User:Gaurav2192/Adoption school
Hi, and welcome to your adoption school. By the time you've completed the tests and tasks here, you should have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes, and should have no difficulty understanding and dealing with 99% of the the things you'll encounter on this site. You can ask me questions on my talkpage at any time if you aren't sure about anything here, and I also welcome suggestions for ways of improving this course.
You can complete the sections in any order; let me know when you've finished one and I'll mark it and close it for you. Save for a few cases, there are generally multiple ways to answer the questions; not many of them have clear right/wrong answers. Although I'll always try and give a reason for each mark, the basic responses you'll see are:
Good answer; interprets policy correctly and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
Incomplete/insufficient answer; whilst partly correct, there are better responses to this question.
Poor answer; shows an inadequate understanding of the policies and guidelines concerned.
Have fun!
Five Pillars
 Completed! |
|---|
|
Wikipedia is governed by a large number of policies and guidelines - don't worry, you aren't expected to know all of these when you start out (or even after being here for a while!). All of these rules, however, stem in one way or another from Wikipedia's fundamental principles, which are known as the Five Pillars. Learn these and you can hazard an educated guess at all the rest. Please take a few minutes to read through the following pages:
|
Cleanup
Completed! |
|---|
Cleanup[edit]The Random article button (located in your left-hand sidebar menu) is very useful for locating articles that are in need of improvement (although I find that 90% of the time you get a random article on either an obscure village in the mountains of Pakistan or a little-known Eastern European football team...). However, there are easier ways to locate articles that need attention. When editors come across a page that needs to be improved but they are unable to do so themselves (due to time constraints, lack of sources or just because they don't feel like it) they will often tag it with a cleanup tag. As well as placing a notice at the top of the page to say what needs doing, this also has the effect of listing the article in one of several cleanup categories. You can access most of these categories here. What I'd like you to do is this: First, locate an article in need of cleanup. I'd suggest something fairly straightforward, like a page that needs copyediting for spelling and grammar (there's a full list of pages tagged thus here). Make three improvements to the page; these can be minor changes to word order, wikilinks, punctuation or typo fixes, I'm not fussed. When you've done this post a link to the article here - type the page name and enclose it in double square brackets, like this: Edited the page Kanpur Central railway station.
Now go to the page Commonly misspelled words and select a word from the list there. Put the incorrect spelling of the word into the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, prefacing it with a single tilde, like this "~mispeling". The tilde means that, rather than searching for an article titled "Mispeling", the search engine will instead return a list of pages which contain the word "mispeling". You can now open each of these in turn, locate the typo, and change it to the correct spelling. Post here when you've fixed three typos in this way.
|
Markup
Completed! | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Markup[edit]Wiki syntax can be, frankly, a right pain in the proverbials when you start editing. After a while, it becomes second nature - so much so that I now use it instinctively in places where it doesn't work, like emails and Word documents - but it takes time to become familiar with the nuances. Below are a list of markup tasks you can play about with to help increase your understanding. Most of the necessary codes are available at the cheatsheet. Format the words on this line into bold text. Format the words on this line into italic text. Create a level 2 header for this line.[edit]Create a level 3 header for this line.[edit]
Outdent this line.
Put the following quote into a separate block:
Turn the following into a numbered list:
Turn the following into a bulleted list:
Make the text on this line red. Make the text on this line small. Create a link to the page on Barry Manilow. Create a link to the Things that have gone wrong with Barry subsection of the Barry Manilow page. Make it display on this page as "Things that have gone wrong with Barry". Create a link to the Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Make this link: Encyclopedia Britannica display on this page as "Encyclopedia Britannica". Add the Like template to the end of this line.
