User:Bmusician/Adoption/Zibart

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

== Zibart (talk · contribs) ==

Hello Zibart, 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. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see! →B music ian 13:14, 29 May 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 - Completed

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 I am ready to take the test Zibart (talk) 15:35, 29 May 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:No you cannot add this to the article unless your friend is a renowned movie critic as it would violate WP:POV
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:If no other source confirms the fact then it cannot be added as it is likely a rumour and wikipedia is not a rumour mill.
Is the official Facebook page of KFC a reliable source?
Answer:It is for information about things that are facts about the business (recent profits, opening stores etc) but not for any information that are opinions about KFC. For example adverts saying that their food is the best ever could not be added.
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:By submitting information to wikipedia you release it under the creative commons license and so I have every right to edit your article.
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:If another source backs this fact up then yes but otherwise it is just a rumour.
Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on ITV?
Answer: I would consider the BBC a reliable source becaise it is government regulated and therefore not allowed to be biased. ITV is a more tricky one but I would consider it an acceptable source. However newspapers produced by the IRA would not be acceptable for anything other than reporting on thir views as they would be completely biased.
Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source?
Answer:Yes he does need a source as all wikipedia articles must be properly verifiable.

Second Assignment: Wikiquette

What is wikiquette?

Wikiquette basically means "wiki ettiquette", and is the etiquette of Wikipedia.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.

Assume good faith - This is fundamental. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. Every one. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~). The MediaWiki software will substitute the four tlides with your signature and timestamp, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
Remember to reply to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. Talk pages should something like this. Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.

How's the pizza? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Pizza]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]

Don't forget to assume good faith.
There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
Comment on the edits. NEVER COMMENT ON AN EDITOR. EVER.

Discussion

Any questions or would you like to take the test? The test is pretty brief...consisting of only three questions!

Thank you, I am ready to take the test now.

Test

Have a look at the following conversation:

What's the best car in the world? -- Rod

Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie

Like what -- Rod's Mate

I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A

What do you want it for? -- Jane

Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

Position A?
Answer:
Position B?
Answer:
An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible sockpuppet?
Answer: