User:Bellerophon/Adoption/Rinkle gorge

Rinkle gorge (talk · contribs)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed: Grade A*

First Assignment: The Five Pillars Are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. They are summarized in the form of five "pillars": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree with them. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,829,029 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected. Discussion Hi Rinkle gorge, this is your adoption page! This is where I will post your assignments as you progress. This section (the discussion section) is an area where you can ask me questions if you need help. I have waived the requirement for you to complete the 'Basics of Wikipedia' assignment because you seem to know your way around well enough. Your first assignment is above. Please read through this information to gain an understanding of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. You will notice that some words or terms appear as blue links. If you click on the blue links, they will take you to pages that further explain these words or terms. Many of these links point to important Wikipedia policies. Once you have had enough time to read through the information above, post a message here to let me know you have finished and are ready to move on. I will then post a series of questions for you to answer, on The Five Pillars. These will be posted below this section. Good Luck! Pol430 talk to me 14:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Hi Pol430, I've finished reading through this information and I'm ready for some questions! Rinkle gorge (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Great stuff! Your questions are below, answer in your own time. Pol430 talk to me 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) These questions were awesome! Combined with the information on the five pillars, I think I've learned more about Wikipedia in one day than I have in over a month casual editing. It took me forever to find a suitable answer for the curveball, but I think I might have got it right, maybe? I'm looking forward to the next round of material. Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Great work, you have achieved top marks! I'm glad you have found it helpful and enjoyable. Let me know when you are ready for assignment two. Pol430 talk to me 12:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I think the two most difficult questions for me were the ones concerning what verifiability applies to and the Facebook copy/pasted article. I'm still not totally clear on how a social networking site can be used as a source to provide information about a source itself, can you offer an example? And the balloon parade was all mine, not sure why I set it in quotes. I think the peacock terms have a high comedic potential. Anyways, I'm ready to start reading material for the next assignment and I'll probably take a shot at the questions sometime next week. Thanks again! Rinkle gorge (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC) An example of Facebook being used as a reliable source could be: the Facebook page of a celebrity states that they are 29 years old and live in California. For the purpose of 'verifying' that piece of information in an article about that celebrity, Facebook can be considered a reliable source (the celebrity is unlikely to get their own age and where they live wrong. It is not unduly self serving because those are basic facts we want to see in a biographical article). Self published sources can be used as reliable sources as long as the meet the criteria set forth in WP:SELFSOURCE -- which is admittedly vague! However, self published sources are never suitable for conferring notability, which requires independent, reliable sources. Funnily enough, your next assignment is about notability! I will get the assignment up and then think up some questions. Pol430 talk to me 10:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. The first 'pillar' talks about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Take at look at the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surinder Vasal. This is a pending submission, please do not edit it. Just read through it and tell me if you think what has been written is suitable for Wikipedia and why? (ignore any other issues like references and notability—just focus on the style of writing) Answer: The Surinder Vasal submission does not appear to be a suitable article for Wikipedia. Because the article consists of a brief summary-only description of the subject's related accomplishments rather than an in-depth description of the subject itself, it seems to fall under the WP:NOT category of 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.' I would also note that the article attempts to provide a "complete exposition of all possible details" rather than a summary of knowledge about it's subject. This indicates that the article is written more like an entry in a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Review: Spot on! Could not have answered it better myself... 2. Considering the second 'pillar' is about neutrality. Give some examples of 'Peacock' terms or words. Answer: "The infamous Balloon Parade of 2010 was a world-renowned demonstration of the visionary significance of elastic culture." Review: lol, good work, very creative! Is that actually on Wikipedia somewhere? 3. Imagine you come across an article that is sourced only to internet blogs. Are blogs reliable sources and why? Answer: As a form of self-published media, blogs are typically not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. This opinion applies primarily to personal and group blogs that possess little to no editorial oversight. Exceptions are made for news blogs that are hosted by significant news outlets. Review: Perfect! 