User:Go Phightins!/Adopt/Jackson Peebles

Hey Jackson Peebles! Welcome to your adoption center. It is here that you will read all lessons, do all tests, and ask questions relating to lessons and on the talk page where we will have general discussions not directly related to the course. Lesson one is below. Please sign here to indicate that you've found your classroom and let me know when you're ready for the first test. Good luck! Go Phightins! 03:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Viewed --Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lesson	Status	Grade	Pass?
One	Done	40.5/40 (101%)	with flying colors
Two	Done	24/25 (96%)	Yes
Three	Done	40/40 (100%)	Yes
Four	Done	34/35 (97%)	Yes
Five	Done	36/40 (90%)	Yes
Six	Done	32/35 (91%)	Yes
Seven	Done	1/1 (100%)	Yes
Eight	Done	50/55 (91%)	Yes
Nine	Done	24/25 (96%)	With flying colors once again
Final	Doing...	?	?

Five Pillars

Lesson One One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here. 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. How articles should be written 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 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737. A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. 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? Any questions? If not, I will post the test. Go Phightins! Test Here is the test. You have up to one week to complete it once I've posted it, but it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes maximum to complete. I'm looking for thoughtfulness in your answers, and reserve the right to post follow-up questions should your answer be ambiguous or not on the right track. Good luck, and here we go: 1.) Q- You have heard from a friend that Mitt Romney has been appointed the chancellor of Harvard University. Can you add this to Romney's (or Harvard's) article? Why? A-Not unless your friend is Mitt Romney himself or is an expert in the field. ;-) However, even then, these claims need to be verified by a reputable source, such as a major news agency - preferably multiple. Something I'm doing for the first (and maybe the last) time ever: extra credit for being funny and right at the same time. 6/5 2.) Q - The Daily Telegraph 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-I would advise against posting this comic in The Daily Telegraph's article unless it has a history of racism and a section on this or one can reliably be established. This could be included in an appropriate section of the racism article, but the cartoon must be in the public domain or have similar rights available, and I would also advise one to verify that the cartoon is, in fact, racist from a third party. As always, seek input in Talk pages. Survey says? Ding! 5/5 3.) Q- You find an article that asserts that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? A-If this were true and properly cited, it may fit into the article on cancer; however, I would discuss this on the Talk page. However, this sounds like an inaccurate claim and extensive reputable citations would be required to include this information anywhere. Also, in my opinion, this would involve lending undue weight to the report, but since you keep coming back to discussing to build consensus, I can't dock a point for that omission. 5/5 4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin? A-No. Although they are major news outlets, there is a conflict of interest between Fox and MSNBC and a public opinion that Sarah Palin is supported in a biased way by Fox. If the information is germane to this, though, it may apply on a case-by-case basis. Again, discussion is the best remedy. Right. For example, if FOX was saying Palin was the governor of Alaska from x to y and the mayor of Wasilla x years before that, then the information would probably be all right, but if it was asserting that she was an angel, it obviously would not. 5/5 5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source? A-No. There are nuances that could be considered reliable from this page, such as regulated information or a new flavor that has been added, etc., but the company's own social networking sites should not be used due to conflicts of interest. True; always look for a press release from an official company website (e.g., [benjerry.com benjerry.com]) rather than social networking sites. Wow, even I, a notorious nitpicker, have yet to find a place to dock a point. You're doing absolutely amazing right now. 5/5 6.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source? A-No, not high enough ranking/in a position of official stature. Correct; nothing from a forum is usually considered reliable and verifiable. 5/5 7.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE) A-Certain circumstances permit this use; however, if the information can be found via a third party, that is likely best. However, a major corporation such as Burger King should certainly have reliable information on some topics (i.e. CEO, CFO, stock name, etc.). Again, you're pretty much reading my cognitive answer key. 5/5 8.) 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. Such obvious patent nonsense shouldn't allow the Wiki to be bogged down with citations. Reverse the change and mention on the Talk page. Ha! I found a place to dock a half a point...there were people in ancient times who did say the sky is bronze. To my knowledge, no one still thinks that today, but it could be a good faith contribution, in which case I'd advise against calling it patent nonsense, but would instead revert assuming good faith. WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE offer conflicting opinions on this. I tend to lean toward the side of the argument that says if it's going to be controversial, you may as well cite it. 4.5/5 As always, thank you for your guidance. Any and all feedback is appreciated!Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Total: 40.5/40 (101%) Comments: I've never had anyone come close to being over 100%, but you really exceeded any expectations I could have had. Granted, this is one of the easier lessons, but still, your score is impressive.

