User:Mmddyy28/Adoption Course/Lesson 1-Five Pillars

The following is Lesson: 1 of Mmddyy28's adoption course. Please DO NOT edit the contents of this page without the consent of Mmddyy28. Thank you!

Back to Adoption Course: click here

Pillar One: Defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This pillar states that Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. It also states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, a web directory, a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents.

Pillar Two: States that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This states that issues are to be characterized and not debated. This also states that in some areas a one well-recognized point of view may be required while in others multiple pions of view may be needed. You are not writing in the truth or the best view. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

Pillar Three: States that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Since all editors freely License their work to the public, no editor owns an article, even if they are the creator. Any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Every editor must respect copyright laws and not plagiarize from other sources.

Pillar Four: States that editors must treat each other with respect and civility. In other words, treat others as you wish to be treated. Respect your fellow Wikipedians, when and if you disagree. Don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith and assume good faith. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Always discuss conflicts and seek consensus.

Pillar Five: States that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not set in stone, as they can be changed if necessary. Don't be reckless while updating or changing an article. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected if needed. -The policies and guidelines will be discussed further in later lessons.

How articles should be written

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

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 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.