User:WormTT/Adopt/Barts1a
Hi Barts1a, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substituted across a lesson for you and 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/Adopt, 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/Barts1a. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see WormTT · (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar | ||||||||||
| Congratulations on completing the course Barts1a! You clearly have a great knowledge of wikipedia and have the ability to be a great wikipedian. You know where I am if you need any help, and hopefully you won't get yourself stuck in situations again! WormTT · (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC) |
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
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.
- Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
- Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
- Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
- Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
- Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
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 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.
Questions?
[edit]Any questions or would you like to try the test?
- I'd like to give the test a shot. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Five Pillars
[edit]This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no 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?
- A - No you cannot add it because it is not supported by a reliable and verifiable source And for all I know the friend could be misinformed. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
- A - You cannot include this because A) uploading the cartoon could be seen easily as a copyvio and B) Cartoons usually express the opinion of the person who drew them and as such there is an obvious WP:NPOV vio if they were to be included as fact. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
- A- No. That would constitute Original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
- A - In both cases; no. As BBC News being based in England gives them an inherent bias towards one version of events in The Troubles. And in regards to it's rival; ITV there is an evident conflict of interest. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you name any source, anywhere on anything, which has no inherent bias at all?
- Quite simply; no. Every source shows some degree of inherent bias however in cases such as this one there is a higher degree of said bias. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you name any source, anywhere on anything, which has no inherent bias at all?
5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
- A- A facebook page is User-generated content and most of the time that is unreliable. So no; I would not consider it a reliable source. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
- A- It would not be considered as such because the "Forum officials" are not empoloyees of the Daily Telegraph and even if they were they usually do not represent the opinions of the publishers of the newspaper while posting on the forums. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
7) Q - Would you have any problem with beerbarrels2u.co.uk being used in a beer related article?
- A - I would have a problem with it because it's inclusion can be easily seen as advertising which is a big no-no! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
- A - Yes I would have a problem with it because the About Us page on the Xerox website is made by the company and is considered a Self-published source which is not allowed. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
- A - No. The person claiming the sky was bronze would need to supply proof per WP:PROVEIT. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that may be true if he wanted to add "the sky is bronze", but the article currently says "the sky is blue" and is unsourced. Does that now count as contentious? Assuming you've been working on the sky article, should you source it?
- That would not count as contentious as there is only one editor claiming that the sky is bronze. Under usual circumstances I would have to source it, however in this case people can just look out of a window and see that the sky is blue, when something is that painfully obvious it shouldn't need sourcing. However I would open an RfC on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute properly and hope that the one editor does not disagree with the outcome and escalate it to ArbCom (Where it would probably be unanimously rejected as WP:LAME and rightfully so) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that may be true if he wanted to add "the sky is bronze", but the article currently says "the sky is blue" and is unsourced. Does that now count as contentious? Assuming you've been working on the sky article, should you source it?
Results
[edit]Interesting answers. I've asked a few follow up questions, then will give you some opinions. WormTT · (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- You've done a great job on these answers, though I believe you're a bit too harsh on what can't be included. The factor you're not including is "editorial judgement". You're absolutely right that all sources have inherent bias, so we must use editorial judgement to decide which ones are appropriate. I wouldn't rule out BBC on every ITV story nor on every Troubles article, but I would keep in mind the issues you'd raised when I evaluated the source. Similarly with Xerox, if the information is purely factual, for example the date they released their first printer, I wouldn't have a problem with using their site, but I'd keep in mind the definite conflict of interest problems.
- Finally, regarding the blue sky, I looked out the window and hour ago and the sky was grey. It's now blue. Last night there was lovely sunset when it was red. I can understand that you wouldn't necessarily need a source for one editor, but sourcing something so "obvious" should be easy - and either that or consensus should follow. It's not like this is an easy subject, there's too competing essays - WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue WormTT · (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. 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 software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
- Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]] :It's great!! --[[User:Jane]] ::I made it myself! --[[User:John]] Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]] :I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]] |
How's the soup? --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane
|
- 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.
- Watch out for common mistakes.
- Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
- Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Questions
[edit]Any questions?
- Yeah; where can you get that signature reminder script? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I used Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig, but I'm not sure how well it's been working since the last upgrade. I generally don't forget sigs these days! There's an awful lot of good user scripts at that project. WormTT · (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! Test plz. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I used Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig, but I'm not sure how well it's been working since the last upgrade. I generally don't forget sigs these days! There's an awful lot of good user scripts at that project. WormTT · (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Test
[edit]Have a look at the conversation below:
What's the best car in the world? -- Rod
|
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
1) Position A?