 Create a two column table. In column one, titled "Things", list the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. In column 2, titled "Stuff", list the first four things that spring to mind.
|
References
|
|---|
References[edit]Because anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time, it's impossible to be sure that the information contained here is always accurate. At any point, a random passerby can change the text of a page to something that isn't actually correct - many do. We have methods in place to prevent this, but the most fundamental one is the requirement that information here must be verifiable. If Wikipedia says something, it should be possible to locate that information in a source and check that it is correct. Because of this, we need references to reliable sources in every article. Citing references is an area that many editors struggle with - it does, however, look far more complicated than it actually is. See this essay for a simplified explanation of the process. The most common form of citation used on Wikipedia is the The fundamental thing to remember with any reference is that you need to provide enough information for the reader to stand a reasonable chance of being able to check the reference. Hyperlinks to online sources are fairly standard (remember to add the date that you accessed the page, in case it changes), but if you use an offline source, be sure you include sufficient detail: "Bailey, 1989" is pretty useless on its own, whereas "Bailey, John; Information Science, Routledge 1989, p. 17" gives the reader plenty to go on if they want to find the source in a library or bookshop. Your next task is to find a page or pages that require additional references and supply them. You can choose any page for this purpose (there's a full list of articles without sources here). Post the diffs of three edits where you've added citations below. Let me know if you need a hand, or if you want anything explained further.
Also added this internal link.Wiki Link
|
Reliable sources
|
|---|
Reliable sources[edit]All of the information in Wikipedia should, at least in theory, have been published already in some sort of reliable source. Deciding what is and is not a reliable source can sometimes be a tricky process. Please read Identifying reliable sources and comment on the use of sources below, answering the following in each case:
Note that the text quoted is not taken from the article - links to the articles in question are provided only for context.
Kylie Minogue[edit]Article text: Kylie Minogue was the headline act at the 2012 Malasian Grand Prix. Incisoscutum[edit]Article text: Placoderms like Incisoscutum engaged in penetrative sex and gave birth to live young. Mohamed H.A. Hassan[edit]Article text: Hassan is the Executive Director of TWAS. Arthur & George[edit]Article text: The book explains that Conan Doyle argued successfully that Edalji's nearsightedness would have prevented him from committing the crimes. This Providence[edit]Article text: The band's Christian morality is clearly expressed through their song lyrics. Mount Erebus[edit]Article text: The mountain is named after the personification of darkness in ancient Greek mythology. Ami Suzuki[edit]Article text: Suzuki was born on February 9th, 1982. Seth Kimbrough[edit]Article text: Kimbrough's earliest memory of BMX riding is the day that his brother taught him the "bunny hop" technique. |
Deletion
|
|---|
Deletion[edit]Often, you'll encounter pages that are not suitable for Wikipedia, for one reason or another. Have a read of this essay, and then refer to the deletion policy before tackling the questions below. Speedy deletion[edit]You may want to check the specific policy on speedy deletion to respond to the following test. Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything). Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space. 1. Danille Stross 2. Waichi 3. Zack de Vries 4. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross 5. Alfreld Herchkerck 6. Blgah 7. Portland Square Bombing 8. User:Chest McFlink 9. Tsutomu Yukawa 10. Johnny Awesome Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to. Proposed deletion[edit]Proposed deletion (PROD) is Wikipedia's way of dealing with articles that are patently unsuitable, but that don't fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Examples might include: non-notable books or films, personal essays, non-notable albums by notable artists, news stories, dictionary definitions and how-to guides. Basically, anything that's covered by What Wikipedia is not but isn't covered under speedy deletion can be a viable candidate for PROD. BLPPROD is a subset of the proposed deletion process that applies only to unsourced biographies of living people. Biographies of deceased people, or biographies with sources, are not subject to BLPPROD. Read through the policies linked above, and then answer the following questions: 1. Why do we have a specific deletion process for unsourced biographies of living people? 2. You come across an obviously inappropriate article (it's an unsourced personal essay) and tag it for deletion under PROD. The page's creator removes the tag. What would your next step be? 3. You encounter a biography of a living person which contains four paragraphs of text, but only one reference (which does little more than verify the subject's name and existence). What tag would you place on the article? 4. Why were [9], [10] and [11] incorrect applications of the BLPPROD tag? 5. An unsourced BLP is tagged with Articles for deletion[edit]Articles for deletion is a process for dealing with cases where an editor feels that an article should be deleted, but that article is not suitable for speedy deletion and a proposed deletion would be or has been contested. In other words, you would use AFD if you think that other editors might disagree with the decision to delete. At AFD, articles are put up for discussion for (usually) one week, and any editor is free to comment on whether the page should be deleted or not. When nominating an article for AFD, it's important to explain your reasoning. If the page could have been deleted as obviously non-notable, you need to explain why you think it isn't notable, and why you are using AFD instead of PROD or CSD. If your reason for deletion is anything other than notability, you need to show which policy it violates. When !voting in an AFD discussion (we use the term "!vote" instead of "vote" to indicate that AFD isn't a majority vote; decisions are not made purely on headcount), it's important to note (and preferably link to) the policies under which you feel the article should be deleted, and explain why it does not meet those policies. Whilst a lot of AFDs contain !votes that read, "per nominator", these are not given much weight by the reviewing administrators. If you want your opinion to count, you need to offer an explanation for your reasoning. There are also many common arguments to avoid; making any of these will not help your case. It is a great help to the reviewing administrator if you keep your comments in an AFD discussion concise and relevent to the discussion. Tangential arguments and long screeds tend to derail the discussion, and can make it very difficult to establish consensus. No quiz here, but instead, I'd like you to comment at five AFD discussions, and link to them below. 