Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) edit
Hi Electriccatfish2, and welcome to your adoption center. I've substitute across the first lesson for you and I thought you'd like to know that you do now have your own official page. As you can see from User:Worm That Turned/Adopt, I've created an adoption HQ, where you can read ahead in the lessons. I haven't finished them all as yet - the red linked ones are likely to change, but feel free to read ahead - it might help. The tests might include a couple of extra unique questions if I see an area that you might need a little extra development - don't take it as a negative, it should help. Also we now have a talk area for us to use, away from the more public areas - if you would like to use it - it's at User Talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Electriccatfish2. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see. WormTT(talk) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
|
The Worm That Turned Adoption Course Barnstar | ||||||||||
| Well done Catfish, you're off to a great start! Welcome to the expanding Worm That Turned barnstar too! By the time you finish the course, you'll have a nice little collection! |
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.
The Five Pillars edit
One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to eloquently sum up what we're here for.
- Pillar one defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. It suggests some things that we are not. Thoughts about what we are not are covered in the deletion lesson.
- Pillar two talks about neutrality, a concept that this lesson will be concentrating on.
- Pillar three talks about free content. The Copyright lesson will go into this in more detail.
- Pillar four talks about civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment and nothing would ever get done if it wasn't. I'll go into civility more during the dispute resolution module.
- Pillar five explains that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is a difficult concept and will be covered in the Policy and consensus lesson.
Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. All 5 are covered in my adoption school, though at different lengths. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did.
How articles should be written edit
The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view – personal opinions such as right and wrong should never appear, nor should an editors experience. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions – then the minority opinion should not be shown. An example is in medicine – if there was an article on say treatment of a broken leg, a neutral article would not include anything on homeopathy.
To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable by seeing it is published elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.
Reliable sources edit
So what is a source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic – so whilst "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on their full size equivalent.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception – so self publishing is generally considered a no-no. This means that anything in a forum or a blog and even most websites are considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving – the article really should not be totally based on a direct source like that.
Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia – so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing issue!
There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.
Questions? edit
Any questions or would you like to try the test?
Five Pillars edit
This test is going to be based on questions. One word "Yes" or "No" answers are unacceptable. I want to see some evidence of a thought process. There's no time limit - answer in your own words and we'll talk about your answers.
Note: I'm going to answer the easiest ones today. Electric Catfish 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1) Q - You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article and why?
- A - No, as friends is not considered a reliable source. However, I may google it and if I find a reliable source (i.e. The New York Times) has the same information, I may include it in the article.
- Very good. Reliable sourcing is essential on Wikipedia
2) Q - A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon which you see is clearly racist as part of an article. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
- A - No, I cannot. If I interpret the cartoon as racist, that is my synthesis and how I perceive the newspaper and it does not belong here. Electric Catfish 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Very true, not quite "synthesis" which is adding two facts together to get a third, but certainly adding you personal opinion of a cartoon to an article would be original research, which amounts to the same thing. See below
3) Q - You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the United States by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?
- A- It depends. If the article comes from a reliable source, than yes, but if not, than no. Also, it might be a violation of WP: SYNTH to make the correlation between squashes and baldness myself. Electric Catfish 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Bang on with the synthesis, which is what I was aiming for in that discussion. Yes, if the source is reliable, you may be able to put the relevant information in the article, but not combine the two items to make something new
4) Q - Would you consider BBC news a reliable source on The Troubles? Would you consider BBC news to be a reliable source on its rival, ITV?
- A - Regarding The Troubles, BBC would be considered reliable. BBC is generally a reliable source according to WP policies. However, BBC would not be considered reliable on its rival, as it would be a conflict of interest. BBC news gains from a business standpoint if they post libel about their rival. Also, please note that I live in the US. Electric Catfish 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I know you're in the US, but Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, I try to add questions from different areas. It stops your preconceptions, makes you do a bit more research :) You're not exactly wrong... in general, I would worry about a news corporation reporting about a rival news corporation, but I'd also worry about a government funded organisation reporting about a nationalist issue. This is where editorial judgement comes in, you shouldn't be relying wholly on one reliable source, and you'll have to judge how reliable a source is based on the situation, the article itself, and many other factors.
5) Q - Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?
- A- Just like the Xerox question, a basic overview of the company such as "Ban and Jerry's Makes Ice Cream" would be fine, but promotional content such as that they have awesome ice cream would not be okay. See WP: SELFSOURCE. Electric Catfish 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't advise any information from an official facebook page, especially from a major company which would have other more reliable sources for press releases. Having said that, you've got the right sort of idea about the type of information you could take from a self published source - purely factual, difficult to source elsewhere.
