User talk:Zippybonzo/Training/NPP/True Pagan Warrior

Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.

Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: True Pagan Warrior, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

Curation tool video

Learn the basic flow chart.

When in doubt refer to this flow chart.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the curation tool video in the right margin, and also review NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page. You cannot possibly over-ping me.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP:PAGs as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part so we can discuss your responses or any questions you may have before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace. Oh, and here is a suggestion you should consider before you begin. At the bottom of this page is a tip section which is worth reviewing because there are some handy scripts you can add to your user common.js that may prove quite helpful for editing, and reviewing articles.

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!!

@True Pagan Warrior: Please start section one below, and don't forget to watchlist this page. When we move on to the live reviews, if you have discord, that would make the coordination of the live reviews much more simple. Just DM me on Discord (I'm zippybonzo#0) and I'll invite you to my special NPP training server (makes record keeping easier). Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 11:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I sent you a friend request on discord (from tpward) but the layout of that app has changed a lot since I last used it and the extra digits no longer are used. ~TPW 16:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ah, I didn't get it @True Pagan Warrior, the numbers are gone, and I'm zippybonzo, or zippybonzo#0 sometimes. If you want to move to section 2 that'd be great, and I see you've already gotten the NPR perm, which makes things easier. :) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That it does! I'm in no hurry to use it before finishing up, though.

I can skip to section two, though. ~TPW 17:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically, @True Pagan Warrior when you finish up with Pt 1, you can move to part 2. I've also sent a friend request from 'zippybonzo' as yours didn't come to me. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability (pt. 1)

• Notability

• This guideline is the foundation of everything on Wikipedia, in my view. If the subject isn't being covered in reliable sources and thus notable, then the subject isn't presently suitable for an article. Notability is also not a particularly easy concept to understand; it tends to be conflated with fame or importance because those are more common ideas in the wider world. Simply put, notability is established when lots of people are talking about a subject in ways that can be double-checked. Establishing notability requires a sufficient number of sources that are independent of the subject, because that's how we uphold our core content policies of verifiability, a neutral point of view, and avoiding original research. Notability is why Wikipedia is one the highest-traffic sites; it's what makes this an encyclopedia. That's why I consider it everything: it's a guideline, but it's a guideline that is inextricably linked to those core policies.

• General notability guideline (GNG)

• What's described in this guideline is how notability is typically measured. Who is talking about the subject, and how much are they saying? We are looking for significant coverage, which means talking about the subject directly, and not just in passing. While it's not phrased that way in the guideline, I also think of significance in terms of the number of sources, since "multiple sources are generally expected." However, each of those sources need to contain significant coverage in the sense that it's used in the guideline. How reliable are these sources, as it pertains to this particular subject? Reliability is necessary for the information to be verifiable, for one, by ensuring the needed "editorial integrity," which as far as I know can only be achieved in a secondary source. I also consider independence from the subject as being a subset of reliability; there's a reason why primary sources cannot be used to establish notability.

• Specific notability guidelines (SNG)

• There are times when the general notability guideline isn't the best fit. In some disciplines, there are additional signals that a subject should be presumed notable, such as an academic winning a Nobel Prize or holding a named chair at Yale. Many specific guidelines include a list of criteria, of which only one is required to establish notability, such as an astrononmical object being visible to the naked eye. On the other hand, the guidelines for events and sports, for example, do not have any such absolutes. What makes them important to the project is the fact that they lay out ways to find sources that might be missed by an editor who doesn't have special knowledge of that subject's reliable sources. In those cases, the specific guideline doesn't replace the general one entirely.
• Organizational and company notability and any other SNGs that relate to areas of patrol interest
• This and web are definitely of interest to me because I had a brief, distasteful period of writing marketing material, and seeing that kind of prose always makes me want to dig a little deeper into the sources. These articles often have quite a few non-notable sources together with a number that are self-published. Since independent, reliable sources are beyond the power of most marketing employees to create, they tend to rely on more text and less information if they are trying to obscure the actual notability of the subject.

• WP:RS

• Sources that are reliable are generally those for which there is evidence that the information provided is going to be accurate. This evidence tends to be a robust editorial review process. A solid reputation can result from a solid editorial process, and a poor reputation could be a sign that that process is, or is becoming, a weaker and less reliable one. Context is important, though: the A.V Club might be a reliable source for biographical information about Brian May, but one might not want to search there for a discussion of May's work in zodiacal dust clouds. "Multiple" always means more than one, but precisely how many more is going to depend on the reliability of each of the sources presented. Overall, it's easier to determine if academic sources are reliable, because academics tend to cite sources that they find useful, which establishes how broadly a given source is accepted by the authors' peers.

• Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?

• I'd begin by scanning the text to determine if speedy deletion can be eliminated, which given the narrowness of those criteria will probably be true. I would then check to make sure it's not eligible for BLPPROD for being unsourced, and determine if it passes the appropriate notability guideline whether it's a biography or not. If none of those are issues, I'd tag and categorize as needed and then I'd look through the full NPP flow chart to make sure I hadn't missed any steps. If anything gets at all dicey, I'd turn to a more experienced patroller to double-check before I made a decision on marking it reviewed.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (pt. 2)

• Assume good faith

• This is essential for the functioning of Wikipedia. This site has a lot to encourage bad faith and bad moods, including a vast and bureaucratic culture, and a reliance on writing alone for communication. As the English Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites on the internet, there's also going to be a lot of editors trying to make improvements in a very complex language, which may not be their first. Without an explicit assumption of good faith, I imagine Wikipedia would have imploded years ago. In practice, assuming good faith requires slowing down, reading deeply, and exhibiting patience. That can include taking the time (and it may be a lot of time) to back up observations with diffs as evidence. There is no deadline, and walking away from the computer can do wonders for one's perspective.

• Biographies of living people

• We must be especially cautious when writing about living people because of the outsized impact that Wikipedia have on the internet. These are often the first links turned up in search results, and visitors may not understand how to evaluate sources for reliability. The policy essential lays out there are no shortcuts in these cases: it's not okay to let an unverified statement slide if it has even a whiff of contentiousness. In addition to affirming what exists in other policies, this one is explicit While articles generally might avoid a speedy deletion with a simple assertion of notability, a biography of a living person can be proposed for deletion if it lacks at least one verifiable source to back that up. This is especially true when it comes to people with little or no notability of their own.

• Conflicts of interest (including undisclosed paid editing)

• Conflict of interest has a high correlation with poor editing practice, such as introducing suspicious sources and ignoring the neutral point of view. Paid editing is perhaps the most unambigous form of conflict of interest. That same kind of bias can exist without there being a conflict of interest; a zealous fan of a band could make edits every bit as problematic as that same band's manager. Conflict of interest is a description of a relationship, and disclosing that relationship can save a lot of aggravation and time spent by all those involved. Sticking to reliable sources and accurately summarizing their contents is what's needed in all Wikipedia articles.

• Copyright

• Text and images in Wikipedia articles use a creative commons license. In general, any added content must either be original writing or attributable to a source that's either similarly licensed or in the public domain. There are limited fair-use exceptions.

• Hoaxes

• Hoaxes (as opposed to article about hoaxes) are just a sneakier form of vandalism. They might include fake references intended to appear verifiable (but which would fail any verification attempted) or a mix of verifiable and fake sources designed to help the hoax escape discovery. Hoaxes are not a criterion for speedy deletion; articles of this type have to be proposed for deletion or referred to afd. Speedy deletion criteria are deliberately narrow to allow an individual adminstrator

• Attack pages

• Blatant attack pages do qualify for speedy deletion; we have to protect living people from Wikipedia being used as a weapon against them. It's only an attack if the sourcing doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, however. There are a lot of very unpleasant facts that are verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Zippybonzo It's been a longer week than I'd hoped for, but I have finished part two.~TPW 19:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@True Pagan Warrior No problem, just take your time, I'm off and on WP at the moment, and it's more of a chug along at your own pace and then I'll chug along at my own pace. - Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I figured you might feel that way. Should I wait for you to chug along before I start chugging again, into part 3? ~TPW 13:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have jumped ahead and powered through parts 3-5. Let me know when you think I'm ready for the next section. ~TPW 18:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Communications (pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related. Also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Disputes and consensus.

• Discussions with creators of new pages

• Editing Wikipedia is technically available to all, but navigating all of the policies and guidelines can be incredibly complex. Despite advancements to make the interface easier, the technical aspects can be overwhelming, too. It's essential to assume good faith with creators of new pages, and to remember that this can be an incredibly frustrating process.
• Template notifications vs manually notification/discussion
• I'm fond of templates because they are developed through consensus, but that's generally a consensus of editors who may have forgotten what it's like to be new. This is a good opportunity to use "preview" first, or to take advantage of the comment fields in twinkle, to ensure that the meaning is clear.
• Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions
• While there are egregious examples when it comes to tone, how written words are received is largely dependent on the what's going on in the head of the reader. It's not enough not to bite newcomers; you have to be prepared for them to take a swipe the way an injured animal might, even if you think you worded a message politely. Knowledge of the policies and guidelines is going to help, but quoting them word for word might not because 1) not everyone has the patience to read that much and 2) any site where "tendentious" is a common word isn't a site that's written in easily-digestible language. Clarity is going to help a lot more than precision.
• Wikilove/positive comments
• Positive reinforcement can get editors through a rough patch, and getting editors through a rough patch can keep them contributing. Patrolling new pages is an opportunity to keep the volunteer numbers up for this amazing project.