Wikiquette

Lesson Two You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below: 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. 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 It's great!! --Jane I made it myself! --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane I tend to disagree. --George Don't forget to assume good faith There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to. Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification. 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. Assuming good faith is one of the most important points of Wikipedia (as you may have noticed by my numerous mentions). The test will focus primarily on assuming good faith, threading, and on more assuming good faith. Do you have any questions? If not, let me know, and I will post the test. Thanks. Go Phightins! I'm ready for testing! Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Test I hope you had a nice vacation. Merry Christmas! Without further adieu, here is the test: 1.) Q- In your own words, explain what it means to assume good faith. A-Assuming good faith is not just about beginning with a presumption of "innocent until proven guilty," it is making the presumption that a user's intents were pure and good and retaining that presumption unless substantial evidence and discussion indicates otherwise. It is a concept that indicates that all Wikipedia editors should be treated well and issues should be dealt with civilly. One should assume that improper edits were accidental or misunderstandings and should go to great lengths to talk to the user in question about the edits and how to correct their actions in the future. Precisely. Outstanding understanding pf a longstanding (feed me some more prepositions to put in front of standing ) policy. 5/5 2.) Q- Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take? Disclaimer: This is based on a true story. Note: A similar question will be asked once we get to the dispute resolution question, but simply based on assuming good faith, I want to here how you'd approach this scenario. A-What a lovely situation. The AN/I discussion is not necessarily a bad thing, though comments of incompetency are. Use the page as a discussion tool, reach out to the editor with apologies of any wrongdoing with an explanation of your intentions; obviously, the original page was created in good faith and isn't in contention here. Persistent action in being rude and overly critical should also be discussed as a separate issue, but treated the situation civilly should yield positive results (hopefully they did, in this case). An administrator can roll back edits and fix things, hopefully! This happened to me probably two months ago, so I figured that my adoption school would be a good way to see how some other editors would handle it. I did roughly what you said, but the editor still was angry, and eventually he got blocked for something unrelated. 5/5 3.) Have a look at the conversation below: What's the best car in the world? -- Rod Probably something German or Japanese. -- Freddie Like what -- Rod's Mate I dunno, something like Volkswagon? -- Freddie Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Postion:A What do you want it for? -- Jane Volkswagon Passat --Passat Lover <-Position:B Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In Technically, by looking at the colons... 3a.) Position A? A-"Like what -- Rod's Mate" Right. 5/5 3b.) Position B? A-"What's the best car in the world? -- Rod" Correctemundo. 5/5 3c.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK? A-Assume good faith. :-) Competency is a good thing, and the presumption should be that the editor simply learned well, quickly. Edit counts are meaningless alone, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Sockpuppetry is also primarily focused upon negative uses of multiple identities; the situation does not indicate negativity. However, if concerned, the editor can always be contacted directly; if it continues to be a genuine concern, submitting an editor as a possible WP:SOCK still involves discussion and investigation and is not necessarily bad or an indication that the results will be against the user. Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC) This is a summary of when it's acceptable to operate multiple accounts. You're right, simply assume good faith, perhaps he's a computer programmer in real life...you never know. 4/5 When you're finished, we'll move on to a really fun topic, vandalism. Grade: 24/25 Comments: Like Tazerdadog you're breezing through this course. Perhaps I need to make it more rigorous. Well, we shall see, as the next couple of lessons are the meaty ones. Good luck. Go Phightins! 03:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Lesson three I'm going to do something here that I vow to never do again to you, but I don't want to leave you in limbo in case you're done reading the lesson...I'm posting the test and the lesson at the same time. My to-do list is quickly filling up here, and I think I may need to take a day off from adoption tomorrow to address other things, so here's the test along with the lesson. Go Phightins! 03:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC) 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: Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) How to Revert Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE Vandalism and warnings 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. I'm going to try to keep this test short...that was a lot of reading you just did (or hopefully just did ). There is a practical aspect to this test, so if you don't have Twinkle turned on, I would recommend doing so now. Read! Will answer soon! Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Test 1.) Q- In your own words, define vandalism. A- Vandalism is intentional damage. I realize that this is similar to the actual given definition as I recall it, but there's really no way to simplify - vandalism has a negative intent and causes an adverse effect. This is differentiated from edits that could potentially be accidentally bad - vandalism is meant to cause harm. That's a good def. 5/5 2.) Q- What are obvious indicators of a vandalism edit while watching recent changes? A- Some obvious indications of vandalism edits on the recent changes pages that were listed in this lesson included edits by anonymous users (showing up as IP addresses rather than usernames) and edits with summaries such as page blanking and page moving. While these aren't proof of vandalism, they suggest that further investigation should be taken to see if any vandalism was done. I would also personally suggest that edits with large byte changes should be looked into (especially if marked as a minor edit) and edits of potentially controversial but well-established pages should be carefully reviewed (i.e. Jesus). All good indicators. Also watch out for edits that trip the filters and come up saying "Tag:" and then something like possible vandalism, repeated characters, etc. All of those should be investigated as well. 5/5 3.) Q- What warning template would you use if a user removed or blanked all the content from a page? A- Assuming good faith, Hello, I'm Jackson Peebles. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! would be appropriate unless it is clear that the user has a history of such actions, in which case a more serious warning might be appropriate. Right. 5/5 4.) What if I came to your talk page and called you a !@#$!#$!@#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!#$!@#$!@#$!@#%#$^$%^#@$~#$@#$%!@#$!@#? Then what warning template would you use? A- Personal attacks are not tolerated. I would implement This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. However, if it seems minor, I might consider reducing the warning. It's all up to you, since I attacked you. You could ignore, level one warn, only warning, but it's up to your judgment. 5/5 5.) What is WP:AIV and when should you use it? A- WP:AIV is the "administrator intervention against vandalism" page and should be used in circumstances that indicate obvious spam or vandalism that occurred recently and after multiple warnings. Precisely! 5/5 6.) Find three instances of vandalism, revert them, warn the users appropriately, and post the diffs below (the diffs of the vandalism will suffice, I will go ensure that you warned them appropriately and don't need diffs to do so). [1] Updated [2] Updated [3] Updated - you may need to look at the history, as I believe User:Yobot edited simultaneously with me and his edit "defeated" mine, but you'll see my comments on the IP address page and that I did revert it properly (it's hard to beat a Bot). I think you may have misunderstood this. You need to actually revert the vandalism and warn the users in question. I don't think you did in any of these, so I'm putting my grade of this on hold. Go Phightins! 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Ah, yes, you would be correct on that. However, I will say that it is very difficult to beat other editors to the punch. Any suggestions on how to do this? Thank you for your help! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Do you have Twinkle enabled? If not, that oughta help. Go Phightins! 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I did, but I think I did a better job this time. Thanks for your help, and sorry for the delay! Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Done! Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Will grade in a moment. Go Phightins! 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Done better! :-) Jackson Peebles (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry Jackson. I don't have time to grade now and will be headed out this weekend. You can preview lesson four which is on my main adoption page, but I won't be back til Sunday afternoon, at which point I should be able to grade it. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

