User:WormTT/Adopt/Jenova20
Jenova20 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Hi Jenova20, and welcome to your adoption center. I'll substitute across a lesson for you tomorrow, but for now 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, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - 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:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. WormTT 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
|
The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar | ||||||||||
| Congratulations on finishing the course. I know you did struggle with templates, but I'm very proud of the progress you've made since we started working together. I doubt there's much more I can teach you, but you're always welcome to come back if you need help with anything. WormTT · (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) |
Lesson 1 - Five Pillars - Complete
|
|---|
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.
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 notable... 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? I think i'm ready but will read through here a few more times just to make sure. Jenova20 10:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done =] It seems you purposely made the questions unique to me, or is it just that everyone's getting the same questions? Thanks Jenova20 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Five Pillars[edit]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's not 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?
If i could find evidence elsewhere, like a good source then it would be worth adding but otherwise i wouldn't take it seriously.
Now i'd say no unless another newspaper notices.
Besides, i'm sure forums aren't the best place to look for facts.
And even if he did, he has the minority point of view so he should try and prove it, not the other way round. Results[edit]Well, I'm very pleased with your answers Jenova, you have come a long way. Yes, some of the questions were made with you specifically in mind, though I'll be using them on my other adoptees. I don't disagree with any of your answers, though I chose some to be debatable. For example, Hops and Pips is a debatable source, it's self published and sells beer, even though it is authoritative. I would say it is an above average source, but I wouldn't want to see it on one of wikipedia's better articles, such as a WP:Featured Article. Regarding the blue sky, yes, you're right, but if it was a borderline contentious point like *why* the sky is blue (I've seen a few explanations!) you would need a source from a mainstream publication. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the editor adding or restoring the material. So if the editor is trying to add that the sky is bronze, you are right, he should prove it. If the editor is removing "the sky is blue"... well, you should try and find a source. And hey, if "everybody knows" it... it should be easy, right? WormTT 16:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Well i spent a good couple hours rereading the pillars and rules. I'd have to say though that the best lesson is when you learned something and i did from the 5 pillars. Do i get a score or anything or do you just tell me i passed? Thanks Jenova20 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Lesson 2 - Wikiquette - Complete
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
Wikiquette[edit]WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made. I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
Questions[edit]Any questions? We have the weekend tomorrow so not to rush you but i'm just wondering if this test will be up then aswell? I know you wanted a module a week but i've been adding to Wikipedia for about 2 years, yet only registered for months. This stuff is still useful to me but i'm experienced in some areas a little already and that's the only reason for the rush. Thanks Jenova20 09:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well i wouldn't call it "fun" exactly, i don't really know how to describe that but fun wasn't my first option for sure. I'd say more that i'm keen on improving myself. Anything you can get done would be appreciated. Thanks Jenova20 10:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Test[edit]Have a look at the conversation below:
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In 1) Position A?
2) Position B?