1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH NAME OF ARTICLE 2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH NAME OF ARTICLE 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH NAME OF ARTICLE 4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH NAME OF ARTICLE 5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REPLACE THIS TEXT WITH NAME OF ARTICLE |
Interaction
|
|---|
|
Whilst mastering the technical nuances of Wikipedia can be a challenge (one you've hopefully overcome in the above sections), it pales in comparison to navigating the delicate web of interaction between Wikipedia's users. Although our primary goal - one we should never lose sight of - is the construction of the world's greatest encylopedia, the nature of the project means that you will have to communicate with other editors in order to get things done. Politeness[edit]The most fundamental policy governing user interaction is Civility, one of the Five Pillars you learned about earlier. Basically, you are expected to communicate with other editors in a respectful manner, assume that they are acting in good faith and avoid insulting or otherwise attacking them. Remember, behind every IP or ridiculous username is a real person, and it's that real person who is being hurt by insults, accusations and abuse hurled their way. 1. What would your response be if another user called you a "blithering imbecile"? 2. A source you added to an article is removed with the edit summary, "Removing crappy reference". Is this a personal attack? 3. In the heat of the moment, you refer to another editor as an "idiot". He posts this template on your talkpage and reports you to the administrators board. You respond to the report at the admin board - what do you say? Assuming good faith[edit]In learning about vandalism, you will have come across the idea of a "good faith edit", i.e. an edit that doesn't actually improve the article, but was made with the intention of doing so. The same applies to other editors' posts in discussions. Whilst it may seem that User:X is belittling you at every turn and is clearly biased and/or incompetent, there's actually a strong likelihood that he believes the same thing of you, and is doing his best to protect Wikipedia from what he sees as your problematic editing. In the same vein, don't automatically assume that a comment you find upsetting was intended to cause an upset - other users don't know you, and they don't know what sort of thing will push your buttons. 1. You add a large amount of sourced text to an article, which another editor removes. When you discuss it on the talkpage, the editor argues that your source "was written by an incompetent sot" and implies (but doesn't directly state) that you must be equally incompetent to have used it. How do you respond? 2. You encounter a new editor who is removing sourced content from a biographical page, claiming that it is disrespectful to the subject to include it. How do you explain the situation to them? Consensus[edit]Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on community consensus. This means that we are largely unconcerned with issues of right or wrong, true or false, correct or incorrect - what matters on Wikipedia is what the community decides. Because not every user can be involved in every possible discussion, we have policies and guidelines that have developed widespread consensus for use, and these serve to provide the opinion of Wikipedia editors in general. For example, in an Articles for deletion discussion or a Request for comment, only a handful users will participate - but by quoting relevent policies (such as WP:What Wikipedia is not) they are able to convey the established view of the Wikipedia community as a whole. For this reason, local consensus does not override policy - if you can get three people on a talkpage to agree to include a link to your fansite on your favourite actor's article, that doesn't mean you have the authority to override the policy on external links. That said, it is important to get agreement from the community for any potentially controversial edit or action you wish to make, even if you believe it to be in line with policy. If you make such an edit and it gets reverted, the appropriate response is to discuss it with the user who reverted you, ideally on the article's talkpage so that other users can comment too. Only when there is clear agreement (not necessarily unanimous, but definitely obvious to an outside observer) to include your revision should you go ahead with it. 1. At Articles for deletion, a discussion has taken place in which User:X proposes deleting a page (because after much searching, no-one has been able to locate suitable sources for it) and User:Y proposes keeping it because they have found it useful for a research project. Four other editors chime in to support the Keep vote, all with the rationale, "per User:Y, page is useful" or something very similar. You are the admin closing the discussion; do you close it as Keep, Delete or No Consensus, and why? 2. On an article talkpage, three users disagree with your addition of an external link to the subject's official site, even though such a link is allowed under the External links policy. No other editors have supported your position. What do you do? Resolving disputes[edit]If two or more editors are unable to agree on some aspect of an article, and no consensus seems to be possible, then continuing to argue on the talkpage is somewhat futile. Recognising this, Wikipedia has developed a number of processes for resolving such disputes. In rough order of escalation, these are:
No questions on this section; the above is provided purely for your information. Hopefully, you'll never have to use any of it!