- A- Rod's Mate Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2) Position B?
- A- Rod Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
- A- No, They could have just taken the time to familiarize themselves with our various templates before they started using them. If they start consistently demonstrating the non-constructive editing patterns of another editor (blocked or otherwise) then you can start being a bit suspicious. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright
[edit]Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.
Glossary
[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
| Term | Explaination |
|---|---|
| Attribution | The identification of work by an author |
| Copyright symbol | © - used to show work is under copyright |
| Creative Commons | Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. |
| Compilation | A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. |
| Derivative work | A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting) |
| Disclaimer | A statement which limits rights or obligations |
| FACT | Federation Against Copyright Theft |
| Fair use | Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. |
| Copyright infringement | Use of work under copyright without permission |
| Intellectual property | Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. |
| License | The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. |
| Non-commercial | Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. |
| Public domain | Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired |
Image Copyright on Wikipedia
[edit]
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.
Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.
So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.
Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.
Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)
In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
- If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
- If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
- If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
- There must be no free equivalent
- We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
- Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
- Must have been published elsewhere first
- Meets our general standards for content
- Meets our specific standards for that area
- Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
- Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
- Can only be used in article space
- The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)
Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
- I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so would be deleted.
- Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable.
- For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website and upload their version. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo.
Commons
[edit]When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.
Copyright and text
[edit]So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there
| Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. |
So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.
Questions
[edit]This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
- I am fairly certain I understand it. Hit me with the test and let's see what happens... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Test
[edit]Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
- A- Because it uses freely re-distributable or fair-use work that does not require the payment of royalties to licence holders. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
- A- When it is your own work such as a picture not including copyrighted content that you have taken. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that makes sense. Something that's your own work. Can you think of any situations where you can upload someone else's work to Commons?
- If another person's work is the only thing that can be used such as a picture in an article about a commercial product like the Red Bull logo then you may be able to upload another person's work. It varies on a case-by-case basis as to weather it is accepted or not. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually that's wrong. Commons can only accept free (or equivalent) images - so fair use doesn't apply. The sort of thing I was looking for was items in the public domain, or ones that had already been released under a compatible license elsewhere. (Geograph.org is a good example).
- If another person's work is the only thing that can be used such as a picture in an article about a commercial product like the Red Bull logo then you may be able to upload another person's work. It varies on a case-by-case basis as to weather it is accepted or not. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that makes sense. Something that's your own work. Can you think of any situations where you can upload someone else's work to Commons?
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
- A- You can as long as it is used in an article and proper attribution is provided in the Free use rationale. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is a very mean question, I think only one person has ever spotted it. Because the the licence does not allow commercial re-use, it's more restrictive than the licence we use, which does. In other words, you can download a picture from Commons and sell it - as long as there is attribution. The music here doesn't allow that, and there cannot be uploaded. For extra credit, why do you think we allow commercial re-use of Wikimedia work?
- We allow commercial re-use because it furthers the open aspect of the encyclopaedia by allowing anyone to reuse content (As long as proper attribution is provided!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, no. This is a very mean question, I think only one person has ever spotted it. Because the the licence does not allow commercial re-use, it's more restrictive than the licence we use, which does. In other words, you can download a picture from Commons and sell it - as long as there is attribution. The music here doesn't allow that, and there cannot be uploaded. For extra credit, why do you think we allow commercial re-use of Wikimedia work?
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.
- A- They cannot upload it as all of the Beatles' album covers can be easily attained elsewhere. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- How can the Beatles' album covers be easily attained? I'm a little confused by your answer.
- If you look at the articles for the Beatles' albums such as the Yellow Submarine they all have the covers of the albums. As they are used to illustrate the recording they qualify as fair use. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah yes, but none of them are "attained", they're there as fair use. If he'd taken a collection of free images and made a composite, that'd be fine, but because the original images are not free, nor is the composite.
- If you look at the articles for the Beatles' albums such as the Yellow Submarine they all have the covers of the albums. As they are used to illustrate the recording they qualify as fair use. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- How can the Beatles' album covers be easily attained? I'm a little confused by your answer.
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
- A- No. There are already several free images of the Pope. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
- A- Unless there is no other image that meets the criteria for a free image available of that prisoner then no you cannot upload it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- The point I'm getting at is "if there is no free image, but the person is alive and you can't get to him... is that a good enough reason to use a fair use image" - You decide!
- I'd say that it is a good enough reason to use a fair use image. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The point I'm getting at is "if there is no free image, but the person is alive and you can't get to him... is that a good enough reason to use a fair use image" - You decide!