4. Explain what the notion of 'verifiability' applies to? Answer: The notion of verifiability applies to a reader's ability to verify quotations or other information that could potentially be challenged. This verification takes the form of cited sources from reliable third parties that directly support the claims presented in a given article. Verifiability ensures that Wikipedia articles have a neutral point of view and do not include original research. Review: That's right. In a nut-shell: the content of an article must be verifiable, the sources must be reliable. 5. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. It is a copy and paste from a facebook page. Is that allowed on Wikipedia? Answer: An article based entirely on a Facebook page is not allowed on Wikipedia because it relies on an editor's personal experiences and opinions. However, Facebook may be an appropriate source for an editor to use to provide information about the source itself, as noted at WP:SELFSOURCE. Review: Good answer, Facebook is generally not considered a reliable source. Also consider that if an article is a 'copy and paste' from a Facebook page, it is very likely to be a copyright violation as well. 6. If two editors have a disagreement over an article, how should they try and resolve it (in the first instance)? Answer: Arguments between two editors about any particular article should be discussed on the article's talk page. The talk page provides neutral ground for editors to discuss and resolve their disputes. Several methods of dispute resolution might be implemented, such as addressing content rather than authors, staying cool to avoid escalation, and seeking assistance from a more experienced editor. Review: Perfect! 7. Considering the fourth pillar is about how you behave to other editors, what's the 'rule-of-thumb' of the 'no personal attacks' policy? Answer: The rule of thumb for no personal attacks is to always direct comments and criticisms at content and actions instead of at individual editors. Review: Correct. Curveball question for extra points: Imagine you are patrolling recent changes. You come across a user talk page where the user connected with that page has posted a message saying: "I've had enough... I'm just going to do it. I'm going to kill myself tonight." What should be done in this situation? Answer:Assuming that the threat is not preceded or followed by any indication of the threat being an example of language use, joke, or other potentially non-threatening situation, I would immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency contact e-mail at emergency@wikimedia.org. Review: <drumroll>...... Correct! In situations like these, the WMF needs to be alerted as soon as possible, so that they can investigate that account and attempt to geo-locate it. They would then try to pass the information on to local emergency services. Summary Well done Rinkle gorge! You have demonstrated an excellent understanding of the Five Pillars and you have successfully answered the curveball question! I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade A*. Keep up the good work! The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second Assignment: Notability Guidelines - Completed: Grade A

Second Assignment: Notability guidelines Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines that cover everything from the standards that articles should adhere to, to how editors should behave. When it comes to editing articles, there are a handful of policies that are particularly relevant. General notability When it comes to editing existing articles, most of the relevant policies are covered in The Five Pillars, which you have already learnt about. When it comes to creating a new article, there are additional and very important policies that must be considered—in addition to The Five Pillars. These are the notability guidelines. For an article to stand in its own right, as an independent article, the subject of that article must be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Generally, notability is established by evidencing that the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. See the breakdown below for further explanation. Subject specific notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Wikipedia:Notability (books) Wikipedia:Notability (events) Wikipedia:Notability (films) Wikipedia:Notability (music) Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Wikipedia:Notability (web) Discussion Hi Rinkle gorge, as you can see, you next assignment is posted above. Take some time to read through it and I will add some questions within the next 24hrs. There is new discussion section for each assignment. Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 10:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Hi Pol430! I have finished answering this round of questions. The details of notability were a little bit more difficult to get my head around than the five pillars. There are so many different implications for all of the various forms of sources, not to mention all of the different notability criteria for the different subjects. I think the most interesting piece of information that I found during the readings was Wikipedia's acknowledgement that, as a tertiary source, it itself is not a reliable source. Who knew! Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Great work Rinkle gorge! Yes, WP:CIRCULAR is a doosee isn't it! As you observed, establishing the notability of a subject can be tricky and requires good editorial judgement. Rest assured that on Wikipedia, if you make the wrong editorial judgement your fellow Wikipedians will waste no time in telling you! ;-) Are you ready for the next assignment? Pol430 talk to me 21:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC) I have cleared my head of Wikipedia jargon and I am ready to dive back in. Looking forward to the next assignment.Rinkle gorge (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Are any and all reliable sources (broadly construed) suitable for conferring notability, or are there additional requirements? Answer: For a reliable source to confirm notability it must provide significant and in-depth coverage of the subject. This source must be a secondary source and it must not be related to the subject by payment, authorship, or affiliation. Additionally, there are several contextual concerns that might need to be considered when determining notability. For instance, reliable secondary sources are almost always a better guage for notability than tertiary or primary sources. Editorial judgement is key in this process. 2. If a company is notable enough for Wikipedia, is the person who owns the company also notable enough for Wikipedia? Explain your answer. Answer: Notability is not inherited, so an individual can not inherit notability from the organization that he is associated with -- even if he owns it. 3. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer, you find an article submission about an NGO that helps to feed starving children in Africa. The person who created it leaves a note on the submission saying that it should be accepted into Wikipedia because it is for a good cause. You examine the submission and find that it is quite well written, and it has plenty of references to the company's website. Based on this information alone, What do you do? Answer: In the case of a non-commercial organization seeking to publish an article on Wikipedia, they would need to prove a large scope of ativity as well as have information published about them in verifiable sources. If the NGO article in question didn't have any chance of satisfying these requirements but did provide valuable and verifiable information, I would suggest that the information be integrated into other relevant articles. Otherwise, I would deny the request for creation. 4. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer again, you find an article submission about a journalist. It has 20 references that all point to columns in The Huffington Post that discuss him in detail. On closer inspection you see that the subject of the article was the author of those columns (I.e. he wrote them). Is he considered notable? Answer: Self-published sources with no editorial oversight are not suitable for establishing notability but they may be used as sources on themselves as long as they conform to Wikipedia's requirements at WP:SELFSOURCE. So an article about an individual that includes only references written by the individual himself would not be notable. 5. What are primary sources? Answer: Primary sources offer an insider's acount on a given topic. They are often very close to the subject and typically take the form of witness accounts or historical documents. It is the "original source of the information being discussed" -- as stated here. 6. What are secondary sources? Answer: A secondary source is a document or recording that presents information about a subject that has been previously presented elsewhere. This documentation often provides an analysis of the information at hand, and it is the strongest type of source that can be used on Wikipedia. 7. What are tertiary sources? Answer: A tertiary source is a source that overviews or summaries its subject. Some examples include textbooks, Wikipedia, or obituaries. 8. Of the three types of sources you have just described, which types are suitable for conferring 'notability' on a subject? Answer: Of secondary, primary, and tertiary sources, only secondary sources are appropriate for conferring notability on a subject. Summary I don't need to review each of these answers, they are all spot on! Accordingly, I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 21:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third Assignment: Copyright - Completed: Grade A*

This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Third Assignment: Copyright This is a very important assignment; because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly to policy can result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia! Glossary There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms. Term Explanation 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, e.g. 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 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) 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 cannot be used on Wikipedia. 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, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia. 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, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. 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. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia. 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 is preferable to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by other projects. Copyright and text So we've discussed copyright and how it applies to images. Now, let's talk 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 below the edit window. 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. Now, let's think about the non-free content criteria apply to text. "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for direct overt quotes) 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 have not. Discussion Hi Rinkle gorge, This assignment is all about copyright. It's a heavy subject so take your time. Your questions are ready when you are! Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Oh dear, I shouldn't have taken a week away from Wikipedia before taking on this assignment. My brain hurts. I'm still feeling uncertain in this area. Can you suggest an area of Wikipedia to focus on/pay attention to in order to sharped my understanding here? I've observed some AfD discussions... are there similar discussions for copyright? Rinkle gorge (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Great work Rinkle gorge! I have provided some feedback for Q's 7, 8 and 9. The others are all spot on! To sharpen your understanding of copyright you can check out Wikipedia:Copyright problems. AfD tends to discuss notability issues more than anything else. Wikipedia's resident copyright goddess is User:Moonriddengirl if you need any really tough questions answering! Let me know when you are ready for your next assignment. Pol430 talk to me 17:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the link to WP:copyright problems. I've been browsing through it over the last few days and, I'm surprised to say, it's actually interesting to read. In fact, I've recently noticed that despite what I normally consider to be 'good' reading, Wikipedia discussions and policy pages are actually quite entertaining to read. It defies logic. I'm reading conversations between people I don't know about issues that don't relate to me in almost any way, but I can't stop reading them. Is there a term for this phenomenon? How about Wikipathy? I'm ready to move on to the next assignment. Rinkle gorge (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) It sounds like you have the early stages of WP:Wikiholism! Next assignment coming up! Pol430 talk to me 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons. Answer: Uploading a photo of Woody Harrelson that I had taken myself would be an appropriate use of Wikimedia Commons. Similarly, I could upload the logo of a company to Wikimedia Commons as long as the logo was published before 1923, meaning that it exists in the public domain. 2. What sort of media should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, rather than commons? Answer: Non-free images must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia nad not to Wikimedia Commons. These non-free images should adhere to the fair use policy. 3. Can anyone reproduce Wikipedia articles elsewhere on the internet? Explain your answer. Answer: Because information on Wikipedia is published under the CC-BY-SA license, it is acceptable for anyone to share and adapt the information so long as they provide adequate attritbution. 4. Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use? Answer: Uploading a press photo of Lang Lang would not be an apppropriate use of the fair use rationale because I could potentially take a picture of the pianist myself while at one of his concerts or events. 5. You find an article about a company. The text of the article is a direct copy of the 'About Us' page on the company's website. The company webpage has a copyright logo at the bottom, with the words 'All rights reserved'. What should you do? Answer: If I found an article in violation of a copyright I would either tag it for speedy deletion under the G12 CSD criteria or re-write it to eliminate the issue. 6. You find another article about an organization. You notice that the text of the article is basically identical to the organization's webpage. The editor who created the article has changed a few words, but the text is basically a reproduction of what is written on the organization's home page. The organization's home page does not contain any information about copyright, nor does it contain a 'copyleft' statement. Is the article a copyright violation? Answer: If I came across an article that appeared to have almost identical text to an organization's website that does not provide copyright information, I would take the same stance as in the situation presented in question five because it should be assumed that the orgnization has intended to copyright their material. 7. Is it a violation of copyright to copy and paste text from a facebook page, to use in a Wikipedia article? Explain your answer. Answer: Information from Facebook may be included in Wikipedia under the self source guideline, but the information should be clearly cited as having originated from such a source. Review: Yep, but if it's copy and pasted than it is likely to be a copyright violation. Consensus is generally that the content of a Facebookpage is copyright to the person who created it -- see facebook's terms. 8. Under what conditions is it acceptable to reproduce copyrighted text in a Wikipedia article? Answer: The only times it would be accepatable to to reproduce copyrighted text in Wikipedia is when the copyright has expired or when the text is overtly presented as quoted information with citations to the original text. Review: Yes, the only time you can use text that is still subject to copyright is as a direct overt quotation, which is attributed to a reliable source. 9. Explain the conditions for uploading a copyrighted company logo, for use in the Wikipedia article about the same company. Answer: To upload a company logo to Wikipedia under the fair-use rationale, it must be established that no free version is available. It must also adhere to all of the non-free content criteria. Review: Yes, a common mistake in uploading company logos is to choose an image that is too high in resolution (I've done it...). The image must be low resolution. 10. Curveball question for extra points: Considering that Wikipedia can be accessed and edited globally, which country's copyright laws are generally used and upheld on English Wikipedia? Answer: According to WP:Copyrights, Wikipedia is governed by the United States copyright law. Summary Well done! You have demonstrated a very good understanding of copyright policy, I grade this assignment as Grade A*. Pol430 talk to me 17:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fourth Assignment: Deletion - Completed: Grade A

