It is approximately 10:48 PM where this user lives.
A few questions to start off with:
1) Would you prefer to be called AmazingAlec, Alec, or something else?
2) What is your goal in contributing to Wikipedia?
3) What time zone do you live in?
4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship?
5) What picture would you like on this page to represent you? It can be a picture of anything, and it doesn't have to be one that you've uploaded yourself. For examples, see some of my other adoptees' classrooms.
~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
1) You can call me Alec but AmazingAlec is fine as well. 2) My Wikipedia goal is to be a friendly, helpful, and committed Wikipedian. 3) My timezone is Eastern Standard Time (EST) 4) After this mentorship is finished, I would like to know about important Wikipedia policies, and how to edit and create articles correctly. 5) How about a picture of a Turkish Angora. AmazingAlec (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmazingAlec: Great, Alec :) Good to know. I'm in your same timezone! For your picture, you could take a look at some of these photos. We'll start with some lessons on the basics.
"Wikiquette" is a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". It is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made. These are some basics.
Threading is an organized way of replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. When you want to respond to the original post, then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already. 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]]
Avoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
Don't create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), or redundant articles. For the last one, it's easy to figure out if you're creating something redundant; just type in the search term into the search box and see if what comes up covers your topic.
Whenever you delete content, be sure you give an explanation as to why. Even if you revert vandalism, say that it's vandalism. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it.
There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. There are a few no-nos, though.
Do not copy another editor's signature. Even making it look somewhat like another editor's signature is wrong. Linking to someone else's user page on your signature is also a big mistake.
Don't make your signature too big. This can effect the way the surrounding text is displayed. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Don't make your signature too small, either, then we won't know who you are :) When you use different colors, make sure that color-blind people will still be able to read it without a problem.
Do not include images in your signature. It's wrong for a number of reasons, including server slowdown, distraction, comment displacement, and cluttering up the "File links" section every time you comment. You can use webdings or wingdings to get an image effect if you really want, because these are technically fonts and not images.
Keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment.
Make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, and/or contributions page.
Don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia.
Assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.
@Missionedit: I think I understand it all. Thanks for the lesson :) AmazingAlec (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmazingAlec: You're welcome! I put the picture up for you. Nice choice :) Next lesson coming up. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.
Any questions? What would you like to do the next lesson on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Let's do a lesson on citations and citing sources. I learned about them in the Wikipedia Adventure but didn't quite grasp the concept. AmazingAlec (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
For more information on this topic see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be too hard for you. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it.
On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :)
Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration".
Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. Other sites that have an "anyone can edit" policy like Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources.
In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source.
1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?
A- Before adding this information to any page, I first need to make sure that this information is true. If it is, than I guess I can add it to both pages. Also, I should add Mitt Romney under "Notable Faculty" on the Harvard page.
Y Very good job covering all the bases :)
2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)
A- Well, this is my opinion and not a known fact. I shouldn't use this cartoon.
Y Wikipedia is not for publishing user's specific viewpoints. If there was a big controversy over NYT's racist content complete with news articles and such on the subject, that would be a different story.
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?
A- I would add this info to the cancer and diabetes pages.
Y I would say don't add the info at all. The article may not be reliable, and even if it is, the information doesn't really emulate the kind of stuff we want on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of every weird fact on the planet.
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
A- Apple wouldn't be a reliable source because Apple and Microsoft are rivals. They're probably just trying to slam each other.
Y That is generally the idea :)
5.) Q- Would you consider the BBC's official Twitter page a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- I wouldn't use a Twitter page as a reliable source because it's full of other comments not made by the company. Plus, Twitter is a lot easier to hack than an official website.
Y You are right that Twitter is generally not a reliable source, but it is because the pages are self-published. Have read of WP:TWITTER to see how this works.
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- This isn't reliable because: 1) This is just a comment 2) You don't know who is writing this information so it isn't reliable.
Y We have no way of knowing who this "forum official" is and whether he has the authority to speak for the CT. However, comments, if made by authoritative people, can sometimes be used as sources.