|
Vandals
|
|---|
Vandals[edit]Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, not all the edits that are made are constructive - some, in fact, are deliberately disruptive and need to be reverted. Please have a read of this essay and this guideline, then answer the questions and perform the tasks below. There's no time limit for this, it's more important that your work in this area be accurate than fast. If you aren't sure whether it's vandalism or not, it probably isn't.
Good faith and vandalism[edit]
1. Warning and reporting[edit]
Dealing with difficult users[edit]
Protection[edit]
|
Copyright
|
|---|
Copyright[edit]You probably already know that copy-pasting text from elsewhere is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. It's one of the things newer editors often fall foul of. Copyright, because it has legal ramifications in the real world, is one of the most important things to get right here, and for the same reason, is also a bit of a minefield. I've prepared a short quiz to test your understanding of the major issues, however you'll need to do a bit of background reading first. The principal pages that cover copyright issues are as follows:
All the answers you're likely to need should be in one or more of these pages. 1. You find a book on Amazon that appears to be reusing the text of Wikipedia articles - in fact, they proudly announce it on the cover! The book costs £20.00. Are they allowed to use other writers' work to make money in this way? If so, why? If not, why not? 2. Is it ever permissible to copy and paste text from another website to Wikipedia? If so, under what circumstances would this be allowed? 3. A new user uploads a picture of Tony Blair from a newspaper article in the free newspaper The Metro. The newspaper has national circulation, and is read by millions of people daily, so the image is already readily available; it's also easy to find on Google Images. Is this picture:
Please give a brief reason for your answer. 4. You find a new article that appears to contain a block of text (about half the article's content) which has been copied directly from a non-free source. The rest of the article seems to be original material. What do you do? 5. An editor adds some text from a website that he owns the copyright to. He has issued a statement on the original website saying that, "the content of this site can be freely used on the English version of Wikipedia". Is the text acceptable? If not, why not? 6. A user uploads an image that he has created, a Microsoft Paint version of a diagram from a copyrighted work. His version is all but identical to the original, but is definitely his own work. Can this image be used on Wikipedia? 7. Some images may be better off being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia. To which project would you upload the following:
A. 8. The subject of an article, a minor local celebrity, has uploaded a promotional photo of himself, taken at a book signing, to use on his Wikipedia page. Does he own the copyright to it? Can it be used on Wikipedia? 9. A new editor wants to use text from her website on Wikipedia. Assuming that the text is suitably impartial and that she isn't affiliated with the subject, what would you advise her to do in order to allow Wikipedia to use her work? 10. An editor adds the text, "Carter's discovery of the tomb created a sensation in London, where he was widely celebrated. Banners were hung in his honour, and a national holiday was declared," to the article Howard Carter. The source provided for this text (a recently published book on Carter's life) contains the wording, "His discovery of Tutankhamun's grave created a sensation back in London, where he was heavily feted. People hung banners from their windows in his honour, and the Queen declared a national holiday." Has the editor committed a copyright violation? |