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
- A- Tag it as a copyright violation and/or advertisement. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
- A- Yes I can. As you might be aware I had an article that I had written fall victim to a copy/paste move. That situation demonstrated one of the major issues with doing a copy/paste move: The lack of attribution. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I ask all my adoptees this. You're exactly right, the lack of attibution is the problem.
Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
- A- File:Paris2012.png Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Very good.
Results
[edit]Almost there, just interested in your answer to Q6. WormTT · (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think you get it all, Good job. Let's get on with the next lesson.
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 you 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 editor's 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). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes.
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 its 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]Nope. Test please. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
[edit]1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
- A- If you want to make a change to an edit, be bold and make the change, if someone reverts it do not edit war, instead open discussion with the reverter and/or the community to determine a consensus. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
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!
- A- Neither win. Both people are edit warring and they can both be blocked for it. In fact the stopping short of WP:3RR could be seen as gaming the system which can also get you blocked. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
3) What is vandalism?
- A- Vandalism is anything done in bad faith with the deliberate aim of compromising the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
- A- Editor assistance is a noticeboard that you can use to informally request comments on another editor, third opinion is used to attract uninvolved editors to a dispute in order to attempt to provide a resolution, RFC is a formal dispute resolution process that is designed to get many uninvolved editors voicing their take on a dispute at a page or with a user in order to form a consensus. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Results
[edit]All exactly right. Very good.
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:
- General criteria 1 (G1) or G2 - Patent Nonsense and/or Test pages. Commonly created by new accounts, these have no meaningful purpose at all. Mark these pages with the templates {{db-nonsense}} or {{db-test}}.
- G3 - Vandalism. Obvious junk that you can understand (and so isn't nonsense) but obviously isn't intended to be the least bit helpful. This includes redirects that get made as a result of someone moving pages around disruptively. Mark these with {{db-vandalism}}
- G4 - Recreation of deleted material. If a page is deleted through an XfD debate (see below) and it gets re-created essentially identically to the previous version, it can be speedied under G4. This does not apply to pages deleted under any other method (although another speedy criteria may fit and can be used), or pages that have been "userfyed" (see below). Tag these with {{db-repost}}
- G10 - Attacks. If a page is created with the apparently singular purpose of attacking someone, it's a candidate for deletion. Mark these with {{db-attack}}.
- G11 - Advertising. If a page is so blatantly advertising (for anything, even a person) that it really doesn't serve any other purpose at all, it can be deleted. {{db-ad}}
- G12 - Copyright violations, or "copyvio". If a page meets ALL of these criteria, it should be deleted immediately for GFDL compliance. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|website}}
- Direct copy of a non-GFDL-compatible website
- No non-copyrighted content in history
- All copyvio content added at once by one user
- No assertion of permission or fair use, or that content is public domain or freely available.
- Article criteria 1 or 3 (A1 or A3) - Little to no context OR no content. For articles that provide no useful information about the subject, are completely empty, or consist only of links elsewhere. Note that an article can be as short as a single sentence but still qualify as a stub. Mark with {{db-empty}}.
- A7 - Non-notable subject. An article about a person, group, band, company, or website that does not establish why it is notable. If this is somewhat controversial, consider another deletion method. Mark with {{db-bio}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-band}}, or {{db-web}}.
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.
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
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. 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"
- Test please! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- That was quick!
Deletion
[edit]1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
- A I would use a WP:PROD on an article that does not belong on Wikipedia but does not fit one of the strict speedy deletion criteria (Such as an article with sources that indirectly mention the subject and thus the article is OR) and if that is contested I look at what argument (if any) the contester has put up to contest the PROD, and if I feel it does not explain why the article should not be deleted then I take it to WP:AFD. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right. Well, first off, there's lots of situations PROD shouldn't be used which you didn't really cover - the point I was looking for was that "it was unlikely to be contested". This would mean, things that have already gone through AfD, things that looked better earlier in their history and so on. AfD should be used in pretty much every other situation (besides things that are so obvious that they can be CSDd)
- It's important to remember that PROD is overturnable, by any editor, even after deletion. Undeleting a prod is very easy.
- Got it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
- A Someone makes an article about someone that has no sources where it is impossible to find any reliable sources about the person. In this case A7 would be appropriate. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. A7 is for situations where they don't even credibly claim that there is a reason for the article to exist. If there was an article on Jaques Dupree, the Poet Laureate during the French Revolution, it's quite possible that there are no sources and no reliable sources can be found, but there is still a credible indication of importance and that the article should go to AfD to be deleted. It's not appropriate for it to be deleted A7.