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
On the other hand if the person has more than one account then it should be reported as it could make discussions with the one account more difficult and make some situations appear to have more support than they actually do. Result[edit]I'm back! and ready to let you know how you did. Yes, you got your threading questions right, well done, try to remember them in talk page interactions, you'll need to add your indents. Just being competent with templates doesn't imply that this person is a SOCK. Admittedly, it's one possibility, but if you assume good faith, you realise that it could be - an editor under a WP:FRESHSTART, an editor who has been editing another language wikipedia for years or even any other wiki site, it could be that the person is just very good at coding. Assume good faith doesn't mean be stupid, but if there's a sensible explaination - don't believe the worst. For example, with Christian1982, you assumed he was trying to "own" the article, and reverting you on sight. I understand that it may feel that way, but if you were to assume good faith, you would see that he felt your additions were non-encyclopedic. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with you, you saw how a discussion could lead to an amicable solution. WormTT 09:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC) I didn't assume he was trying to "own" the article, i accused him of being biased and possibly working for the Daily Mail or being affiliated with them. That was my personal opinion. And Christian only called the edit vandalism because it was potentially negative to the Daily Mail. As he stated before he would add criticism to the article only if they were added to the other newspaper articles, showing a clear bias to defending it. And if you reread the thread he takes to accusing me of things i didn't add to the "vandalism" many times while you're talking to him ad tries using what i think against me, while it's not even what i wrote. I merely called him up on it, besides this only happens on those two articles concerning the Daily Mail and not just with me, so i wouldn't assume it was me at fault, i did the first time but after the second it became obvious there's more going on there. Not always this defensive, just looking forward to the dispute resolution section next time as getting admin is impossible for someone to do if they never had to do it before, still can't either. Jenova20 09:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Would rather have the copyright test again 6 times, as that would still be easier. It was my own opinion that Christian was biased anyway based on how he acted, i pointed it out a few times whenever he accused me of attacking him. Thanks Jenova20 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Lesson 3 - Copyright - Complete
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Copyright on a free Wiki[edit]This is probably the most important lesson I'll give, because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly according to policy can and will result in a block. Pay attention. Wikipedia is as the slogan says, "The Free Encyclopedia". Unfortunately, this causes some problems when we use other materials that aren't so free, and other problems when we'd like to do something but really can't.
There are other terms to the license, but those are the most important for what is done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia displays a copy of the license, which is fully protected under the authority of the Wikimedia office. Whenever we make an edit, that edit is logged in the page's edit history, as well as your contributions. When a page is deleted, contributions to that page are hidden, but are still visible to administrators or "sysops". Certain page revisions may also be hidden from public view in the event of extreme circumstances, but are still visible to those with the authority to remove them for GFDL compliance. Unfortunately, the GFDL does have some limit on what we can do. When merging pages, we cannot delete the page that is now empty, even if it serves little useful purpose even as a redirect. The contributions to that page, which provided the information that was merged out, must be kept logged so that people know where it came from and what changes were made when.  
Only when an image meets all of these criteria may it be used. Fair use images must be used in at least one article (not "orphaned"), and articles using fair use images must use as few of them as possible. Any image that does not meet these criteria to the letter will be deleted. Any user that repeatedly uploads images not meeting these criteria to the letter will be blocked. As a further note, I mentioned that fair use images must not be able to be replaced by a free alternative. What this basically means is, there is no way you, me, or anyone else could go out and take a picture of this same thing and release it under a free license. For example:
For a full description of the policies and guidelines concerning fair use, you should read (and commit to memory :-P) the page at WP:FU. Rest assured that you will never forget the name of that shortcut. Got your head around all that? Well lets move away from images - but we're not done! Plagiarism[edit]Copyright violations do not only appear on images, they can appear in text too. Even if the source text is wholly in the public domain, you can't just copy it without falling foul of plagiarism. As I'm sure you're pretty frazzled at the moment, I'm just going to say don't copy and paste text! Write it in your own words and make sure you cite your source. Questions?[edit]Any questions? It's a heck of a topic, so feel free to ask "why" to anything, and I will do my best to explain. Let me know when you are ready for the test. This one won't be easy. I was always told to assume everything on the internet has a copyright, but with so many different licenses this will take a long time to make sense of. Thanks for the challenge Jenova20 14:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well i found the last test easy. This copyright one will take all weekend though as i just read a few sections and they left me scratching my head just trying to understand. I'll let you know how things go. Have a nice weekend =] Jenova20 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Test[edit]Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
Well, if my understanding is correct, you can quote from Wikipedia if you reference it, but copying it word for word as your own work isn't legal. Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
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. (addition, he wants to use it on the Beatles page)
Left a question mark because i would have said no before Copyright for dummies and i need feedback on that one.
I'm not sure, i know you can use the images because i've seen some on Wikipedia, i just can't understand why.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
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
If the entire page was a copy and paste it can be deleted straight away. Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move from BLT (sandwich) to BLT?