Lesson four After the mega-lesson that was vandalism, it's time for a mini-lesson on some of the other things you can do with Twinkle. If you don't already have it enabled, you will definitely need to do so for this lesson. It's under the "Gadgets" section of "My Preferences". Aside from it's vandalism tools, there are several other features of Twinkle. Talkback Talkback is a feature that allows you, in a single click, to notify a user that you've responded to their message at another page. To use it, mouse over the TW button in the editing interface and select "TB". A window will pop up, that gives you several different options as to what page you're on. All you do is type the name of the page you replied (everything in the URL after en.wikipedia.org/wiki/) and click submit query. If you'd like to link to a section, remember that it's case-sensitive, and type the name of the section. If you'd like to add an additional message, simply type it. It's really easy to use. RPP You can also request page protection using Twinkle. Go to whatever page you want to have protected, and click "RPP" under the Twinkle dropdown menu. It will ask you some information, give it to the window, and click submit. AIV You probably figured this out in the last lesson, but you can report a vandal to administrators, or a username to WP:UAA, using Twinkle. Click "AIV" or "ARV", depending on what type of page you're on, and fill out the information that you're asked for. Noticing a pattern? Tags The next feature we'll discuss is how to add maintenance tags to an article. We'll cover this a bit later in a lesson on working the encyclopedia, but the gist of it is that you select whatever maintenance tag you'd like, and click submit. This feature is located under "Tag" (a truly creative name, I know). Rollback The most common feature you'll likely use in Twinkle is the "rollback feature". When looking at a diff, you have three options to rollback an edit: Rollback AGF (assume good faith) which is in green and should be usually be used with newer editors who are acting in good faith, but whose edit wasn't constructive. This type allows you to leave an edit summary, which we'll discuss more in depth later, where you can explain why you're rolling it back. Also, there's simply Rollback which is in light blue. This should be used the most often when rolling back an edit; again, you can (and should) leave an edit summary. Lastly, there's the Rollback Vandal choice, which as soon as you click reverts the edit leaving an automated edit summary. You should then follow up at the vandal's talk page, leaving a warning template, which you should already know how to do. Welcome The last feature we'll discuss is welcoming users. To do this, you can either click the yellow text that says "Welcome" next to a user's name when looking at a diff or you can select "Wel" in the Twinkle drop-down menu. You'll then be prompted to select a welcome template. Questions Well, this wasn't that short, but it should be a little easier to grasp. Questions, or are you ready for the test (using that word lightly in this case). Ready to go! Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Test This test should be relatively easy. 1.) Q- Leave a talkback template below stating you've replied to my post at WP:ANI. A- Hello, Go Phightins!. You have new messages at WP:ANI. Message added 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Ding. 5/5 2.) Q- Post diffs of you using each of the three types of rollback. A- Diffs: Rollback AGF-[4] Rollback-[5] Rollback Vandal-[6] All look good. 15/15 3.) Q- Post a diff of you welcoming a new user. A- [7] He needs some welcoming. Good job. 5/5 4.) Q- Post a maintenance tag of your choosing on this page. A-{{unreferenced|date=January 2013}} Yup. 5/5 5.) Q- Review Question- Ha ha! Cite a situation in which you'd report a user to administrators as a vandal. A-[8], perhaps the Parkour article; really I just thought many of them were funny... :-) --Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) All right, I get the idea. 4/5 Total: 34/35 (97%) Comments: Pretty self explanatory.