• Warning templates

• Warnings are necessary from time to time, but in the context of a new page review I would be cautious. When I do use them I avoid changing the text because these templates are vetted for their wording and I would rather not make an administrator's job harder by altering them. Including additional text for clarification may be appropriate, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion (pt. 4)

• Articles for deletion

• While this can be stressful for article creators who have a sense of ownership, this really is the best process for deletion because it's driven by consensus and can result in an article being improved instead. While not everything belongs on Wikipedia, articles for deletion ensures that appropriate articles aren't removed arbitrarily. I appreciate that there are particular spots in the NPP flowchart that indicate when nominating for deletion is the best course of action.
• BEFORE nominating
• This step exists to ensure that notable topics aren't considered just because they don't happen to have the best sources or writing at the moment. A suitable search to determine if sources exist is the bare minimum expected before a deletion nomination. In a sense, most of the process of patrolling new pages falls under this heading.

• PROD and BLPPROD

• Proposed deletion is intended for uncontroversial issues; any objection is sufficient to cancel it. An article may only be proposed for deletion once, but nominating an article for deletion is still possible if an objection is raised to that proposal. For biographies of living persons the proposal is a bit stronger: it's appropriate if there are no sources whatsoever, even if there is potential controversy. Objection in this case has a higher bar; the editor must add a reliable source, or the tag may be readded to the article. This is to protect living people from potentially defamatory content.

• WP:Soft delete

• Soft deletion allows for the possibility of undeletion. These requests can be made if the deletion discussion received little input, or if the deletion was in response to a proposal. Depending on the circumstances, the article can either be returned to mainspace or moved to userspace.

• WP:SOFTSP

• A redirect to another Wikimedia project, to be used when it's likely that the article will be recreated but it's also likely that it will never be able to be fleshed out into an encyclopedia article at all. This allows for the user searching the term to find something that will point to the appropriate site.

• Speedy deletion

• These criteria are intentionally narrow, because the result of being speedy is that as few as one or two editors are involved (one to nominate, and an administrator to perform the deletion). The criteria are never broadly construed; if they don't fit or it's declined, then another of the deletion processes must be considered.

Reviewing procedures (pt. 5)

• Improvement tagging

• Tagging articles is either a very useful way to collaborate, or an infuriating waste of time; which one depends on the tag, the level of detail, and also the state of mind and point of view of the editor reviewing the tag. I find them an extremely helpful shorthand, but there is no question that they can be too vague if they aren't supported by a useful edit summary or talk page discussion. I'm mindful that patrolling new pages should serve as a reminder to be abundantly clear.

• Categorizing

• I have not delved deeply into categorization, and I see that there's a lot of nuance to master. Categories follow all the familiar practices such as choosing neutral phrases and avoiding unnecessary capitalization, but when adding categorires I'm going to have to spend some time identifying the best ones. I'll certainly be suspicious that I missed something if I need to create a category, and will look for a second opinion before taking that step because the tree system seems quite full already. This will have to be more of a focus when I am reviewing new pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

Before you begin, read the Notability in a nutshell banner at the top of this page, study it and think hard about the message it is sending. Read it again. If you are certain about your review re: the articles in this trial, please do not hesitate to take action as you would normally do as a bona fide patroller.

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. The articles I've chosen are unreviewed, but it is possible they will have been reviewed by the time you get to them, so it is crucial to begin your reviews as quickly as possible. Feel free to tag, copy edit and/or find & cite sources as necessary - take action as you would if you were reviewing them for NPP.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Discussion

Evaluation

Once I have completed the evaluation and you have passed the course, you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, and add a link to this review.

Tips & scripts

• User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool – it adds a small linked menu bar on the top right side of article pages as follows: [ History * Log * Filter * Talk Page * Notice * NPP Flowchart ]
• User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft – important script that is used to WP:DRAFTIFY articles (move to draft space), including cleanup and author notification.
• Wikipedia:New pages patrol is the foundation on which we operate. Add the link to your bookmarks menu for easy access.
• User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
• User:Headbomb/unreliable – another somewhat useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors –
• User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.

NPP Forums

• WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers
• Discord - where the NPP team hangs out.

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!