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?
A- This is reliable because it's coming from the official website.
Y It is reliable, but not necessarily because it is coming from the official site. It is usable because it is likely the only place where you can find this info, and the website is talking about itself. Again, WP:SELFPUB applies.
8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?
A- Well, you don't need to source everything. It's common sense that the sky is blue. (Note: After reading other answers to this question I now see that I could also point out a link to him that is reliable that states that the sky is blue.)
Y The editor may be color-blind, so it's a good idea to point him to a source.
9.) Q- Is David Tennant's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
A- This info is not reliable because IMDB gets some info from its users.
Y IMDb is much like Wikipedia in the way that lots of people edit it. This makes it not a reliable source for Wikipedia.
@AmazingAlec: Amazing job! Most people have a harder time with this test. Bravo! Take a look at the answers that were a little off and see if you can understand my explanations. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Thanks! I'm happy I did well. I read the link you gave me about verifiability and bookmarked it. I'll refer to it in the future. Thanks again ~ AmazingAlec (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As you have mentioned, there are many types of citations acceptable on Wikipedia. Here are a few of them:
Full citation: A citation fully identifying a reliable source. Let's use a source from Doctor Who to demonstrate: Davies, Russell T; Cook, Benjamin (2010). Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter. London: BBC Books. p. 337. ISBN 978-1-84607-861-3. You may notice that this citation is not in MLA or APA format. The format used for citations on Wikipedia is different and specific to Wikipedia.
Inline citation: An in-text citation added after the material that it supports. It is usually in the form of a footnote and placed after a sentence or paragraph. The actually citation is found in section near the bottom of the page under a heading like "References" or "Footnotes".
General reference: A citation to a reliable source given at the bottom of the article to support it as a whole, but is not linked to any particular piece of material. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "General references" section, similar to a bibliography. These may be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed by author alphabetically in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.
Short citation: An inline citation with an abbreviated form of the whole source, like parenthetical documentation. e.g. Davies 2010, p. 337.. These are usually used when different pages of the same book are cited in different places, or as an alternative to named refs, which we will learn a little later in this lesson.
In-text attribution: This is usually used when citing opinions and quotations of individuals. An example would be a sentence beginning In his 2010 book Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter, Russel T. Davies claims....
Wikipedia cites sources to maintain verifiablity. If a source is verifiable, that means that its facts can be backed up by other reliable sources to make sure that the source (in this case, Wikipedia) does not have faulty information. Sources should not be included for common knowledge (e.g. "If you jump off a cliff you will get hurt" or "The sky is blue"), but should always be provided for controversial topics. The idea is to write articles based off of sources, not to write articles off your own knowledge and then find sources to support them. This is really not what is supposed to happen; however, many people still do it.
Inline citations help Wikipedia become even more verifiable by linking directly to the information which specifically supports a line of text or a fact. As a general rule, an article should have more inline citations than any other kind, and the more, the better! The most simple and common way to an create and inline citation in a Wikipedia article is by using ref tags. To use this method, you put the full citation in the text of the article where you want the footnote to go and add <ref> before the citation and </ref> right after. Under a section at the bottom of the article called "References", we type {{Reflist}} and nothing else. This will automatically list the citations at the bottom in the order they are placed in the text. For example, we could write David Tennant plays the 10th regeneration of [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]] on the British TV show ''Doctor Who''.<ref>Davies, Russell T; Cook, Benjamin (2010). ''Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter.'' London: BBC Books. p. 337. ISBN 978-1-84607-861-3.</ref> Then we would put
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
at the bottom, and the article would show up like this:
David Tennant plays the 10th regeneration of the Doctor on the British TV show Doctor Who.[1]
== References ==
1. ∧ Davies, Russell T; Cook, Benjamin (2010). Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale: The Final Chapter. London: BBC Books. p. 337. ISBN978-1-84607-861-3.