Fourth Assignment: Deletion Policies and Process Deletion of an article, or any other type of Wikipedia page, occurs when the page would require a fundamental re-write to conform with Wikipedia's accepted standards for content of the encyclopedia. There are many reasons why a page would be deleted. Only administrators can delete pages, but any editor can 'tag' a page for deletion. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, attack pages, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established policy for that namespace. Any other content which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) The fastest way a page can be deleted is through speedy deletion. If a page meets at least one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, it must be tagged for speedy deletion, the creator of the page should be notified, and the page be deleted as quickly as possible. Here is a list of all general criteria and important article criteria. For a complete list please view WP:CSD. General criteria Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.) General criterion 1 (G1) – Patent Nonsense. Pages that meet this criterion consist entirely of incoherent text or gibberish and lack any meaningful content or history. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not in English, vandalism/hoaxes, poor writing, poorly translated, or basically anything that is coherent. It also doesn't apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-nonsense}} G2 – Test Pages. Pages meant entirely to test Wikipedia editing. Like G1, this criterion does not apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-test}} G3 – Vandalism and Hoaxes. Pages that are pure vandalism, such as blatant and obvious misinformation (hoaxes) and redirects created from page-move vandalism cleanup. Tag these with either {{db-vandalism}} or {{db-hoax}} G4 – Recreation of Pages Deleted via a XfD. Pages that are sufficiently identical to another that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not identical at all to the deleted page, pages in which the deletion was overturned as a result of a deletion review, or if the page was deleted through proposed deletion (PROD) or CSD. Tag these with {{db-repost}} G5 – Banned Users. A page created by a block- or ban- evading sockpuppet in violation of the master's block or ban with no substantial edits by others. This criterion does not apply to pages that have substantial edits by others. This criterion should also not be applied to transcluded templates. Tag these with {{db-banned|banned user name}} G6 – Housekeeping. A page that needs to be deleted to perform non-controversial housekeeping tasks. Tag these with one of these templates: {{db-g6|rationale=reason}}, {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}, {{db-copypaste|page to be moved}}, {{db-xfd|votepage=link to closed deletion discussion}}, {{db-maintenance}}, {{db-house}}, {{db-disambig}} G7 – Author Request. The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith by either tagging the page or completely blanking it. Tag with {{db-author}} G8 – Dependent on Non-Existent Page. A page that is dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as a talk page with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, an image page with no image, or a redirect to a bad target, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Tag with one of these: {{db-g8}}, {{db-talk}}, {{db-subpage}}, {{db-imagepage}}, {{db-redirnone}}, {{db-templatecat}} G10 – Attack Pages. A page that threatens or disparages its subject or some other entity, and serves no other valid purpose. Attack pages include libel, legal threats, and a biography of a living person that is completely negative in tone and unsourced. Attack pages should be deleted when there's no neutral version in the history to revert to. Tag attack pages with {{db-attack}} and tag negative unsourced BLP's with {{db-negublp}} G11 – Spam/advertising-only pages. A page that serves no other purpose but to promote its subject or some other entity. Spam pages should be deleted if it would take a fundamental re-write in order to be encyclopedic. This criterion does not apply if the page describes its subject from a neutral point of view. Tag these with {{db-spam}} G12 – Copyright Violations. Pages that are a direct copy of copyrighted material with no assertion of the content being in the public domain or used under a claim of fair us. This criterion does not apply to pages that have non-infringing content in the history; consider posting to WP:CP if that is the case. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|url=source URL}} Articles I have only listed the most important article criteria here. These criteria apply only to articles. This means Articles for Creation submissions do not count. Article Criterion 1 (A1) – No Context. A very short article that does not feature enough context to identify the subject of the article. It is advised that new page patrollers wait at least ten minutes before tagging this criterion. Although its purpose is to avoid WP:BITE, the page creator may not have finished working on the article in the first revision. Tag these with {{db-nocontext}} A3 – No Content. Any article other than a disambiguation page or redirect that features only external links, category tags or "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help desk, chat-like comments, or a gallery of images. An article that has context but is very short does not apply under this criterion. Be very careful when tagging this criterion on newly created articles. Tag these with {{db-nocontent}} A7 – No Indication of Importance. A page about an individual, organization (excluding educational institutions), musician or band, club, or web content that does not state why it is