User:DreamRimmer/NPP-School/CharlieMehta
Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.
Instructions: CharlieMehta, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:
If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.
Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.
If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.
Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.
Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. Good luck!! – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Notability (Pt. 1)
[edit]Notability for me is something about a topic which is significantly covered in well-established publications like newspapers (Wikipedia:RSP, that's my first point to check a media site's credibility), books (reputed publishers not the vanity ones), or academic journals (journals which are specifically covered in Wikipedia Library). Also, relying on a single detailed source is usually insufficient, it is so then I try to abide with Wikipedia:THREE - though it is just an essay. Overall, the topic should have a lasting impact or interest, rather than being a fleeting or temporary phenomenon.
– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
As per my understanding after reading the GNG guidelines, I am clear that it is the cornerstone of every page's assessment. Significant coverage in reliable sources suggests, but does not guarantee, that a topic deserves its own Wikipedia article. This coverage should directly address the topic in detail, without requiring original research, and be more than a trivial mention. Reliable sources have editorial integrity and can include any published work but again we should be careful to distinguish editorial content from user-gernrated content like in the case of Wikipedia:FORBES. To establish notability, multiple secondary sources are generally expected, but the exact number depends on the quality and depth of the sources - this is a grey area. These sources must be independent of the subject, meaning they are not created by the subject or its affiliates, like advertisements (or Wikipedia:ADMASQ) or autobiographies
- – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Subject-specific notability guidelines in Wikipedia is an add-on to General Notability Gudileines. If there's uncertainty about a topic's notability under GNG, we use SNG to evaluate it. For example, we use Wikipedia:Nactor for actors, Wikipedia:Nacademic for academics, and Wikipedia:NBOOKS for books
- Organizational and Company Notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest
Evaluating organizations on Wikipedia is often controversial. To assess them, I would first check the Wikipedia:NCORP,Wikipedia:ORGCRIT, Wikipedia:LISTED, and Wikipedia:SIGCOV guidelines. If there's an AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion, I will also look at the Wikipedia:SIRS table.
- – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is my quick reference guide. But, sometimes if I have doubt on certain publications then I visit the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- How would you define RS, and what criteria should it meet? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I follow this; first check with the WP:RSP; second, see if a staff writer wrote it; third, check if the source is independent (for example, NDTV used to be considered independent for Adani articles, but not anymore after being acquired); fourth, check for significant coverage and secondary sources for any detailed analysis or critical opinions. Charlie (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?
First, I quickly review the article and assess it according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Next, I check for copyright violations. Then, I open the page curation panel to look at the article's history of edits and rejections. Once I have a full picture, I check the citations for reliability using Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN and CITEHIGHLIGHTER. After that, I look for promotional language with the DETECTPROMO script. Finally, I consider the GNG and SNG.
Done Each reviewer has their own approach, but they all follow the same steps you mentioned. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)
[edit]"Assume good faith" means that when we see changes or edits made by other users, we should believe they were trying to help improve the content, even if their edits seem wrong or confusing. It's about trusting that people are contributing with good intentions unless there is clear evidence otherwise. This approach helps keep discussions friendly and productive. What I mean is that we should avoid arguments about edits and not take things personally.
Wikipedia's rules for writing about living people stress the need for a neutral and respectful tone, balancing praise and criticism fairly. Articles shouldn't attack or unfairly target individuals. It's important not to misuse primary sources or rely on self-published ones, as they can be biased or inaccurate. Any controversial or disputed information without strong sources should be removed to ensure the subject is portrayed fairly. Articles should also have a "Further Reading" section with credible sources for more information, and an "External Links" section for relevant websites.
- Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)
It's been noticed that these articles are sometimes created by a single-purpose account (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account) or an ID similar to the topic's name. Before questioning these editors, it's a good idea to do some research first.
Wikipedia's copyright guidelines state that all content must be original or correctly credited to free sources that are either in the public domain or have a Creative Commons licenses, allowing anyone to use, modify, and share it. Editors should create articles or drafts in their own words, avoid copying from copyrighted materials, and ensure all media including images, graphs, videos are free to use or has a compatible license. Also, plagiarism is not allowed, and any sources used must be cited correctly. This ensures Wikipedia's content is legal and accessible to everyone.
As an editor at Wikipedia, it's crucial to understand that Wikipedia strictly prohibits adding hoaxes, false information, or unverifiable content to its articles, as this undermines the platform's credibility and can harm both Wikipedia's reputation and the individual responsible. Intentionally inserting disinformation, even as a test, is strongly discouraged and can lead to being blocked or banned. Instead, it's more beneficial to focus on correcting inaccuracies in existing content. However, there are exceptions like the Piltdown Man and The War of the Worlds (1938 radio drama), because they are clearly marked as hoaxes. If I have any doubts, I will reach out to more experienced editors through their talk pages or Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers.
Wikipedia's guidelines for handling attack pages are designed to address pages that unfairly target "subject" with negative comments or threats, often without proper sources. When an attack page is identified, it should be quickly marked with the "db-attack tag" and usually removed. If a notable person has an attack page, it should be replaced with a neutral, fact-checked page that presents information fairly. This approach helps maintain Wikipedia's standards and ensures the protection of individuals. However, there are certain procedures, like Wikipedia:Requests for comment, that are not affected by this policy and follow different rules.
Communications (Pt. 3)
[edit]This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading
- Discussions with creators of new pages
As reviewers, we need to interact to article creators politely and kindly. It's important to write clear edit summaries and interact well with creators and other editors. Sometimes, creators might ignore our messages and advice, like in the case of Somany Ceramics (User talk:Sarahkilledar). However, we should stay calm and always offer help. If by any chance a conflict arises, it's better to step back and guide those creators and editors to appropriate forums.
- Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss
- Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
Our discussions should be polite and based on Wikipedia guidelines. There is always a possibility that the interpretation of those guidelines may vary from editor to editor, which may result in some sort of disagreement. But, we should maintain our cool and not prove our superiority. If there is any kind of altercation, it is better to issue level 1 warning and in extreme cases report it to Wikipedia:ANI.
- Wikilove/positive comments
Deletion (Pt. 4)
[edit]- WP:Soft delete (optional - already addressed above)
- Speedy Deletion (optional - already addressed above)
Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)
[edit]- Categorizing (optional)