Hi NixV, and welcome to your adoption center. I will set up a lesson every day for the next 7 days. You can complete these at your own pace and order. Whenever you complete a lesson and ready we will have a test and assignments on that. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to ask. - The9Man ( Talk) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, this isn't adoption-related, but I have a question about article creation. I've been spending the past couple of days working on a draft of The Ocean Race Europe. I would ideally submit it for Articles for Creation, but as it's a current sporting event I'm not particularly sure what to do, since getting an article reviewed takes several weeks - by which time the event in question would be over. NixV (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Five Pillars
|
---|
5PILLARS is the summarization of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is one of the most important essays in Wikipedia.
Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. How articles should be writtenThe 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 editor's 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 saying 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 sourcesSo 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 side point 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 notable... 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?
Hope you are doing well. Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests. 1. A blog titled “Katy Perry Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that Katy Perry will be performing in Sydney on 10 August. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not? 2. Is the official Facebook page of Coca-Cola a reliable source? 3. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do minor copyedits and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond? 4. Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source? 5. Your friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not? |
Wikiquette
| ||
---|---|---|
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 highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember.
Questions? Thanks for the info - it's really helpful. A quick question: When I started out with editing, I got some notifications saying a user 'thanked' me for my edits. What is this feature and how does it work? NixV (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
Cleanup
|
---|
Copyright
|
---|
Dispute Resolution
|
---|
Deletion Policies
|
---|
Twinkle
|
---|
Policy and Consensus
|
---|
Templates
|
---|
Vandalism
|
---|
Hi NixV, and welcome to your adoption center. I will set up a lesson every day for the next 7 days. You can complete these at your own pace and order. Whenever you complete a lesson and ready we will have a test and assignments on that. Be aware that I don't know everything and I would doubt anyone who said they did. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to ask. - The9Man ( Talk) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, this isn't adoption-related, but I have a question about article creation. I've been spending the past couple of days working on a draft of The Ocean Race Europe. I would ideally submit it for Articles for Creation, but as it's a current sporting event I'm not particularly sure what to do, since getting an article reviewed takes several weeks - by which time the event in question would be over. NixV (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Five Pillars
|
---|
5PILLARS is the summarization of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is one of the most important essays in Wikipedia.
Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian and a good one at that. How articles should be writtenThe 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 editor's 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 saying 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 sourcesSo 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 side point 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 notable... 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?
Hope you are doing well. Here's your first test! This test is going to be based on questions. Some questions will have right or wrong answers, whereas others are just designed to see if you are thinking in the right way. There is no time limit - answer in your own words, and we'll talk about your answers. Please note that simple and short yes/no answers are not acceptable in this test, nor in any future tests. 1. A blog titled “Katy Perry Fan Blog", that has no affiliation with the subject, states that Katy Perry will be performing in Sydney on 10 August. No other source confirms this fact, so can you add this to Wikipedia? Why or why not? 2. Is the official Facebook page of Coca-Cola a reliable source? 3. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do minor copyedits and fix some spelling and grammar errors. 10 minutes later, you get a message from the editor who created the article, saying: "STOP CHANGING MY ARTICLE! I made it and you have no right to edit it without my permission. It's my intellectual property and therefore I own the copyright." How do you respond? 4. Everybody knows that the sky is blue, right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze. Does he need a source? 5. Your friend says that the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film "is the stupidest and most boring movie ever". Can you add this to the article? Why or why not? |
Wikiquette
| ||
---|---|---|
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 highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember.
Questions? Thanks for the info - it's really helpful. A quick question: When I started out with editing, I got some notifications saying a user 'thanked' me for my edits. What is this feature and how does it work? NixV (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) |
Cleanup
|
---|
Copyright
|
---|
Dispute Resolution
|
---|
Deletion Policies
|
---|
Twinkle
|
---|
Policy and Consensus
|
---|
Templates
|
---|
Vandalism
|
---|