- Wow... that A7 really IS unclear... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's a difficult one, isn't it. Once you get your head around the idea though, it's pretty easy. It's one of the most misused tags though
- Wow... that A7 really IS unclear... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. A7 is for situations where they don't even credibly claim that there is a reason for the article to exist. If there was an article on Jaques Dupree, the Poet Laureate during the French Revolution, it's quite possible that there are no sources and no reliable sources can be found, but there is still a credible indication of importance and that the article should go to AfD to be deleted. It's not appropriate for it to be deleted A7.
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them?
3)First
- A I would tag it with {{db-A7}} as there are no reliable sources that can be found and the article is about a person. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- A7 seems reasonable, the indication of importance is not credible. A1 is reasonable too, there's no context in what we're talking about.
- Got it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- A7 seems reasonable, the indication of importance is not credible. A1 is reasonable too, there's no context in what we're talking about.
4)Second
- A I would try to find sources of this person and if I cannot find any then I would WP:PROD it as some can see indications of notability due to the various famous names in the article. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Prod is fine, so would BLPPROD be.
- I didn't even know we had BLPPROD! I am learning! :P Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Prod is fine, so would BLPPROD be.
5)Third
- A Tag it with {{db-test}} and post a welcome message on the user's talk page. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.
6)Fourth
- A I would try to improve the article by seeking verifiable, reliable sources about the event and insert the references found into the text. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good job.
7)Fifth
- A I would tag it as {{db-nonsense}}. It is understandable but it says nothing and it does not read like a purely vandalism page. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, this isn't patent nonsense, it makes sense. A1 would be the most sensible - we know nothing about Johnny, who he is or what he's done, there's no context.
- Got it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, this isn't patent nonsense, it makes sense. A1 would be the most sensible - we know nothing about Johnny, who he is or what he's done, there's no context.
Results
[edit]Well, not the best round, but at least I've finally marked it! Shall we move on?
{{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 decisions are not made based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of the 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 decreed from the Wikimedia foundation or through 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; they describe how the community works, and in general that remains fairly 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?
- Nope. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Policy
[edit]1) What is the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay?
- A A policy is something that MUST be followed and in some cases is exempt from WP:IAR such as WP:CIVIL and violating them often results in a block. A guideline is something that it is recommended you follow but if you do not follow it it will most likely not lead to a block (unless you violate policies such as WP:CIVIL in the process!). An essay is something written by wikipedia users which can help in abiding by policies and guidelines such as WP:BRD or there just to help in encyclopaedia processes such as WP:ATA. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say I wholly agree with that. You're putting much too much stock in being blocked. For example, Article titles is a policy, though I don't see many people being blocked for violating that! Basically, a policy is something that you are expected to adhere to and so is a guideline, though there is more of a possibility that you could use an IAR... in practice there's not a lot of difference, except a policy "trumps" a guideline. An essay is just the thoughts of one or more wikipedia users.
- Understood. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say I wholly agree with that. You're putting much too much stock in being blocked. For example, Article titles is a policy, though I don't see many people being blocked for violating that! Basically, a policy is something that you are expected to adhere to and so is a guideline, though there is more of a possibility that you could use an IAR... in practice there's not a lot of difference, except a policy "trumps" a guideline. An essay is just the thoughts of one or more wikipedia users.
2) Can Policy change?
- A Yes, policy can change... after a lengthy period of community discussion and a clear consensus to do so. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't even need to be lengthy, as long as there's consensus.
- True... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't even need to be lengthy, as long as there's consensus.
3) In your opinion. Is Wikipedia a bureaucracy?
- A Well... There is a form and/or noticeboard for everything (Just look at WP:NPN!) However because there are no other beurocratic procedures such as having a select few approve actions such as making someone an admin or enacting a site ban, these are sent to the wider community for discussion and formation of a consensus before they are given the green/red light. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite an answer, but at least you're thinking. all looks good
- Good to hear. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite an answer, but at least you're thinking. all looks good
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:
| What I type | What appears | Comments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{user en}} |
|
This calls Template:User en. All content there (that is marked to be included, see below) appears where I type the template code. | ||
| {{Worm DYK}} | {{WormTT DYK}}
|
I get a red link because no page exists at Template:Worm DYK. | ||
| {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}} |
|
When I specify the User: namespace, the userbox I have at that location appears. Thus, a template does not have to be in the Template: namespace to work. | ||
| {{User DYK}} |
|
I get a {{{1}}} where a number should appear. This is due to the fact that I did not specify a parameter in that template. |
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.