6) Q - A "forum official" from the Daily Telegraph community forums comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
- A- First of all, who is this "forum official"? I'd like them to confirm that they are indeed a forum official acting in official capacity. Also, I doubt that a public forum would be considered a reliable source. Electric Catfish 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. A forum official doesn't mean much, nor does a public forum. I wouldn't trust it for toffee.
7) Q - Would you have any problem with http://www.amazon.co.uk/ or an "iTunes" link being used in a music related article?
- A - If it's just general, neutral information or facts about the track than that would be okay, but any non-neutral or promotional content would not be okay. Electric Catfish 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good. Release dates, track listings - fine, reviews, promotional content - not so much.
8) Q - Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article.
- A - Well, first of all, it might be a copyright violation if you copy the entire page into the article. There's nothing wrong with using the facts about what they do or who the executives are, but taking you cannot use the statements of the quality of their work, as it would be a conflict of interest. See WP: SELFSOURCE. Electric Catfish 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I expect it would be a copyvio if you did that! But the rest of your answer is right.
9) Q - Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
- A - First of all, I typed in WP: SKYISBLUE and saw an essay on this, so I guess not. However, let me give a more policy-based answer. The first few citations are important, but the rest are for more disputable information. Likewise, WP: COMMONSENSE applies and you do not have to cite obvious facts. Electric Catfish 11:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- You may have missed WP:NOTBLUE. This is one of the problems with relying on WP essays, there are often two different essays with completely opposing view points. Does common sense apply? I'm looking otu the window, it's raining, the sky is grey. Yesterday, there was a nice sunset and it was a pinky purpley colour. A night, it's black. How can we just state that the sky is blue? What's more, it's the person who's adding the information who has the onus to source it, so if this editor wants "the sky is bronze" in the article, he needs to show that it's not only reliably sourced, but also a well known fact. However, if he's just removing "The Sky is Blue"... and you want to put it back, you either need a source or consensus that a source isn't needed
Results edit
All very good. I'll put up your next lessons in a bit :) WormTT(talk) 12:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikiquette edit
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.
I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
- Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
- Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~~~~. The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment. I have a script that reminds you to do this if you think you'll forget.
- Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]] :It's great!! --[[User:Jane]] ::I made it myself! --[[User:John]] Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]] :I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]] |
How's the soup? --John Let's move the discussion to Talk:Soup. --Jane
|
- Don't forget to assume good faith
- There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
- Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
- Watch out for common mistakes.
- Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
- Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.
Questions edit
Any questions?
Test edit
Have a look at the conversation below:
What's the best car in the world? -- Rod
|
Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In
1) Position A?
2) Position B?
3) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
- A- No. First of all, AGF. Perhaps the user edited as an IP or read up on templates before joining. Also, sockpuppetry isn't just using multiple accounts, it's using multiple accounts for abusive purposes, so I'd need to prove in the SPI that the user is abusing multiple accounts if I were to file an SPI. Electric Catfish 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perfect answers!
Copyright edit
Welcome to the lesson discussing Copyright. It's one of the most important lessons I teach, because not adhering to it can lead to a ban from Wikipedia. I'm hoping to take you back to basics and will be focusing on images. However, a lot of the same concepts apply to other media files and even text too! I'll mention a bit more about that at the end of the lesson.
Glossary edit
There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. If you are having trouble with any, here's a quick reference.
| Term | Explaination |
|---|---|
| Attribution | The identification of work by an author |
| Copyright symbol | © - used to show work is under copyright |
| Creative Commons | Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. |
| Compilation | A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. |
| Derivative work | A work which is derived from another work. (Eg a photograph of a painting) |
| Disclaimer | A statement which limits rights or obligations |
| FACT | Federation Against Copyright Theft |
| Fair use | Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. |
| Copyright infringement | Use of work under copyright without permission |
| Intellectual property | Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. |
| License | The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. |
| Non-commercial | Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. |
| Public domain | Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired |
Image Copyright on Wikipedia edit
Ok, now if I use a term that's not in the glossary and I don't explain, feel free to slap me. Are you ready for this? Ok. Take a deep breath. You can do it.
Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution.
So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia.
Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere.
Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria)
In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations
- If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license.
- If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark
- If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed)
- There must be no free equivalent
- We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work
- Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used)
- Must have been published elsewhere first
- Meets our general standards for content
- Meets our specific standards for that area
- Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it)
- Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used.