BLT (sandwich) only has a redirect and nothing else.
Q9) A final practical test... Go. Find a fair use image. Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
Well it could be a photo anyone could use because it's an everyday item that Coca Cola own the copyright to, but that realistically could have been photographed by anyone. Results[edit]You know what? You really seem to have a much better grasp on this copyright milarky. I'm really impressed. I have no qualms in passing you on this module, as you have the basic principles down and you would think before doing anything that might violate copyright.
|
Lesson 4 - Dispute resolution - Complete
|
|---|
Dispute resolution[edit]No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.  I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking. Simple Resolution[edit]No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How I hear you ask. Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise. Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change your are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editors argument and respond to that. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia dispute resolution process[edit]If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution Assistance[edit]If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation. Third opinion[edit]You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP Mediation[edit]If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates. Request for Comment[edit]You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified. Arbitration[edit]I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there. Reports[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse. Any questions?[edit]Seems complicated, but less so than copyright law, and to be honest, no-one really understands copyright law or the court cases wouldn't drag on for years over trivial things. ThanksJenova20 12:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution[edit]1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
Not everyone will do this though i think as i would start with the discussion rather than the revert, to gather support first.
2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
And because the additions were reverted then the article is no better or worse off so it was a waste of time and just immature. I pointed out a victory before as i had trouble adding to two articles even with support because of one person who refused anyone elses additions to the articles, that's why i felt it as a victory to finally get an edit added, and the article was improved because of that so it was a victory for Wikipedia aswell, although it shouldn't be seen that way. Generally though not everyone is like that, but everyone is somewhat protective of their work being changed and that's why the discussion is needed, to explain it's just an improvement and not a personal attack.
3) What is vandalism?
As far as i'm aware it's anything potentially that can't be proven, is insulting, or is not neutral, like the Sepp Blatter vandalism after the world cup that changed his name to Sepp Bell End Blatter. It's not his middle name and nobody would really think it was, it was just vandalism because someone didn't agree with him. I believe this happens a lot on controvertial articles and especially with articles about people who aren't well liked, like George Bush or Gordon Brown for example.
4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
And finally Request for comment if you feel you need more people involved or if the third opinion hasn't been much use in your case.
5) How would you have done things differently during your run-ins with Christian1985?
Overall I know better what to do if there's a disagreement and just wouldn't get walked over the next time, aswell as pointing out assume good faith. And unfortunately there probably will be as i read the news a fair bit and am better at finding reliable sources now. Have you ever had to get Admin in for a third opinion or disagreement you had btw?
Results[edit]I'm pretty confident that you'd be able to handle another dispute. Do try and resolve it to the best of your ability before running to the admins - they're there to sort bad behaving editors, not content disputes. And you can always ask me to weigh in as a 3O, I'm good at seeing both sides. I've commented on all your answers, make sure you read them :)WormTT 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Lesson 5 - Deletion Policies - Complete
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deletion Policies[edit]While Wikipedia does strive to include as much information as possible, there is a practical limit as to what we're going to include as an article. Just because you think your pet cat is the cutest thing on the planet, that does not mean you should create an article about it. There's a whole list of things that Wikipedia is not. Some relate simply to style or formatting, such as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or Wikipedia is not censored. Most, however, relate to the content of the encyclopedia, and what is considered encyclopedic and what isn't. WP:NOT is an official policy, which means that all articles must adhere to it. If they don't, they're at risk of deletion. Wikipedia has three methods to delete pages. The first, and by far fastest, is the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. These criteria depict what content absolutely cannot be kept on Wikipedia for whatever reason and must be removed immediately. The most commonly used ones are as follows:
Whenever you mark a page for speedy deletion, it's usually nice to notify the author. Each of the speedy deletion tags shows the proper warning to use - just copy that code and paste it on their user talk page. You are not required to do this, but it usually helps alleviate some confusion on the part of the author.
