User talk:ToastGuard/Orcanami/Archive 2

The Basics

All assignments and other sections will be saved in the "Archives" of this page, feel free to go back to previous Assignments to review. Lets go over a few of the guidelines and policies for the first lesson, I would encourage you to do this without looking at the actual guideline or policy, however reference materials (such as a "Cheat Sheet") are allowed. I will post the questions in this page, and you will respond in them. Once you are complete with a single section just put <!--Complete-->> after your answer. I will be periodically be checking in with you and will critique your answers. At the end I will give you a grade from 1-100, with 100 being the best, and 1 being the worst. This is not timed but i would like to ask you to please be mindful of my time.

Let's Review

Guideline	Your Answer	My Response
WP:NOR	No Original Research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means it summarizes secondary sources (e.g., expert opinion). Use of primary sources is discouraged as this quickly leads to original research which has not been verified by the typical peer-review and editorial processes that accompany reliable secondary sources.	All true up to the third sentence. Primary sources are not always just a layman, but can also be information self-published by the proprietary owner, for example, the technical specifications for the 787 have been published by Boeing, but distributed by other media. The reasoning behind this policy is because there is no feasible way to verify information from wikipedia users who publish information. This does not prevent users from summarizing information, as long as the content and intent stay the same.
WP:NPOV	Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. This means giving due weight to each topic within an article. Typical ways of maintaining neutral tone include steering away from trivia, overt personal attacks, and controversy. But, more subtly, the style of writing and word choice also matters.	Starting good, but the fact of the matter is, every article should be given No weight. No particular side in any argument should have power over an opposing view. This prevents activists and lobbyers from using wikipedia as an independent sources, this connects it to NOR where people draw incorrect summaries from information given. Trivia is not something to stray from, so long as it does not present an argument for a political stance.
WP:VER	Verifiability. Every statement in a Wikipedia article should be verified by an independent reliable source. But good judgment should also be exercised. A statement such as the following may simply not be possible to verify with extant secondary sources: Continental knitting is faster than English knitting. There is no consensus on this matter, though it is commonly repeated (and disputed) among knitting groups. All one can say is that certain sources argue that this is the case, and other sources dispute them.	Information can be published by the author of a product(or suitable organizations) in cases that have little to no availability of third party verification, or where third party verification is unfeasible. And you hit the money with your example, editors cannot say "A" is better than "B" because everyone says so, however you may say Consensus among *an interest group* is that "A" is better than "B".
WP:BLP	Can't recall from memory	BLP stands for Biographies of Living Persons, which means that such articles are very delicate to work around. NOR, NPOV, and VER are all incorporated into these articles especially. Anything other than cold facts without connotations, be it positive or negative must be removed if it has no source, is not verifiable, or presents an argument.
WP:NOT	What Wikipedia Is Not. Wikipedia is not a lot of things and that's okay. It does not need to be everything to everyone. It is intended to serve as a freely available encyclopedic resource. It is not a reliable resource. It is not a how-to guide. It is not a newspaper.	You are correct, wikipedia was built for a very specific reason, and to stray from the founders wishes would be abhorrent.
WP:TITLE	Manual of Style#Article titles. Every Wikipedia article should have a title, and that title should be used early in the summary to minimize ambiguity. Article titles are also subject to other style rules regarding capitalization and allowable characters.	So, it does not only define the syntax of the title(how it's written) but also the substance. Is it easy to understand? does it adequatly sum up the contents of the article? Does it follow NPOV?
WP:IUP	Can't recall from memory	This policy deals with copyright policy on images (Image Use Policy), Everything on the Wikimedia Commons is free to use under a certain image license. Others off the internet are licensed only to the end-user, and not for distribution. This policy is helpful if you plan to add photos, or find a photo you want to use in an article.
WP:WINAD	Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia does not define simple words. Entries should be more substantial than a dictionary definition.	Wikipedia does not define basic root words, large combined words may be included to assist in helping the reader to understand the substance, or if the word has meaning behind it, such as anti-disestablishmentarianism.

@ToastGuard Done. Orcanami; or the 🌊⬛🐬⬜🌊(talk) 02:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Lesson Summary

This lesson is to familiarize you with the basic operating policies of Wikipedia, You presented a good knowledge of them, with exception of WP:BLP, unfortunately that is one of the most important policies. You have a good grasp on the fundamentals, and now I have given you the key details to each one. I would like to see you study up on BLP before the next assignment. It was a well written first assignment and it sets a good precedent. In total I would give it a 92/100. Missing BLP really hurt it, as did IUP. Toast (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response! Such feedback is not easy to generate, and I appreciate your taking time to read my responses and answer so carefully. I will be signing off for several hours, but I will review WP:BLP and WP:IUP thoroughly and signify that I have done so when I return. Orcanami; or the 🌊⬛🐬⬜🌊(talk) 07:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)