- Can only be used in article space
- The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag
It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent - anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9)
Get it? Well here are a few more examples.
- I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so 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 edit
When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It makes sense to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by all language encyclopedias.
Copyright and text edit
So you think you've got your head around copyright and how it applies to images? Well done. Let's see how it applies to text. All the principles are the same - you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right there
| Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. |
So you are in effect contributing every time you edit. Now, let's think about that non-free content criteria - "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for quoting) - as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you are not. Got it? Good.
Questions edit
This is a very complex topic, is there anything you don't understand? Now's a great time to ask about those weird situations.
Test edit
Q1) Do you think Wikipedia *is* free?
- A- Well, the top left hand corner of my screen says "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia", but we do allow non-free content (under strict rules), so it's not free, to some extent. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Q2) When can you upload a picture to Commons?
- A- When it is free use. The benefit to Commons is that files uploaded there can be used on other WMF Wikis, not just the English Wikipedia. Electric Catfish 21:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Q3) You find music displaying this licence [1] (non-commercial). Wikimedia is non-commerical, can we upload it to Commons?
- A-
Q4) A user uploads a poster which is a composite of all the Beatles album covers. Can he do this? It is his own unique composition.
- A- No. It is not his original composition, and that would be the same thing as taking someone else's image and claiming that it's ours. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Q5) Can you upload a press image of the Pope?
- A- Images of living people are free, as they are replaceable, and free images may be uploaded, so yes. However, I would have to check to see what the copyright status is. Many media websites reserve all rights to their images, so in that case, I would not be able to use the image. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Q6) Can you upload a press image of a prisoner on death row?
- A- Well, I presume that the media would have taken the picture, so it can't be free, but perhaps it could be uploaded as fair-use? --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q7) You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. What do you do? You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA
- A- This happens all of the time on NPP. I tag the page for speedy deletion under criterion G12, and also G11 if it is spam. Twinkle tags the page, warns the author, marks the page as patrolled and adds an entry to my log. If the author who created it has a promotional username, I report them to UAA. If the user has been warned before about copyvios, I'll report them (if I feel a block is warranted) to AN/I or AIV.
Q8) Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move?
- A-
Q9) A final practical test... Go. Have a snoop around some wikipedia articles, see if you can find an image which is currently being used under "fair use". Come back and link to it (using [[:File:IMAGENAME]]. You must get the : before the File name, as we cannot display the image here!)
- A-
Dispute resolution edit
1) What do you understand by bold, revert, discuss?
- A- First you should be bold and make your edit, and try and give your rationale as soon as possible afterwards on the article's talk page to try and avoid being reverted. However, don't be upset if you do end up getting reverted. In the event that you do get reverted, instead of reverting, make another bold edit and include a link to WP: BRD in your edit summary. However, do not edit war. If you are reverted again, discuss it with the other user on their talk page or the article's talk page in a civil manner and be willing to compromise with them. I often reference the BRD cycle when mediating a dispute at DRN. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
2) Assuming that person A puts in an edit, person B reverts, person A reverts... and so on, but both stop short of WP:3RR (the bright line)... who wins the edit war? Trick question alert!
- A- Nobody wins, and who cares? Wikipedia isn't about winning. If you edit war, regardless of who's reversion is the one that is currently on the page, you will likely get blocked. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
3) What is vandalism?
- A- Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Copyvio of WP: VAND :)).
4) What is the difference between editor assistance, third opinion and request for comment?
- A- 3O: A less-formal way to mediate a dispute. You request an uninvolved editor to give a 3rd opinion on the dispute. It's generally best in disputes with 2 editors. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
EAR I occasionally work there and it's more of general questions from issues on Wikipedia, such as "Why was my article deleted?". --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC) RFC More of a community process where all of the members of the community work together to find a solution. There are many types of RFC, and I help out by occasionally closing an RFC that doesn't need an admin to close it from WP: AN/RFC. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm done! --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Deletion edit
My primary involvement here is New Page Patrolling, and I'd like to work in CSD as an admin. I use Twinkle, not Page Curation for NPP, by the way. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
1) Describe a situation you would use a WP:PROD and one where you'd use WP:AfD?