Finally, the XfD processes (XfD stands for Anything for Deletion) allow users to debate on the merits (or lack thereof) a particular article and decide by consensus what is to become of it. These are not votes - sheer numbers have no effect on the outcome of these debates. Only reasoned comments are considered towards the result of the debate. The template at right shows all the different types of deletion debates. The most frequently used is AfD, Articles for Deletion. Your nomination earlier today should have gone there. Each XfD page outlines the process for each, which often is somewhat complicated. Deletion review is where users can appeal a deletion debate, and follows similar procedures. Before anything is deleted, though, one should always check to see if there is any alternative. There are a wide range of cleanup templates that can be used to indicate an article needs attention (templates which we'll cover in more detail later, I'll just give you the link for now). One could always take care of the cleanup themselves. It's also possible there is usable content in the article that can be merged elsewhere, or it's just under the wrong title and needs to be moved. Wikipedia's purpose is to include as much information as possible, so deletion should always be a last resort. Questions[edit]Any questions or would you like to try the "Test" I'm fairly confident those are right but it's not an easy topic. Jenova20 09:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Ready Jenova20 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Deletion[edit]1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
The notice stays up for 5 days until someone contests it and removes it or no one offers disagreement and the article gets deleted. WP:AfD would be when someone contests the deletion or you just want a consensus to see if there's more support for it being deleted.
2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
Michael Jackson's pet Bubbles on the other hand could possibly have a page because many more know about him and he has been in the media spotlight quite a bit. Michael Jackson's pet goldfish is another example of something that wouldn't be deserving of a page or possibly even a mention on the Michael Jackson article. If the page was created then A7 could be used to get it deleted quickly.
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them? 3)First
4)Second
I looked at advertising and stub and unless this article was added by the person himself then i see no real problem that can't be fixed, like the minor spelling mistakes in the first paragraph and the list-like rambling a bit.
5)Third
6)Fourth
After that i would suggest the page got merged with either The Blitz, Plymouth, or possibly the University of Plymouth articles as the statue isn't very notable on its own.
7)Fifth
I considered A7 aswell because there are no sources to show how notable this guy actually was, and since it's blatant advertising it's unlikely to last very long anyway.
Results[edit]Good job here Jenova, deletion is another tricky topic and so I was expecting you to struggle a lot more. A couple of your answers to the speedy deletion questions were not quite right, I've commented on each answer, so please do read my replies. As long as you use PROD and AfD for deletions you find (to encourage community input) I am happy that you've passed this module well. WormTT 10:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Lesson 6 - Policies and consensus - Complete
|
|---|
Consensus[edit]Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight. Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up. There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations. Community[edit]The community is anyone who writes and edits Wikipedia. This includes you, me and any user who clicks that little edit button. They need not be registered, which is why you see IP editors. Although some registered editors treat IPs like second-class citizens, there is no reason they should be. I've seen a few reports that show that the vast majority of Wikipedia was written by IP editors. It does mean that the vast majority of vandalism is also caused by IP editors, hence the disillusionment. I'll get onto vandalism in a separate lesson, so don't worry too much about that now. Policy and guidelines[edit]Everything we do in wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level. Ignore all rules[edit]What? Is this really right? Well, what the ignore all rules policy says is "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." My personal interpretation is that this a catchall to remind us that we're not in a bureaucracy, that the important thing is the encyclopedia. I've never had to implement it personally, but I do keep it in mind. Questions[edit]Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy? Seems simple enough, i'm ready Thanks Jenova20 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Policy[edit]1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
2) Can Policy change?
What is best policy now may not be in the future. 3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy? I knew that, HONEST!
And Wikipedia states that it is not a bureaucracy but does have most of the framework to become one. In my own opinion...yes, i believe it's bureaucratic and can sometimes make simple things very complicated, but i actually believe that is necessary as rules are always needed, it's just when they get too restrictive that they become a problem, like copyright laws for example. Results[edit]Yep, I absolutely agree. However much they tell us it's not a bureaucracy, it blatently is. There's so much to follow. It's needed though, unfortunately. I'd fiddle you first answer to say Policy should be followed *almost all* of the time, guidelines most of the time - though no to overrule policy. Essays are just helpful. But I'm happy you've passed this with flying colours. WormTT 10:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Lesson 7 - Templates - skipped
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Templates[edit]Templates allow you to post large sections of text or complicated sections of code while only typing a few characters. Templates work similar to regular links, but instead of [[double square brackets]], you use {{curly braces}}. To call a template, just type the title of the template between the double braces. You don't need to include the "Template:" prefix; the MediaWiki software automatically searches within the Template namespace for what you're looking for. Only if the page you're looking for is in a different namespace do you need to specify it. See below:
One template you can use to welcome new users, Template:W-basic, has several parameters which can customize its appearance. Most of those parameters are named, in that you have to specify to the template what the name of the parameter is when you use it. {{w-basic|anon=true}} sets the parameter "anon" to "true", which generates a message directed towards anonymous users. The advantage to named parameters is that they can be placed in any order, but they must be spelled exactly right or they will not work. The template also uses an unnamed parameter, one which does not have to be specified when it is put into use. Templates automatically assign a numerical name to unnamed parameters when they are used, starting with "1". {{w-basic|message}} sets the unnamed parameter "1" to "message", which is what that parameter is used for in that template. The userbox above can specify the number of states visited with that same unnamed parameter. Unnamed parameters must be in sequential order to work properly, unless you force them to be out of order by using syntax such as {{template|2=foo|1=bar}}. Using "1=, 2=" is also required if the parameter has a = anywhere within (occasionally the case with some external links). When writing templates, there are some extra tags and codes that have special effects when a template is called.
Conditional templates allow for use of more intricate templates, with optional parameters or different effects depending on what a certain parameter is set to. They use parser functions such as #if: to apply certain conditions to the code. Use of these functions can allow you to create some rather advanced templates, but often get exceedingly complicated and should only be edited by those users who fully understand how they work. Since these are rather complex, they will not be covered in your exam, but if you'd like we can cover them after we've completed the other topics. I forgot to mention - there are two ways to call a template. Transclusion is simply calling the template as I showed you above: {{template}}. This displays the template where you put the call for it, but leaves the curly braced call in place so that it's easy to remove. This also causes the template to update every time the page is loaded, if it has been edited or has a time-sensitive variable. Substitution, or "subst'ing" a template, causes the opposite effect. To substitute a template, add the code "subst:" at the beginning of the call: {{subst:template}}. When this is done, you are seeing the curly-braced call for the last time, because when you save the page, the MediaWiki software will replace that call with the template's code. This causes the template to lock in place - however it was when you called it, is how it's going to be from then on. This makes things a little difficult to remove, though, as instead of the simple template call, you've probably got lines of code that are now clogging up your article. Depending on how the template it written, it may require subst'ing to work properly, or it may require that it is not subst'ed. The page at WP:SUBST gives details on what templates should, must, or must not be substituted. When writing templates, it can also be useful to enclose the subst: code within <includeonly> tags. See below.
