Missionedit's Adoption
Homepage •
Discussion || Current Adoptee Pages:
Ploreky ||
Inactive:
Scribbleink •
Jtamad •
Elsa Enchanted •
Molly's Mind •
Ntomlin1996 •
Venustar84 •
Acj1 •
AmazingAlec •
Faiz7412 •
Hisashiyarouin •
Marcus1093 •
WelshWonderWoman || Graduates:
FiendYT
| |||
![]() A few questions to start off with: 1) Would you prefer to be called AmazingAlec, Alec, or something else?
Lesson 1: WikiquetteWikiquette " 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. Assuming good faithAlways assume that every member of the community you come across is trying to do the right thing. The exception to this would be somebody who already has four plus vandalism warnings and who is making more malicious edits; they probably aren't acting in good faith. Apart from that, don't jump straight in to assume somebody is malicious. ThreadingThreading 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.
Avoiding common mistakesAvoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
SignaturesThere 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.
End of lesson 1Questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 2: The Five Pillars of WikipediaThe Five Pillars of Wikipedia These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
End of lesson 2Any questions? What would you like to do the next lesson on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 3: Reliable sourcesReliable sources 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. End of lesson 3@ AmazingAlec: Here you go! Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Test1.) 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?
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)
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?
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
5.) Q- Would you consider the BBC's official Twitter page a reliable source? Why or why not?
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?
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?
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?
9.) Q- Is David Tennant's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
End of test@ AmazingAlec: Here's the test. Feel free to look back at the lesson while you're taking it. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 4: CitationsCitations Most of this information can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Types of citationAs you have mentioned, there are many types of citations acceptable on Wikipedia. Here are a few of them:
When and why to cite sourcesWikipedia 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 citationsInline 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
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 == Citation styleWikipedia 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! What information to includeSimply, anything that you can find about the source! This includes, but is not limited to:
Text-source integrityTo 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):
Now consider the following sentence:
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. Named refsSometimes 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 Other helpful pagesI 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:
End of lesson 4@ 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's Adoption
Homepage •
Discussion || Current Adoptee Pages:
Ploreky ||
Inactive:
Scribbleink •
Jtamad •
Elsa Enchanted •
Molly's Mind •
Ntomlin1996 •
Venustar84 •
Acj1 •
AmazingAlec •
Faiz7412 •
Hisashiyarouin •
Marcus1093 •
WelshWonderWoman || Graduates:
FiendYT
| |||
![]() A few questions to start off with: 1) Would you prefer to be called AmazingAlec, Alec, or something else?
Lesson 1: WikiquetteWikiquette " 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. Assuming good faithAlways assume that every member of the community you come across is trying to do the right thing. The exception to this would be somebody who already has four plus vandalism warnings and who is making more malicious edits; they probably aren't acting in good faith. Apart from that, don't jump straight in to assume somebody is malicious. ThreadingThreading 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.
Avoiding common mistakesAvoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
SignaturesThere 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.
End of lesson 1Questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 2: The Five Pillars of WikipediaThe Five Pillars of Wikipedia These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
End of lesson 2Any questions? What would you like to do the next lesson on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 19:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 3: Reliable sourcesReliable sources 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. End of lesson 3@ AmazingAlec: Here you go! Any questions before the test? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Test1.) 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?
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)
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?
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
5.) Q- Would you consider the BBC's official Twitter page a reliable source? Why or why not?
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?
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?
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?
9.) Q- Is David Tennant's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
End of test@ AmazingAlec: Here's the test. Feel free to look back at the lesson while you're taking it. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Lesson 4: CitationsCitations Most of this information can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Types of citationAs you have mentioned, there are many types of citations acceptable on Wikipedia. Here are a few of them:
When and why to cite sourcesWikipedia 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 citationsInline 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
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 == Citation styleWikipedia 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! What information to includeSimply, anything that you can find about the source! This includes, but is not limited to:
Text-source integrityTo 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):
Now consider the following sentence:
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. Named refsSometimes 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 Other helpful pagesI 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:
End of lesson 4@ 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)
|