| Code | What it does |
|---|---|
| {{{1}}} | Causes a parameter "1" to display at that location. |
| {{{name}}} | Causes a parameter "name" to display at that location. (Calling the template {{Template|name=Worm}} will cause "Worm" to display at that location) |
| {{{1|foo}}} | Sets a default value "foo" for parameter "1", which prevents the parameter from displaying as it does in the userbox above. This can be blank: {{{1|}}} |
| <includeonly>foo</includeonly> | Causes the text "foo" to only appear when the template is called. It will not appear on the template page, or in previews when editing the template. As a result, any code included in these tags will not be executed until the template is called. |
| <noinclude>foo</noinclude> | Removes the text "foo" from the template. Documentation (notes on how to use a template) is always included with these tags so that it is not called along with the template. |
| {{{1|lorem ipsum}}} <noinclude>dolor sit amet</noinclude> <includeonly>etc...</includeonly> | When this template is called, it will display parameter 1 first, followed by "etc...". If parameter 1 is not defined, the template will display "lorem ipsum etc..." |
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.
| Code | Displays | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| {{CURRENTTIME}} | 08:30 | Template is transcluded, so updates every time you load the page. |
| {{subst:CURRENTTIME}} | 22:56 | Template is substituted, so is stuck on the time I saved this page. |
| {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}} | 08:11 | Here, the template acts as though it were transcluded on the source page of this lesson, User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Templates. However, it was substituted when I placed this lesson on the main adoption page, and so is stuck at the time shown. |
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.
- The advanced templates page is a 404... Also: Test please. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I know. I've been meaning to create it for... a year... now! I will do it... one day.
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/Barts1a/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 Barts1a and I intend to pass this module! (Template module)
3) My name is Barts1a and I intend to eat a butterfly. (Template module)
4) My name is Barts1a 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
Great job!
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:
- (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft)
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.
- A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
- The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
- The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
- The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
- The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
- The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
- The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.
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: Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:55, 16 April 2012 (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.)
- Diff 1: diff Why you think this is vandalism: This edit replaces words with other words that are nonsensical in the context such as replacing "boom" with "my butt" and "character" with "doody pants". Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Diff 2: diff Why you think this is vandalism: Adding "Ivan is nice!!!" to an article called "Ivan the Terrible"... Kinda self-explanatory... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Diff 3: diff Why you think this is vandalism: Changing the number of survivors in direct contradiction with the article text (How can 30 more people suddenly survive?). Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
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
- Sadly; my current editing restrictions prohibit me from doing that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good point!
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 when you are. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good choices above.
Vandalism
[edit]Q1) How would you define vandalism?
- A: Vandalism is any attempt made to deface the encyclopaedia with full knowledge that your edits are disruptive and with malicious intent. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. It's got to be clearly intentional to harm the pedia to be 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?
- A: We need 4 levels to give users time to realize that they are not helping and to stop what they are doing and read the various guidelines and/or policies so that they know how to contribute positively without being blocked for it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per below, we don't need to go through 4, but 1 and 2 could be used in different situations (new user or not).
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
- A: In most cases all 4 levels are needed as otherwise the user is simply written off as "Insufficiently warned". However in some cases where the vandalism is blatantly so admins can block with only one (usually 4im) warning or even no warnings at all (Such as when dealing with a WoW sock). Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe all 4 are needed. It depends on a lot of factors, how severe the vandalism is, how fast they're doing it, whether they have acknowledged the warnings and so on. In general it's clear if an account is only here for vandalism. Having said that, it's important that they are told that the behaviour can lead to a block before they're blocked.
Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
- A: I would use the only (4im) warning in cases of vandalism where the vandal's edit(s) have been highly unproductive and clearly done in malice and/or the vandal has previous final warnings and/or blocks for vandalism. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very good.
Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
- A: Unless they are older than 6 months; no. The warnings show that the user has recently vandalized and are useful for admins to judge AIV reports to determine if someone was correctly warned or not without having to pull up the talk page history and find the warnings. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that templates are often misused. If you were given a template, under those rules, you would not be able to remove it. Admins can see the templates in the history, that should be sufficient.
Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
- A: Not if it is only done once and the user has not reverted the reversion of the copyright violation. If they do revert it becomes vandalism. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very good.
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?
- A: No. Tools such as semi and (looking into the crystal ball here...) pending changes protections allow us to block IP's from editing pages where IP vandalism is a problem but allowing IP's to edit where they are not a problem. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good answer.
Well you're pretty much there. Only a small lesson and the final test left to go. Will go and start sorting that out :) WormTT · (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 13:53, 17 April 2012 (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 Category:Self-contradictory articles. 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 there 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. ;)
- I am ready for the final exam. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- And it's ready for you here WormTT · (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- And it's done. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 12:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- And it's ready for you here WormTT · (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)