Dispute resolution

Lesson five Dispute resolution No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very like 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. Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. 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 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 editors argument and respond to that. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways 1) it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, WP:OWNership, WP:VANDALISM or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia dispute resolution process 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 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 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 If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialise in sorting debates. Request for Comment 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 I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected it's most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there. Reports If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong! 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? Questions about any of the above? Yes. I've come across multiple instances of experienced (more so than me) editors making ad-hominem attacks at one another over conflicting edits. How should this be dealt with? I would suggest that you gently remind them they didn't address the root of your argument. See the following possible conversation between User:JoeSchmo and User:Example (the latter of whom is a newbie, the former of whom is a rogue admin for the purposes of this scenario): JoeSchmo, you called my edit vandalism and gave me a final warning even though my edit was made in good faith. Shut up. If you were an administrator like me, you would clearly know that newbies don't know what they're talking about. (this is how one should address this scenario, in my opinion) Be that as it may, my edit was made in good faith, which by definition is not vandalism. That's how I would try to address the issue; if it doesn't work, getting another editor who you trust involved would be a good move. If you ever need any help dealing with unconstructiveness related to a more experienced editor being overly condescending to you, don't hesitate to let me know and I will deal with it. Thanks. Go Phightins! 15:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you! Other than that, I think I'm ready! Jackson Peebles (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Test This isn't a really easy topic to test, but we'll give it a go nonetheless ! 1.) Q- In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.). A- Editor assistance: An informal way of asking another (seasoned) editor of their opinion on how to deal with a situation or how they feel one should approach a topic. Righto. 5/5 Third opinion: An informalish ("less formal," according to WP:30) way of having a third editor step in during a dispute involving two contrasting opinions and to allow them to weight in with an impartial perspective. Affirmative. 5/5 Mediation: WP:MEDCAB no longer exists, so the only option is formal mediation. This is considered the "last step" in dispute resolution for content pages, and isn't as friendly as it sounds , but it will yield results and lead to a resolution from the committee of administrators who monitor the mediation requests. Right. There's also one I didn't mention; for content disputes a good venue at which to sort them out is the dispute resolution noticeboard. 4/5 (-1 because not all mediators are administrators... see User:TransporterMan) Request for comment: Another informal process, but a large-scale one that does exactly as it sounds - requests comment from users. This will draw in the input of many when publicized, in contrast with a third opinion, which is just the input of another editor. I would only use requests for comment on rare occasions, but I would use it if needed to establish consensus on an issue. I'm going to disagree that it's informal, as there are a fair amount of rules and regs, but the rest is right. 4/5 It did seem rather formal! I was merely basing my answer off of the article, which states "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct." <ref>(January 31, 2004). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC "Requests for comment"]. ''[[WP:RfC]]''. Retrieved 2013-01--19.</ref> Arbitration: The almighty administrators and editors who preside over the deepest, darkest, most complex issues plaguing Wikipedia. These people are elected in (very intense, from my cursory look) elections and are extremely well-trusted, verified by Wikimedia, and have numerous tools at their disposal to help with investigations. That's correct. The elections are held annually in December; you can vote next year if you'd like! 5/5 2.) Q- Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question: Part A) Is this edit warring? A-I'd call it edit warring. I realize that there's a three-edit rule that they haven't hit, yet, but if they stop here, they can pursue... Right. It is edit warring; the three-revert rule is usually the threshold at which someone can be blocked, but before that it is still edit warring. You still can be blocked prior to crossing the 3RR threshold. 4/5 Part B) How should they resolve this dispute? A-WP:Dispute resolution! The issue isn't really explained other than that it's good-faith, so, to be honest, I would actually first make sure that they had established dialogue with one another through the Talk page and to one another, civilly. If it's a simple disagreement over a fact, it's easy to follow the pyramid down and justify one decision or another. If it's more complex, call in another editor through the third opinion process or ask for advice through editor assistance. If the issue is on a major article, maybe consider requests for comment. If the issue gets way out of hand, mediation may be necessary. If it gets way out of proportion and becomes extremely personal and heated, hypothetically it could reach the point of needing arbitration. 5/5 3.) Q- What if you're participating in an Articles for deletion discussion? You post your opinion, let's just say you think the article should be deleted, the creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation? A-You put your discussion on there, and his reply would be public. Those pages are well-monitored, but I would still ask an administrator to address the situation; I don't think that any editor should be attacked for good-faith edits and opinions, but I wouldn't feel comfortable tagging the assaulting editor myself; I'd put it on a noticeboard and/or contact an admin directly. I wouldn't continue the discussion on the articles for deletion page unless it was on the topic of the article. Right. You should also probably gently remind him (even if he's combative) to comment on the content, not the contributor. 4/5 4.) Q- OPINION QUESTION What's your opinion of the dispute resolution pyramid that I posted earlier in the lesson? If you could change one aspect of it, what would you change? A-I actually really liked it. I know you probably wanted some constructive criticism here, but I'd keep it the way it is. It's easy to remember and the bottom line is quite funny/entertaining. If I had to change one thing, though, I'd combine the top two. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I actually didn't create the pyramid, but I like to get some thoughts on it. It's based off of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. 5/5 Grade: 36/40 (90%) Comments: You seem to have a decent grasp on dispute resolution, so I'm going to give you a bonus challenge assignment. Go to WP:3O and read a dispute and post here what you're third opinion, were you to provide one, would be. Go Phightins! 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) [[9]] [[10]] [[11]](There are no current disputes, and all of these links are components of the same one.): My opinion is that the list should be removed (it was), which is interesting because the initiating editor felt differently. This seems to indicate even further that the process is impartial, which pleases me. I determined (independently, though I have looked at the conclusion since) that the list should be excluded, as the information was too trivial to be included the article. If they aren't trivial, references establishing notability should have been included. The other editors added that the guns weren't specifically referred to in the movie. Fair enough.

