UK? Many questions on here relate to The United Kingdom and or Great Britain :-) βrỴḇṛỹ1999.

I'm actually half English and half American; I live in Chicago right now. But this test was written by User:Worm That Turned, who is from the UK. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow I sure didn't pass this one well. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Anybody Out There?

Hello Keilana, just wondering how I did on the test. And if you could answer the question at the end. Thank you. βrỴḇṛỹ1999Brybry1999 (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I would like to have my user name look like how I made it with the Greek letters and such. I know I have to add 4 of these "~" and it auto matically adds my username and date. So how do I change my font of my username so it stays like that? Brybry1999 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take a look at your test in a little while; I'm catching up on some work now. If you want to change your signature, go to your preferences (there's a button in the top right hand corner) and paste the code for your signature without the timestamp in the box labeled "signature". Let me know if you need help with that! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Keilana. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving

Sorry people thanks for the help, Im just not getting anywhere on here so...peace out. βrỴḇṛỹ1999 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No. You are getting somewhere. Believe or not, but your making a difference here. And we all apprecite you. :) Especially me. Don't leave. We want you here with us. Your getting better every single day. :) Happy Thanksgiving BTW. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't kept track of this page the past week or so; real life has been super super crazy. I really hope you stick around and I'll be lot less busy and a lot more able to help you. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)