This lesson should show you how templates can be really useful for a lot of things. However, we can make templates even more functional and more powerful by having them do different things depending on what the parameters we set are. For more information on that, see the optional lesson on Advanced Templates. Questions[edit]Any questions? Could you display examples of what i should see after the first table of codes like you did with the second? Thanks Jenova20 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand what i'm doing on this one. It looks jibberish to me lol. I've picked up creating new pages and redirecting since this test was available but templates are just random letters and numbers to me. Thanks Jenova20 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I read your response to BennyDigital aswell and was shocked your pride flag history was so terrible. Perhaps we should be testing you next? If i ever manage to finish these exams anyway =] Thanks Jenova20 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Templates Test[edit]Well, this is a bit of fun, isn't it? One of the more difficult things to test. Well, for this test, I've created you a nice new page at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Jenova20/Template. It's a template! Have a look at it now. Depending on how you call it, different things will happen. So I'd like you to call the template so that you get the correct result. No using subst, just use the parameters of your nice new template. 1) I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
2) My name is Jenova20 and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
3) My name is Jenova20 and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
4) My name is Jenova20 and I intend to pass this module! I am really good with templates. (Template module)
NB, to get (4) to work properly... you will have to edit the template. Bwhahahah :D
|
Lesson 8 - Vandalism - Complete
|
|---|
Vandalism[edit]What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect. To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds). What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases. The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks:
So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.) IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: Jenova20 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.)
How to Revert[edit]Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE Vandalism and warnings[edit]You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read. Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first. When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway. The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist. Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. Questions[edit]Not much of a test this time, because there's so much to read... but let me know when you are ready :) Ready, not sure what this is about tho: "Diff 1: [] Why you think this is vandalism: Diff 2: [] Why you think this is vandalism: Diff 3: [] Why you think this is vandalism:" Thanks 81.137.240.118 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to do that but here's one i found fairly easily "(diff | hist) . . Human evolution; 14:37 . . (-4,189) . . 72.10.107.133 (Talk) (→History of ideas: ) [rollback]" If you can tell me how i'm supposed to do this properly i'd appreciate it. Thanks Jenova20 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism[edit]Q1) How would you define vandalism?
Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
Q3) Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to WP:AIV
Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
Q7) The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should wikipedia require registration?
Results[edit]You are certainly starting to think in the "Wikipedia way" Jenova, some exceptional answers there. You're right that if an edit is in no way helpful it is probably vandalism, but the important thing about vandalism is the intent behind it. You yourself have been accused twice, both times the accuser would argue that your edits were in no way helpful. That's a matter of opinion, you clearly made the edits in good faith, you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, that is not vandalism. Both times I did tell the editor in question off for just this point, vandalism is such a highly charged word, it shouldn't be thrown around willy nilly. WormTT · (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
Working the encyclopedia[edit]
Final module, well done for getting this far. I don't know if you realise, but the other 8 modules dealt with the theory of wikipedia, and didn't actually ask you to do anything. Well, this module is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.
Building[edit]
The first option is to build new articles. You know an awful lot about how wikipedia works now, and what's notable and what's not, reliable sources and what not. How about you try and write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know. Did you know is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook") and the hook should appear on the front page in the Did you know section! I've managed to do a few so far, you can have a look at mine if you like I keep a record at User:Worm That Turned/DYK. You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.
Join a Project[edit]
Have a look at your favourite articles, on the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out :D
Deleting[edit]
Why not mozy over to WP:XfD. There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's an article on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which might help you.
Patrolling[edit]
There's a lot to maintain at wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.
- New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Would be very helpful if you'd help out :D Have a read an think which you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your WP:CSD knowledge, or at least nominate them for deletion.
- Recent change patrol, vandalism patrol. it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! I've done quite a bit, but it still only accounts for 20% of my work here.
Cleanup[edit]
- WP:CLEANUP is one of the biggest backlogs on wikipedia. There's lots of things to do there, from wikification to re-writing articles to comply with NPOV. Every little does help, so whatever you can do, please do. As an example, I had a go at the . When I got there, there were 400. I chipped away at them at about 10 per day, many were no longer contradictory or mis-tagged. They're now at around 70, a much more respectable number. Every little helps. I cannot stress this enough.
Help the encyclopedia move forward[edit]
There's always discussions going on at requested moves or WP:Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. Hey, you can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler), see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.
Questions[edit]
Think there's stuff their you can do? Are you ready for the final exam? I have to warn you, some of these will be involved in the practical test... oh yes, there's a practical test. ;)
- Ready, i think Jenova20 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck - You may approach the final test. WormTT · (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)