Deletion

Lesson six You're more than half way there! Deletion theory is one of the most discussed and contentious issues on Wikipedia. There are two primary factions, the inclusionists and the deletionists. The full policy on deletion is located here. The basics are below. Deletion Policies 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. If the page doesn't fall under a CSD, but you're pretty certain it can be deleted without too much discussion on the issue, you can PROD it. PROD stands for PROposed Deletion. To PROD an article, add the template {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the article. YOU MUST include the "subst:" code at the beginning of the template. If you're not sure what that is, means, or does, I'll explain when we get to templates. For now, just do it. This adds a little blue box at the top of the page to indicate that the page is being considered for deletion. If the box remains in place for five days, the article will be deleted. However, anyone can contest the deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted after this happens, you should open a debate at WP:AFD, which I'll explain how ot use in a moment. PROD's also come with a notice for the author, {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}}. 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 Do you have any questions, or are you ready for the test? --Go Phightins! Ready to go! Thanks so much for your help thus far! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Test I thought that to test this section, I would ask a few broader, more basic questions, and then create a few pages as hypothetical scenarios. For the hypothetical scenarios, simply state what you'd do if you came across this article in mainspace. Broad questions 1.) Q- Explain a scenario in which you'd use PROD instead of sending an article to AfD. A-Unsourced Biographies of living people (it's the only one that Twinkle indicates) or noncontroversial deletes that are not urgent Righto. 5/5 2.) Q- You tag an article for speedy deletion under criterion A7. The creator of the page then blanks it without an edit summary. What do you do? A-The article still needs to be tagged for deletion if it was merely blanked, and the part "without an edit summary" is also bad. I would write something on a talk page expressing that the creator deleted it (to save people the trouble of checking the history). I would then tag the user to ask him/her to please include edit summaries. I'm not sure the item about not deleting templates applies here, as they did blank the article (though it still may need to be "deleted". If they were trying to avoid being marked a vandal (they probably didn't because Twinkle does it automatically), then I'd still tag them. WP:CSD#G7 applies here; we can assume he wanted it deleted. 4/5 3.) Q- Why should you wait 10-15 minutes before tagging an article for CSD under criteria A1 or A3? A-The creator could very well add content that rectifies the situation for A1 and A3. Waiting is a good practice that allows a creator time to fix what may have been an accidental poor creation. Correctamundo. 5/5 Hypothetical scenarios 1.) Scenario I A-I had one of these yesterday. Cute, but gone. I would go with CSD A7 Unremarkable person rather than vandalism, as the edit wasn't malicious, so to speak. By the way, these scenarios are fun. It's always good when the course can be fun! And you're right on. A7 is the correct answer here. 5/5 2.) Scenario II A-Seems like a test, to be honest. CSD G2 (test) or G1 (patent nonsense), in my humble opinion. I'd check the user's history, too, and the page, to see if they're actually a vandal. Likely, it's just a test. 5/5 3.) Scenario III A-Okay, this article is way too short and unorganized, but the individual doesn't seem unremarkable. However, there are NO references, so I would do a PROD for an unsourced biography of a living person. WP:BLPPROD is an option, however if you have a few minutes on your hands, a google search might turn up some refs so that, if the person is notable, the article won't be deleted in error. 4/5 4.) Scenario IV A-Ugh. Good intentions, bad article. AfD Society, and I'd tag it with every maintenance tag that I can find, or, if I were knowledgeable, I'd fix the problem myself. Who knows, this may be a good article to redirect to a bigger page! Well, you should avoid tag bombing, if possible... tagging it is a good idea. 4/5 Grade: 32/35 (91%) Comments: You continue to impress me. Next lesson coming at you. Go Phightins! 22:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal Break

