User:WormTT/Adopt/TheGeneralUser

TheGeneralUser (talk · contribs)

Hello TheGeneralUser, and welcome to my adoption school. Your first assignment is below, and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Bmusician/Adoption, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. The tests in the assignments 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:Bmusician/Adoption/TheGeneralUser. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! →B music ian 12:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Notifications are currently on.
(This means that you will be notified when you have a new assignment, or if you have additional questions to answer. If you do not wish to receive notifications, please click here.)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars

What are the five pillars?

The "five pillars" are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates.

The first pillar tells us that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and also what it is not.
The second pillar states that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
The third pillar states that Wikipedia is free content, and also talks about copyright.
The fourth pillar is about civility and "wikiquette".
The fifth pillar states that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This means that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it and do not worry about making mistakes.

The Core Content Policies

The core content policies on Wikipedia are neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiablity.

Editing from a neutral point of view (often abbreviated as "NPOV") is required on Wikipedia. Editing from a neutral point of view means representing unbiased and significant views that have been published by reliable sources, and giving due weight to all points of view. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - so any information unsupported by a reliable source does not belong here. The personal experience or opinion of an editor also does not belong to Wikipedia.

Reliable sources

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 not considered reliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable. 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.

Discussion

If there are any questions you have about this lesson, ask them! My job, as your adopter, is to help you with any problem you may have. If you don't have any questions that you need to ask, your next step is to take a short test regarding this lesson. If you are ready to take the test, simply tell me (either on this page or on my talk page) and I will hand it out to you.

Thanks Bmusician :) I am ready for the test! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Test

Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests.

Your best friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not?
Answer:Not at all. What a friend or any other person says is just a personal opinion according to Wikipedia:No original research and it is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy by which all articles must be written.
Very good.
A blog titled "John Doe Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that John Doe will be going to Hong Kong on 7 July. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not?
Answer:No way. Blogs and other kind of similar websites have user created content and can be made by anyone from anywhere in the world and they are not reliable sources. Since no other trusted reliable external source confirms it, such information cannot be entered into Wikipedia articles.
Yep, Blogs are self published sources, and are full of personal opinion.
Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?
Answer:The official Facebook page of KFC can be used as a first hand primary source, but additional external third party sources and references are required before posting content and information that can be challenged and thus first needs to be verified by multiple reliable sources independent of each other.
I wouldn't recommend using a Facebook page as a primary source, when KFC has it's own official website. What's more I wouldn't recommend using a primary source at all! I think that's roughly what you're saying though, so good job
Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond?
Answer:I will first welcome the new editor with introduction to the five pillars of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Five pillars). After that i will tell him/her about Wikipedia:Ownership of articles that how Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone, are open to public editing, is not anyone's intellectual property and would tell them to read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use (Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use). I will also tell them respond to everyone on Wikipedia in a friendly and civil manner by reading Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility.
All very good. I'd also suggest they press "edit" and see the text just above the save button where they "irrevocably agreed to release their contributions under the CC-BY-SA license".
You have just discovered from a friend that the new Chevrolet Malibu is only going to be available in red. Can you add this to the Chevy Malibu article?　Why or why not?
Answer:No it cannot be added until and unless a primary source and other independent reliable sources confirm this. Without any multiple reliable sources and references such type of claims cannot be added to any article.
Exactly.
Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
Answer:BBC is a public service broadcaster and is known worldwide for their news reports. BBC News can most probably be considered a reliable source on The Troubles as it is highly unlikely that the report they would present would be biased. Since ITV is also a major independent public service broadcaster just like BBC News is it can also be used as a primary source. But i would still check for a another third party reliable source and reference in addition to using BBC News and ITV as primary sources before adding any article content citing all these sources.
Probably but not definitely. This is where your editorial judgement comes in. The BBC still refers to Myanmar as Burma, (eg yesterday) despite the fact that they changed their name in 1989. The government does the same, and the BBC takes its lead from them. I'm not saying it's wrong in doing that, or which name should be used, but I am saying that BBC has made a decision to do it.
Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?
Answer:It is a common known general knowledge fact by Astronomy that the Earth's sky changes it's colors according to the time of the day and direction of the sun and clouds in the sky affect that. It can be called blue in the afternoon clear sky with no clouds and sunlight only, and can be called black at night when there is no sunlight, and can be called golden and bronze during morning and evening with some clouds which happens during sunrise and sunset. Sky does not have any color and is transparent, it's the sunlight and clouds that changes and affects the color of the sky. So these types of things cannot be added to the article regardless of whether there are any sources for it or not.
Very good. The question was more about common knowledge though and if it needs a source. The fact is, if it's contentious it does need a source, and if it's common knowledge, it shouldn't be hard to find one. The onus is on the person who's adding the information though, as it's hard to cite a negative.

BMusician missed out a few questions which I think are really important, so whilst you're doing alright - I've added them in for you :D

1) 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?

Rewritten question - a major newspaper (which is a reliable source) includes a political cartoon on the front page. You look at the cartoon and can see it's clearly racist. Can you update the article of the newspaper to say it publishes racist cartoons? Can you update the racism article to say the newspaper is regularly racist? Why or why not?

Answer - On both the newspaper and racism article, no because it would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Some people may it as racist, some won't and some may even find it funny, so it is a matter of personal opinion. It can only be added if another major third-party reliable source has claimed that it actually looks racist and the newspaper has a history of publishing racist things, and after having a clear consensus on the article's talk page to include this information if it's going to be contentious or controversial.

2) 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?

Imagine you are reading about butternut squashes, and find an article (in a reliable source) which lists the number of butternut squashes eaten by population of US state. Top of the list is Ohio, they eat 4 butternut squashes per person per month. Bottom of the list is Wyoming, who only eat 0.4 butternut squashes per person per month. Interesting... But two days later you find another article about male pattern baldness, and the percentage of the population per US state which is bald. Oddly the largest number of bald people is in Ohio, where there are 14%, going down to Wyoming at 3%. The order of the states between the two articles is practically identical. Can you write about this anywhere on Wikipedia? Why or why not?

Answer- Yes and No, we can write what the source specifically says, but not the other way round as it's synthesis and combining information like that is just creating new original research which is not stated by any of the sources and thus cannot be added as both the things are appear to be unrelated. It can only be included if a reliable source publishes research conducted by experts and is actually connecting the two things.

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

Answer - Not really. As long as the information provided is general, neutral and unbiased in nature about the music album or the song itself then no problem. If it just a download for the song or promotional in nature then most probably no.

4) 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.

Answer - Well no. Since it is an official primary source, it can be used if it contains the required information related to the history of Xerox. But if any other third party reliable sources are also available then, they can be used with the primary source as well so that the information can be provided in a neutral point of view.