Welcome to the adoption course Mmddyy28. This system runs on a pattern of lessons and tests. I post a lesson, you let me know when you are ready to take the test, I post it, you do it, I grade it, we discuss it, and then we move on to the next lesson. There are nine lessons as well as a final exam, that culminates the course. If you complete that, you get all sorts of shiny wikiparaphernalia. This adoption course will be run based on the American Professor/TA/Student model found in many universities. Go Phightins will be the aloof external professor, and he will grade the final exam, but otherwise be more or less outside the course. Most of the day to day stuff will be with me. Please sign here to indicate you have found the adoption center, and lesson one is posted. Let me know when you are ready to test. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Sign here: Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 20:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
| Lesson | Status | Grade | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| One |  Not done |
||
| Two | Not done |
||
| Three | Not done |
||
| Four | Not done |
||
| Five | Not done |
||
| Six | Not done |
||
| Seven | Not done |
||
| Eight | Not done |
||
| Nine | Not done |
||
| Final | Not done |
Lesson One - Five Pillars
editOne of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS which is designed to summarize why we're here.
- 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.
How articles should be written
editThe 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
editSo 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 while "Airfix monthly" may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, it probably would not be authoritative on the Boeing 737.
A source that is self-published is in general considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. Generally, self-published sources aren't considered reliable. 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?
editAny questions? If not, I will post the test. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I am ready for the test! -- Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Lesson One Test
editHere 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- You can not add this to his article because you heard this from a friend, and not a reliable source.
- Right. You are not a reliable source, and the information would certainly would not be verifiable unless you had a source. 5/5.
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- You can include this on the racism article as an example of racism, as this information is a valid sourcs. However, you can also put this on the newspaper's article because this a valid source, and the location of which it should go.
- Not quite. While the cartoon itself was published in a reliable source, you are relying solely on your own interpretation of the material to determine if it is racist or not. This would be considered original research, and would also likely open a very large can of worms, especially if you were wrong. As a follow-up question: What kind of source(s) would you need before this would be an appropriate inclusion in each article? (Score pending follow-up question)
A2- You would need at least one internet source.
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- You cannot include that information anywhere on Wikipedia because that is invalid. You can't put it in Wikipedia because America many not be the only Capitslist country and Britan may not be the only socialist country. Putting this on Wikipedia would stereotype that all capitalists in the world are more likely to get diabetes and all socialists in the world are more likely to get cancer.
- Right, but the reason goes deeper than that. While this is, as you pointed out an excellent example of correlation does not imply causation, the bigger problem here is that this would combine multiple sources to make a claim that is not supported by any of them. Whether or not America is the only capitalist country or Britain is the only socialist country is pretty irrelevant. 3.5/5
4.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
A- I would not consider FOX News a reliable source on MSNBC because they do not know anything about MSNBC because they obviously don't work there. On Sara Palin, yes. Everyone always finds out celebrity's business somehow.
- Follow-up questions: Does the claim Fox News is making about MSNBC matter? Is there a difference between FOX News saying that MSNBC has the second largest prime-time audience versus saying that MSNBC is a group of far left-wing political shills? Also, would the fact that Mrs. Palin is a former contributor to FOX News influence your evaluation? (Score pending follow-up question)
A2- To the first one, there is a difference because FOX News wouldn't know as much about MSNBC as the actual company would. For two, yes it would influence me.
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page a reliable source?
A- I would consider is official Twitter page a reliable source as long as it was Ben and Jerry's official page and not a fan page. A first person view is the best view.
- First of all, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that we try to compile what has already been written in secondary sources, while primary sources are usually (but not always, see hereconsidered inferior.
- Follow-up Question: Does the content of the claim you are trying to cite matter? What if it is a routine, uncontroversial announcement of a new ice cream flavor? (Score pending follow-up question)
A2- The content of the claim you are trying to site does matter because it needs to come from a reliable source.
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- This would not be a reliable source because this is the Newspaper's view at world hunger, not straight facts.
- Follow-up: Does the Newspaper's stance not belong in say the article about the newspaper, or perhaps in the article on "Chicago Tribune world hunger comments scandal" if such an article were ever to exist? Can the forum moderator be assumed to speak for the newspaper? Does Wikipedia have a place for something other than "straight facts"? (Score pending follow-up question)
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- I would not object to this being used as a citation because it is an corporate putting out information (facts) about themselves.
- Follow-up (yes, again, sorry): Does it matter whether the information in the about us section is controversial? Would something like "The triple whopper contains 1,060 Calories" be OK? How about "The whopper tastes better than McDonald's Bic Mac"? (Score pending follow-up question)
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- You need a source because though the sky is obviously seen blue, real scientists might have discovered and published information that says otherwise.
Right. This could stand without a source as common knowledge without a source until somebody challenged it. Once it proves controversial, a source is in order. 4.5/5.
Comments
editThere seem to be a few areas that still need to be ironed out here. Reread the policies linked above, and then try the follow-up questions. These are some of the most important things about wikipedia, and it is important to get them right.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Final Score pending follow-up questions.Tazerdadog (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)