"Lesson" Seven Personal Break You're about half way through the course, so now it's time for a personal break. These questions won't be graded, I just want to get to know a little more about you as a person and as a Wikipedian. 1.) Q- Why did you start editing Wikipedia? Why have you continued to do so? A-I started editing Wikipedia because one day, when I was in middle school, a teacher criticized Wikipedia for being inaccurate and pointed out that a date of death for a famous scientist was wrong on Wikipedia. So, I fixed it. I then developed an odd fixation on correcting grammatical errors, and that's where my focus has been, since. I really enjoy catching vandals, too (and at one point, I myself was guilty of making a page that violated WP:Notability about my girlfriend, though I beg to differ), I just wish I was quicker. 2.) Q- Give me a little background on your username. Is it a derivation of your real name, from a show, sports team, game, book, etc.? Is it simply a random conglomeration of letters? A-My username is my real name. I don't like when people use anonymity for bad reasons (i.e. flaming YouTube comments, etc.), so I like to use my real name when possible. Of course, I do see real, legitimate reasons for anonymity, at times - just not when I'm editing the pages that I do on Wikipedia. 3.) Q- What is your primary interest area about which you'd like to edit? A-I do research in Speech Pathology and Audiology and focus in Behavioral Science, and I foresee major edits in those fields in the future, as the categories do need some cleaning up and to be edited with the latest evidence-based research. However, the main things that I edit now are vandalism and grammatical errors. 4.) Q- Do you have any future goals as far as something you'd like to do on Wikipedia? A-As you noticed when you adopted me, I'd love to be a reviewer. I do think that I was a bit preemptive in my attempt to apply recently, but I think that I'm getting there. I am currently an instructor and am working with my research professors to develop honors projects that focus on making major Wikipedia edits that conform to regulations, but I want to wait until I feel ready to do that before taking on such a task (I'll probably start on the curriculum this summer). Anyhow, ultimately I'd love to be a reviewer (and potentially, down the road, a roll-backer), both as an honor and because I would genuinely use the right and I hope that the administrators will soon let me be one. I have NO desire whatsoever to be an admin, though - too much responsibility! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks; that was helpful. Go Phightins! 22:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Lesson eight Copyright Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. This is perhaps the most complex, most important, and most difficult lessons in the course and policies on 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 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 What you can upload to commons 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 Non-free images 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 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 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 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 usually learn something from teaching this lesson, our second-to-last. I did want to thank you for being a marvelous adoptee to this point. Go Phightins! This is a complex topic, given that there are copyright attorneys, even, but I think I'm ready for the test. Thank you for being an excellent adopter! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Test Here's the test. Don't worry if you struggle a bit with this one. Be sure to explain your answers so I can tell where you're coming from, however as this topic has potential legal ramifications, I won't be able to accept all answers as long as you're thinking and will be more stringent here. Let's go. 1.) Q- Is Wikipedia truly free? This is an opinion question A-Wikipedia is free, but it is not public domain. Everything on the site is "free" to view - the knowledge is free. However, as is the case with many "free" publications, as well, there are restrictions to its use. One cannot merely take a picture that is not their property and use it as their own without proper citations, just as is the situation in university settings and any academic paper; proper attribution must be given, and even written content is subject to this license/restriction. Fair use of copyright images is free, but that does not make it one's property. The only truly free items are those that can verified as belonging in the public domain. Fair enough. 5/5 2.) Q- List three times when you can upload a picture to the Commons. A- The Three Scenarios when I can Upload to the Commons The image describes it all: Pictures/images created entirely by myself of things that I created myself (or are natural, etc., i.e. flowers) that I am, therefore, releasing many, if not all of, my rights to. (Ex: My hypothetical picture of my puppy on my user page.) "Someone else's work if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it." (Ex: [12]http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/12/releasing-my-copyrights/) "You can upload your photographs of old art, statues,and buildings (usually over 150 years old)." (Ex: My picture of Saint Basil's Cathedral.) Precisely. 15/15 3.) Q- You find music displaying this licence [13] (non-commercial). Can we upload it to Commons? A-No? Because Wikipedia is released under a share-alike license that allow others to use the works on it, the works in the Commons must not have such restrictions, and WP:FU does not apply to the Commons. Right; nothing requiring fair use can be uploaded to the Commons. 5/5 4.) Q- A user uploads a collage of all the Phillies' 2008 players' official team photographs so the photos spell 08 (background: the Phillies won the World Series in 2008). Is this suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? The user in question created it himself. A-I would say no. Though it was published elsewhere first and is very creative, I don't see a necessity for this work and it uses official team photographs, which are no doubt copyrighted and were previously only used under WP:FU guidelines. I too would say no. Of the criteria listed here, it seems that this proposed work would violate numbers four and five, as well as possibly others. Nevertheless, I believe you are correct. 5/5 5.) Q- What is a derivative work? A-According to US Copyright Law, "an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work" (see [[14]]). Right, for example a photo of the Mona Lisa. 3/5 6.) Q- Can you upload a press image of Barack Obama? A-Nope. There are plenty of better alternatives. Take a picture yourself or use one from the official photographer; there are certainly enough, and the federal government posts all of their content for free in the US. Exactly; anyone can snap an image of the president...he makes public appearances and his official portrait is available along with other press photos. 4/5 7.) Q- What about a press image of a man on death row? A-Only if it meets the ten criterion for fair use. There must not be an alternative, and we must make efforts to ensure that the press does not lose business as a result of us using their (no doubt copyrighted) image. It is more likely we could use an image of a man on death row than the president, for example. But your caution is certainly warranted. 4.5/5 8.) Q- What would you do if you found an image that was not released under a suitable tag for inclusion on Wikipedia (e.g., all rights were reserved and the work was not in the public domain)? A-Find a different image. Alternatively, see if it can be utilized under WP:FU guidelines. Don't forget to remove the image immediately and tag it as a copyright violation. 3.5/5 9.) Q- 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!) File:Aloha_from_Hawaii_Via_Satellite.jpg Yes sir. 5/5 Grade: 50/55 (91%) Comments: I think you have a pretty solid grasp of this. The key thing to remember with copyright is that, if in doubt, you should err on the side of caution or ask someone. I would say our resident copyright expert is User:Moonriddengirl. User:Ryan Vesey is pretty knowledgable too. I can help, but my knowledge is nowhere even close to theirs. Keep up the good work. Go Phightins! 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Policy