significant. The criterion does not apply to albums (A9), books, or software. Do not confuse this criterion with "not notable". The criterion does not apply if the article makes a credible assertion of notability, even if the assertion is not supported by a reliable source. If the notability is unclear, you can either propose the article for deletion or list it at articles for deletion. Tag with either {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}}, {{db-web}}, or {{db-animal}} A9 – No Indication of Importance (Albums). An article about a musical recording or album that does not indicate why it is significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or has been deleted. Both conditions must be true to tag under this criterion, so if the artist's article exists, this criterion does not apply. Tag with {{db-album}} A10 – Duplicate of Existing Topic. A recently created article with no page history that duplicates an existing topic, and that does not improve information within any existing articles on the subject, and when the page title is not a plausible redirect to another page. Tag with {{db-same|other page title}} Proposed deletion (PROD) If a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but you feel that it can be deleted without any controversy, you can propose it for deletion via WP:PROD. To propose an article for deletion, tag the article with {{subst:prod|reason}} and then notify the page creator. There is only one disadvantage to proposed deletion. Anyone, even the page creator, can prevent the proposed deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted if that happens, open an Articles for Deletion debate, which I'll explain about below. If the tag is not removed after seven days, the proposed deletion will expire and so the page will be deleted by an administrator. PROD of unsourced BLP's A biography of a living person that does not feature any references needs to be proposed for deletion. Do this by tagging the article with {{subst:blpprod}}. Unlike regular PROD the tag can only be removed after there is at least one reference to a reliable source. The page is deleted if the tag is not removed after ten days, or if there are still no references. Deletion discussions (XfD) Deletion discussions (XfD, stands for 'Anything for Deletion') allows Wikipedians to discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. The result of the discussion depends on consensus. Only policy based arguments are considered when the discussion is closed — Deletion discussions are not a vote. Deletion discussions last for seven days, although the duration can be extended if the consensus is not clear after a week; likewise, they can be closed early if a consensus would be clear. The template on the right shows all types of XfD's; the most common is AfD (Articles for Deletion). Cool tools Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it! Discussion Hi Rinkle gorge! This assignment is on deletion; this one has questions and a 'sort of' practical test at the end. P.S. I have responded to your comments in the discussion section on the copyright assignment ;) Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Wow, this has been my favorite assignment and reading so far. I've been watching AFD discussions for a while now, but having a better understanding of the deletion processes (I never knew there were 3) as well as the deletion criteria makes the discussions ten times more interesting and comprehensible. Still, some of the arguments I see are often incredibly complex, leaving me wondering how in the world some editors manage to craft such impenetrable meta Wiki logic. I particularly enjoy this section of Wikipedia because it seems to encompass every element that makes the encyclopedia work, and you can literally observe the management of encyclopedic content. Wow! Rinkle gorge (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I'm glad you enjoyed it :) I have made a couple of observations on your answers below. Good work on the practical test, all correct! Let me know when you are ready for the next assignment. Pol430 talk to me 09:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the comments! I'm a little unclear about your meaning when you say that speedy deletion criteria shouldn't be applied too liberally. Does this mean not tagging one article with multiple CSD tags, or not applying CSD tags to articles that don't fit the criteria? Also, I'm not sure where I came up with 'redirect' as an appropriate answer for the curveball! I thought I saw it somewhere, but apparently not, oh well. I'm ready to take on the next assignment whenever it's ready. Rinkle gorge (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. According to the deletion policy, approximately how many pages does Wikipedia delete in one day? Answer: Approximately 5,000 deleted pages every day! 2. What does CSD mean? Answer: CSD stands for Criteria for Speedy Deletion and refers to the set of criteria that defines which articles can be deleted as quickly as possible. It is the fasted method of deletion on Wikipedia. 3. Explain how the CSD criteria differ from other deletion processes. Answer: Deletions by CSD are different from other methods because they must be executed as quickly as possible and do not result in a discussion. Review: Correct, although it should be remembered that speedy deletion criteria are narrowly construed; they must not be applied too liberally. 4. What does PROD mean? Answer: PROD means Proposed Deletion and refers to the process of proposing an article for deletion. 5. Who is allowed to remove a PROD tag? Answer: Anyone, even the creator of the article proposed for deletion, is allowed to remove a PROD tag, which is cited as being one of the downsides to Proposed Deletions. 