Wikipedia has a different style of citation format, so it's best not to use MLA or APA. An easy way to make sure all citations are formatted correctly is by using citation templates. Template:Citation Style 1 contains a list of citation templates for different kinds of sources. For this example, let's use {{cite book}}. Go down to the section on the page titled "Full parameter set in horizontal format" and copy it. Paste it where you want the reference in the article to go, and then add the ref tags to both sides so that it shows up under "References" at the bottom. To create the citation, fill out everything you can in the template (you can delete the sections, called parameters, which you don't use). Voilá! The reference shows up correctly formatted!
To maintain text-source integrity, do not construe information so that that the information appears to come from a source it doesn't. Consider the following (assume the source is the one we've been using):
David Tennant plays the 10th regeneration of the Doctor on the British TV show Doctor Who.[1]
Now consider the following sentence:
David Tennant plays the 10th regeneration of the Doctor on the British TV show Doctor Who, and he enjoys eating fish and chips.[1]
Nowhere in the book does it mention that David Tennant enjoys eating fish and chips, so you would need to move the reference or the added information so that it does not appear that way.
Sometimes people add the same source citation over and over so that even though there are only a few sources to an article, the reference list is very long and full of repeated citations. Although this is technically acceptable, it is not very efficient. The "ref name" template shortens the reference list to only a few citations, each connected to multiple footnotes. It's much simpler than it sounds :) To use this style, replace the opening/front <ref> tag with <ref name="source nickname">. For the source we've been using, you could call it <ref name="DocWho">, or <ref name="DaviesCook">, or really any name that helps you remember which source it is. After using this first citation, if you would like to use the same citation again for another sentence, you can put <ref name="DocWho"/> (or with whatever other nickname you've given the source) and that footnote would lead to the first source. This can be confusing at first, so feel free to ask questions. Also, sometimes the best way to learn is to do it :)
I have showed you the most common referencing techniques in use on Wikipedia, but there are many other acceptable ways which are not used as often. Here are some pages which may be useful:
@AmazingAlec: Questions? This can be a bit hard to get at first, but is much easier as you go along. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Currently, I don't have many questions at the moment. However, I probably will have a few as the information soaks into my brain :) Thanks, AmazingAlec (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@AmazingAlec: Here's an assignment: Properly format the citations already existing in the Roy Clark article. I'll help you with it/check your work if you need me to. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: I just tried to add a template for a citation in the Roy Clark article and after pressing "save" and scrolling down to where I made the edit, I saw big red text that said something about the citation not being properly named. The citation was not like this before I edited the article. I have undone my edits but am confused with what I have done wrong. AmazingAlec (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@AmazingAlec: Don't worry about it! This is exactly why I had you do this assignment in the first place. What happened was you placed this text in the article: <ref>http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/01/winner-of-roy-clarks-tripacer-named/<ref>{{cite web|title=Winner of Roy Clark’s Tripacer named|url=http://generalaviationnews.com/2012/01/26/winner-of-roy-clarks-tripacer-named/|website=General Aviation News|accessdate=1 April 2015}}</ref>
You left the original url and opening ref tag at the beginning on accident. I re-added the url to the citation that you made. Do understand what happened and how to fix it next time? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: So I accidentally added two references on the same url. One with a template and one without one. This cause the server to be confused?
To fix this, I'm supposed to remove the first url and leave the template one? AmazingAlec (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
After checking out your edit, I saw that you added the url at the end. Was that the only thing I did wrong? AmazingAlec (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@AmazingAlec: Actually, it doesn't matter where you put the url in the reference, it shows up the same wherever you put it. You are correct, by adding the 2 urls in without the extra ref tag at the end, the server got confused and couldn't display it correctly. The missing ref tag was the problem. If you work with citations for a while, you'll understand more how they work just by experience. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Thanks for clearing this up. I think I'm ready for my assignment :) AmazingAlec (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: Sorry for being slow about the assignment. I've been busy this and last week and have not been able to yet complete the assignment. I will be done with it by the end of the week. ~ AmazingAlec (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