Lesson eight We're cruising right along, moving into lesson number nine! Congratulations on making it this far. We're now going to dig in to some tougher stuff than what we've been dealing with thus far; the remainder of the lessons will require you to apply what you've learned in prior lessons into scenarios that I will pose to you during the tests. Consensus Consensus is the way that decisions are made in Wikipedia. You may see the odd !vote (a coding joke, ! means not - confirming that this is WP:NOTAVOTE and then promptly voting), but these should generally be non-binding based upon weight of numbers, but rather through the weight of their arguments. Consensus should be created through discussion and any member of the community is welcome to enter in discussions. Yes, that means you. You have every right to put forward an opinion, but if your opinion can be based in policy it will hold a lot more weight. Consensus applies to everything on Wikipedia, from simple article edits (see WP:BRD and the dispute resolution lesson) to large policy decisions. Consensus can also change, it does not necessarily remain the same so if you see something wrong, don't be afraid to raise it. When involved in a consensus discussion, be careful not to fall foul of canvassing, something that is frowned upon. In other words, don't bring in more people to back you up. There are a couple of exceptions to consensus. Anything decree from Wikimedia foundation or WP:Office actions must be adhered too. Although these are rare, it's worth keeping in mind. Some of the things passed down in the past is that care must be taken over biographies of living people and copyright violations. Community 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. You've already learned about vandalism in a separate lesson, so we don't need to worry about that at the moment. Policy and guidelines Most of what we do on Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, but policies and guidelines were written down once and discussed at length. Oh yes, almost every policy and guideline is based on consensus, leading us right back to the start of this lesson. Policies don't change much, the describe how the community works and in generally that remains relatively constant at the policy level. Ignore all rules 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." This is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. I've seen people try to apply it, and it seldom works in their argument, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind. There is a good essay on how to apply this concept here. Originally, this policy was written by co-founder Larry Sanger. He phrased the policy like this: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business. There are an innumerate number of interpretations of this policy; over the years I've begun to develop mine, and you'll have to develop yours, but that's the general gist of it. Questions Well, that's that. Do you have any questions on Consensus or policy? How much time, approximately, do you typically personally recommend giving to establish consensus through a talk page on an "average" content inclusion/removal issue that seems relatively noncontroversial? I think that I'm ready for the test. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Honestly, there really is no set time. Two days might be sufficient for one thing, two months might be needed for another. AFD discussions last one week but are often relisted if the closing admin doesn't feel there's been consensus established. A general rule of thumb would be one to two weeks, in my opinion. The test is below. Go Phightins! 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Test On this test, I'm looking for some quality thinking; make your argument, do it effectively, and you'll probably get a good score. Without further adieu, here we go. 1.) Q- Explain the differences between a policy, a guideline, and an essay. A-A policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" and has established consensus. A guideline is more of a recommendation, though they provide excellent justifications for an action if one can make a reference to that guideline. These are also developed using consensus, but they are not as broad as policies. Essays are far less formal and are more of suggestions than even recommendations, or the could simple explore the pros and cons of a topic, such as in WP:Apology. These can be written by a sole editor without much consensus, as it reflects an opinion, though should be well thought-out. Right on. 5/5 2.) Q- Citing an example that's actually occurred on Wikipedia within the last couple of years, explain whether or not you think that Wikipedia is a de facto bureaucracy. A-Considering that we do have Bureaucrats as a user type on Wikipedia, I actually do think that we are a de facto bureaucracy, but not a bad one, and certainly not a de jure one. Though WP:Buro states that we are not a bureaucracy, that simply means that there are means by which to avoid the negative parts of a bureaucracy in many cases. This does not mean that there are not components of on in the Wikipedia community. Though users are not "below" administrators, per say, the Administrators can ban users, bureaucrats assign admin positions, stewards are the bosses, and, even if we want to appeal a decision, we must follow protocols set forth by arbitrators. These systems are good and in place for a good reason, but they are components of a de facto bureaucracy. I am a bigger fan of bureaucracy than most. I believe in established hierarchies and chains of command. On the other hand, I understand that those probably wouldn't be good for Wikipedia, in all cases. I agree that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, but I don't think that's bad. I agree with pretty much all you said. Great answer! 5/5 3.) Q- Can policies change? If you wanted to change one, how would you go about doing so? A-Yes. Request community input and consensus, as policies are massive and well-developed. There has to be a very good justification for modifying a policy (unless it is grammatical or a copy edit that is non-controversial, of course), though some policies may simply develop over time due to changes in the community. Again, vast community input would be good, and this would be a good situation in which to formally call for input. Righto. 5/5 4.) Q- Explain a situation in which you could apply WP:IAR. A-It is very difficult to explain a potential single situation to implement WP:IAR. I suppose one would have to go by the policy itself: only something that clearly benefits Wikipedia should use this policy, and I would personally only do do so as a last result. I would interpret the spirit of WP:IAR to be primarily a justification for not being able to locate a guideline that justifies one's changes. Right. We ignored all rules for years, for better or for worse, to justify not blocking and throwing away the key to User:Malleus Fatuorum. Now that he's retired, that doesn't matter so much, but it's worth noting nonetheless. I have never really used IAR except when ignoring the blasted manual of style, which in some cases doesn't make sense. Thus, I have ignored it. 4/5 5.) Q- Are decrees from the Wikimedia Foundation subject to change from the Wikipedia community? A-No. Decrees from WMF are very rare, and they are always implemented with very good reason (and the lack of transparency and consensus-collection can be explained by the nature of the decree). For instance, legal demands that are reasonable/not influenced by intimidation may result in WMF decrees. The Wikipedia community can always give input, but decrees are not subject to change as a result of this input unless the Board or staff finds something compelling in the community's arguments. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Right, though I will say that decrees have been coming with increasing frequency lately. WMF has taken sides in what should be, in my opinion, community issues, but I digress. In any event, you are correct that their decrees aren't subject to consensus from the community. Grade: 24/25 (96%) Comments: Congratulations, you've completed all lessons of my adoption course and done so with flying colors! --Go Phightins! 15:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Study guide

Well, you've completed all the lessons to this point. So now it's your turn to go out and work on the encyclopedia! I don't know if you realize, but the other lessons dealt with the theory of Wikipedia, and, for the most part, 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

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! 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

Have a look at your favorite 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

Why not head 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

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 Changes 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

• 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.

Help the encyclopedia move forward

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.

When you feel you're ready

Once you've familiarized yourself with all of these areas, let me know. I will either recommend some other lessons or re-taking a prior lesson test, or I will give you a link to the final exam. Have fun! It's a big encyclopedia out there! --Go Phightins! Thank you! I think that I'm ready! --141.218.226.208 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All right (assuming you just forgot to log in)...Here is the link. Go Phightins! 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Finished! And yes, I forgot to log in. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)