6. What is a BLPPROD and when can you remove a BLPPROD tag? Answer: BLPPROD is the proposed deletion of a biography of a living person. BLPPROD tags can be removed and the article deleted after 10 days. Review: The BLPPROD tag can only be removed once the article has at least one reliable source. If the article has no sources after 10 days then it can be deleted. 7. How long must PRODs and BLPPRODs remain unchallenged/unresolved, before they can be deleted by an administrator? Answer: PRODS must be unchallenged/unresolved for 7 days before deletion, while BLPPRODS require a period of 10 days to elapse before action can be taken. 8. What is the difference between the CSD 'A' criteria and the CSD 'G' criteria? Answer: The difference between CSD A and G criteria is that while the A criteria apply only to articles, while the G criteria applies to all pages, such as user pages and talk pages. 9 What does XFD stand for? Answer:XFD stands for 'Anything for Deletion'. XFD is a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted. 10 How long does an AFD discussion last for? What happens if there is no clear consensus after that time? Answer: AFD discussions typically last for 7 days, but this time frame can be extended if no clear consensus has been reached. 11 Give three examples of 'arguments to avoid' in an AFD discussion. Answer: Because only policy related arguments will be recognized during an AFD discussion, it's importnat to watch out for some of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Some of these types of arguments include: personal points of view, such as "I disagree with it"; surmountable problems like "the information is out of date; or notability falicies like "the company exists and its article has been around for 7 months." Curveball question. Give at least two examples of other 'namespace' that have CSD criteria associated with them. Answer: Both redirects and user pages have speedy deletion criteria associated with them, as do most other namespace pages. Review: Redirects are not a namespace, they are a piece of markup that can be placed in any namespace. User pages are a namespace. You could also have had: User talk: Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk: File: etc. Practical test Please take a look at User:Pol430/Sandbox5. This page contains seven examples of new pages that may be suitable for Speedy Deletion. Please read through it and explain below which CSD criteria would apply to each example—if any! Rules: You may utilize any of the CSD 'Article' criteria and any of the CSD 'General' criteria; Except, CSD G3 (Vandalism) -- you may not use that criteria in this test, other criteria must be appropriately applied. For the purpose of the test all the examples appear on that one page, but treat each example as if it were a separate page that you had found somewhere on Wikipedia. Each of the examples gives an indication of namespace: some say 'Article' others say 'Page'. You must apply the correct criteria, according to namespace. In your answers, you may just give the correct deletion code. For example: G11. You do not have to write out the whole name or explain your answer, but feel free to do so if you really want to. Answers 1. G1 2. G10 3. G10 4. A7 5. G2 6. A1 7. G11 Summary Good work Rinkle gorge! You have demonstrated a good understanding of deletion processes. I've left a couple of notes above on some of your answers -- unfortunately you didn't quite get the curveball question so I have marked your progress in this assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 09:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution - Completed: Grade A

This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, and 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. 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 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, and 2): It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, 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). 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 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 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 If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where 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. Discussion Here is assignment five, just three questions for this assignment. However, question number 3 will be added to with 'follow-up' questions once you have answered it. There will be several follow-up questions for question 3... :) Pol430 talk to me 20:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Pol430! I hope you didn't think I'd given up! I've responded to the questions for this assignment. Also, I have some unrelated questions about formats for referencing. Should I ask here or on your talk page? Rinkle gorge (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC) On another note, you might see from looking at this page's revision history that I've just had my first experience with requesting oversight when I accidentally edited from my IP address. It took them less than 2 minutes to suppress the information, that's fast! Rinkle gorge (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Rinkle gorge! Sorry for the lack of response, I've been away for a few days with work. I've just got back, very jet-lagged, so I'll wait until tomorrow evening to review your answers if that's ok. