User:Jackson Peebles/Adoption/PantherLeapord Exam 1

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- It depends on if this is covered in reliable sources or not. If I could find WP:RS complient coverage of this then it could be added to the articles if it is worded in a neutral manner. If sources cannot be found for it then it cannot be added per WP:OR.

• 5/5 Correct, reliable sources are what we're looking for, and the friend alone does not fulfill this due to the policy that you cited!

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- As long as it is said in WP:RS compliant sources that it is racist and the addition is worded in an unbiased manner then it could be added. Otherwise it would be considered original research and would be unfit for inclusion.

• 2/5 You are correct that we must ensure that the addition is worded in an unbiased manner, if added. However, I don't think that it would be original research, since it is noted that the cartoon is "clearly racist." The question here, and the essence of the answer, is whether or not it is fit for inclusion. Does it contribute to the article? Is racism rampant in the Daily Telegraph, or would this be an attack on an otherwise typically normal paper? Was it a large controversy? The main thing to look for is whether it helps the article or not - in the end, that's what everything boils down to.

3.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Americans are more likely to get diabetes than British people and British people are more likely to get cancer than Americans. You find another reliable article that says Americans are Capitalists and British people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Capitalists are more likely to get diabetes and socialists are more likely to get cancer anywhere on Wikipedia?

A- No. Correlation does NOT equal causation.

• 5/5 Yup. I see you've taken a statistics class . This would have been a better use of WP:OR than the previous question. Concise but good answer!

4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?

A- For MSNBC I would not consider them a reliable source as they are a competitor and as such there is a clear conflict of interest. However for Sarah Palin if they actually cover it in a neutral unbiased manner (Fat chance!) then they could possibly be used as a reliable source but more likely the coverage will be heavily biased and unsuitable for use.

• 5/5 Good job. This is definitely a conflict of interest, since they're competitors from different "sides of the aisle." I thought about taking a point off from your Sarah Palin answer, but you're absolutely correct - it is unfair to immediately dismiss everything that Fox publishes as biased, just as it would be to discredit everything MSNBC had to say about Biden. IF they can cover it in an unbiased manner (and I do agree that that's a big if), the information could be used - who knows, maybe they have access to information competitors don't that is still reliable, and consensus shows that editors don't believe it to be incredible. I wouldn't use them as a source for information on Sarah Palin, in general, though, if it can be avoided.

5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?

A- No. As a self-published source Twitter should never be used to source statements.

• 5/5 Correct answer. Do read WP:SPS carefully, though, if you haven't, as there are cases when official websites (and related materials) can be used in articles.

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. Mainly due to the fact that it is a compilation of comments from a forum that cannot be attributed to their proper authors.

• 4/5 Hmm. We're talking about the forum official in particular, here; he isn't compiling comments. However, you're right. The forum official is not a reliable source, and it isn't the same as representing the paper's official view.

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- Yes. Partially because of the self-sourcing issue but also because it would be a copyright violation unless the website text was licenced under CC-BY or CC-BY-NA or in the public domain

• 2/5 No. Remember that WP:SPS does allow numerous opportunities in which editors may use these sources. Also, the question didn't say that it was plagiarized but rather used as a citation (I think you're just reading a bit too much into the questions, this would be easier if there were real examples, which we'll get to).

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- The person arguing that the sky is bronze would need to provide a source otherwise per common sense the fact remains that the sky is blue.

• 5/5 I'll take it, though I'd take either answer. I like WP:COMMONSENSE, and, in this case, it seems like a dumb argument that one would use that policy for. However, I'd like to refer you to WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE for fun and reference.

Once you have finished, please notify me on my talk page, then proceed to Lesson 2: Wikiquette.

Y 33/40 Good job Honestly, I think once you review my responses, you'll have these policies nailed down, but please do note how important they are. Policies can get quite complex. Anyhow, congratulations on passing the first exam, and it's great having you as a student! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries! PantherLeapord (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)