- A I'd use a WP: PROD for an article that asserts enough significance to pass a WP: A7, but has a specific concern (i.e. an unsourced BLP). I'd take an article to AFD to get the community's input on it, and I usually take an article there if it fails a certain notability guideline, such as WP: NFOOTBALL. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
2) Most WP:CSD categories are fairly clear, but one of the more difficult is A7. Describe a situation where A7 would be appropriate :)
- A Ipatrol C:SD from time to time, and NPPers seem to have the most trouble with A7s, and they are the most common type of CSD encountered upon at Special: Newpages. There is a certain level of significance that passes A7, but would not pass an XFD. For example an article says "John Doe is the coolest kid in New York", or "Sweaty vortex is the best band in America" (I've tagged that and Sweaty Vortex several times and requested for it to be salted). --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I've created 5 pages, which could be deletable. What would you do if you stumbled upon them in mainspace?
3)First
- A {{db-person}}: She may be pretty, but that is not a credible assertion of significance, and probably isn't true, so I would speedy delete under criterion A7. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
4)Second
- A {{blpprod}}: The assertions of notability are enough to pass A7, but they need to be confirmed by reliable sources, especially since this is a BLP, and therefore, a BLP-PROD is the way to go. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
5)Third
- A {{db-nonsense}}: The second most common error on NPP is G1 tagging. G1 only applies to patent nonsense such as "sdg5t12rty53y", such as this article. I've even seen an admin's alternate account make this mistake at Dimensional Transformology. In fact, I just contested a CSD of an experienced user who incorrectly tagged a page as a G1. Often editors will (incorrectly) slap on the G1 tag when they can't find another criterion to give it. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
6)Fourth
- A {{PROD}} (Concern: All unreliable sources, which are affiliated with the subject.): The event asserts enough credible notability to pass A7 and is at least sourced, but the sources are unreliable and affiliated with the University. I might just tag the page for improvement, instead. Additionally, the refs are filled out improperly and there are no inline citations, but I'd just fix that myself. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
7)Fifth
- A {{db-multiple}}: there are many options to go with here. The article doesn't assert any credible notability about him, so A7 applies. It's likely a hoax/pure vandalism, so G3 applies, and G10 might apply, as well, as it is an unsourced negative BLP. I'd probably also replace the page with {{courtesy blanked}}. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism edit
Q1) How would you define vandalism?
- A: Vandalism is the deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia's integrity. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q2) We currently have 4 levels of warnings, have a look at them if you like 1, 2,3,4 - along with an only warning. Do you think we need 4 levels?
- A: Yes, as different types of vandalism warrant different templates. I rarely use all 4 on one user before reporting them, but they are all necessary. A level 1 doesn't contain the word "vandalism", while a level 2 does. A level 3 mentions a possible block if the disruption continues, while a level 4 serves as a final warning. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q3) Does an admin need all 4 levels to block? How many do you think they need? How many should you have gone through before going to WP:AIV
- A: No, they do not. They do need to be sufficiently warned, but that is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I've made over 400 reports to AIV and some admins don't really require the vandal to be warned, and some want the vandal to have received 3 (if not 4 warnings). I usually go with 2 or 3 warnings before reporting. I'd like to learn how admins handle AIV and UAA reports, among other admin decisions through admin mentoring, when I finish this course.
Q4) When do you think you might use the "only" warning?
- A: In a case where a user has repeatedly vandalize a page without warning in a very short period of time. For example, a user trips the edit filter 2 dozen times in a minute (it occasionally happens) for trying to blank a page. I rarely use it, though. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q5) Do you think that vandals should be allowed to remove the warnings?
- A: This is a very interesting question, but I found out the hard way that they are per WP: TPO (BTW, thanks for not blocking me and for keeping my block log clean :).) Then, I found this essay, which explains things perfectly. The purpose of keeping the warnings on the user's talk page is so the admins can find it when dealing with an AIV report. However, admins simply can just look at the page history and view the warnings. I often use STiki to patrol for vandalism, and it will automatically issue the next level warning or report to AIV.Some IPs have figured this out and have been gaming the system by blanking their talk page, so they keep on getting a level 1 warning. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q6) Is a copyright violation vandalism?
- A: According to WP: VAND, this is a form of vandalism. I asked this question on my quizzes when I was an instructor at the CVUA. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Q7) The vast majority of vandalism comes from IP editors... but the majority of good edits are also made by IP editors. Should wikipedia require registration?
- A: That's an interesting question. Wikipedia is known as "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". What makes Wikipedia unique is that anyone can edit it. I think that the solution to this is to make it easier to apply page protection and PC protection to articles to control the amount of vandalism our articles receive, while still allowing IPs to edit. Some IPs can be very helpful, and contrary to what some believe, IPs are human, too and most of them aren't vandals. The reason why there are more IP vandals than vandals with accounts is that there are way more IPs than accounts. Users shouldn't (IMO) be forced to register in order to edit. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)