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you :) Pol430 talk to me 16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Not a problem at all! I've been taking my time with the assignments, so respond whenever you are up for it. Rinkle gorge (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Great work! Let me know when you are ready to move on Pol430 talk to me 09:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Is the next assignment the final exam? I'm ready to move on, but hesitant about the course being over. I'll miss it! The adoption so far has been everything I had hoped for. I feel like every serious editor should be encouraged to participate in a program just like this one. It's clear that you've put a tremendous amount of effort into the material. So great! Even once our adoption is completed, I'm sure that I'll be bothering you on your talk page more than you might like. In fact, I've already got a list of questions for you that I'm saving for after the final exam. Hit me! Rinkle gorge (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) The next assignment would have been vandalism---I've changed the assignment order since you enrolled---but I was going to exempt you from the vandalism assignment because you have already demonstrated your competency in that area. Thanks for the kind words about the course; much of it has been snaffled from other editors, although some of it is original. So, the choice is yours: you can do the vandalism assignment or goto the final exam, which is actually more a practical test than an exam. I'm perfectly alright with you continuing to contact me after the course (it comes with a lifetime warranty you know!). So, final exam or vandalism assignment for posterity's sake? Pol430 talk to me 16:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Let's go for the final exam, I'm ready. Rinkle gorge (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Imagine you have just reviewed a submission at Articles for Creation. You have decline the submission because it is about a non-notable person. A short while later, the author of the submission leaves a message at your user talk page saying: "why don't you just fuck off!" they have also undone your review of the submission which has resulted in the submission being placed back in 'pending review' status. What do you do? Answer: If someone were to leave a message on my talk page that sounded like a personal attack in response to a constructive decision that I had made, my inclination would be to ignore the comment and trust that another editor at Articles for Creation would also decline the submission -- why fuel the fire? However, in the interest of Wikipedia, I would most likely respond to the editor's comment by calmly explaining the reason I declined the article and by suggesting any ways to improve the article (unless there aren't any). If the article was about a truly non-notable person, I would direct the editor to the appropriate guidelines, such as WP:Notability_(people). 2. Imagine you add some well referenced info to an article about a living celebrity. The info details some negative media attention the celebrity received last year. The info you have added is attributed to multiple, reliable sources and is written from a neutral point of view; it is relevant to the article and is proportionate; it fully complies with WP:BLP. Not long after this, you get a message on your user talk page. It is from a newly registered editor who claims to be the legal representative of the celebrity in the article. They threaten to sue you for liable because they believe you have added negative information to their clients Wikipedia page. They state that they are going have your account traced and start legal proceedings against you. How do you react? Answer: Again, my initial reaction would be to ignore this type of comment. If, as you stated, my edit consisted of the addition of information that was in compliance with the guidelines for biographies of living people, then that information would be true. Only false statements could be considered libelous and would not meet the guidelines in the first place. If that same editor reverted my edit, I would address the issue on the article (and editor's?) talk page(s) and move through the dispute resolution process until the problem is resolved. 3. You have made five edits to an article, making minor improvements. Another editor comes along and undos all your edits without leaving an edit summary to explain why. They do not leave a message at your talk page, or on the article talk page either. How do you react? Answer: I can see how this scenario would be frustrating. On one hand, I would want to avoid a dispute and focus on the content rather than on the editor who made the revert, which would mean weighing how much my minor edits impacted the article's content and deciding whether or not to let it go. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to let the time I spent making the edits go down the drain, especially when they were reverted without a statement of reason. For truly minor edits, I would probably take a step away from the article for several days and approach it later with a clear head. When trying to focus on content rather than on editors, I think it can be difficult to remember that I am an editor and content needs to come first. Summary Excellent! you will have no problem dealing with challenging situations on Wikipedia if you follow what you have said above. I'm particularly pleased to see you are happy to consider weather you should just let it go... as this is one of the best ways to minimize Wikidrama. Equally, remember that you are not a doormat -- but you strike me as the kind of person who is very capable of articulating their views when required. :) Grade A Pol430 talk to me 09:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Graduation statement

 Done

You have completed all the required elements of this course and your editing has been under assessment throughout. I am very pleased to say that you have graduated Summa cum laude. It has been a pleasure to mentor you Rinkle Gorge, you have worked extremely hard and consistently achieved high standards. I wish you many years happy editing on Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 18:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)