User:Bellerophon/Adoption/Selene Scott

Selene Scott (talk · contribs)

First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed: Grade A

First Assignment: The Five Pillars Are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. They are summarized in the form of five "pillars": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. Respect copyright laws, and do not plagiarize sources. Non-free content is allowed under fair use, but strive to find free alternatives to any media or content that you wish to add to Wikipedia. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree with them. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,828,444 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected. Discussion Hi Selene, this is your adoption page! This is where I will post your assignments as you progress. This section (the discussion section) is an area where you can ask me questions if you need help. You first assignment is above. Please read through this information to gain an understanding of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. You will notice that some words or terms appear as blue links. If you click on the blue links, they will take you to pages that further explain these words or terms. Many of these links point to important Wikipedia policies. Once you have had enough time to read through the information above, post a message here to let me know you have finished and are ready to move on. I will then post a series of questions for you to answer, on The Five Pillars. These will be posted below this section. Good Luck! Pol430 talk to me 17:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I have read through them and will continue to. Go ahead and fire some questions at me! "Selene Scott (talk)" Hi Selene, did you know that you can add a colon at the beginning of a line, to indent the text? This has the benefit of making text 'cascade', it's very helpful on talk pages to make conversations easier to follow. If the post before you used a colon to indent their text, you should use two. The next person would use three, and so on... Also, adding your signature to posts is easy; just add 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will add your signature and a date/time stamp once you click 'save page'. You can find a quick reference guide to wikipedia 'code' at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. Pol430 talk to me 10:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Note: Good work on your first assignment Selene. Have a read through my comments and let me know when you are ready for assignment two. P.S. I know I just spent ages telling you about using colons. But you only need to use them during discussions (like this one). When answering the questions, please just put your answer on the same line as the :'''Answer''': text. Sorry for not explaining that earlier. Pol430 talk to me 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC) :) got it! "Selene Scott (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)" I'm pleased that I did well on the first test. I did find my way to 'peacock' terms, and you are correct that I was trying to find instances of those types of phrases within the article. What you said about verifiability makes it a bit clearer, thank you. I will hit the links for consensus and oversight. I am ready to continue. "Selene Scott (talk)" Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. The first 'pillar' talks about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Take at look at the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damp Proofing And Rising damp In The UK. This is a pending submission, please do not edit it. Just read through it and tell me if you think what has been written is suitable for Wikipedia and why? (ignore any other issues like references and notability—just focus on the style of writing) Answer: I would say this is indiscriminant information, not clearly defined. Review: Yes, that's a pretty accurate analysis. If it was written slightly better, it might be considered an 'essay' — which are also unsuitable for Wikipedia. 2. Considering the second 'pillar' is about neutrality. Give some examples of 'Peacock' terms or words. Answer: The article lacks good definition. An article should not advocate or include opinion. article states "there are a number of issues" then goes on to list them in a bias and opinionated manner. "a system was designed in Holland that proved"-this is advocating. Review: I was actually just asking for general examples of peacock words, rather than asking you to look for them in that example. Sorry for not making that clearer. The purpose of the question was to see if you could find your way to WP:PEACOCK, which it sounds like you have, so you passed that test :). 3. Imagine you come across an article that is sourced only to internet blogs. Are blogs reliable sources and why? Answer: Blogs are an individuals record of informal speech. They are not sources that can be used as a citation since they are not verifiable. Blogs may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but use caution because the blogs may not have had to undergo fact checking. Review: Good answer! Although, blogs can sometimes be used to 'verify' facts in an article — see WP:NEWSBLOG. You are correct that, generally speaking, blogs are not considered reliable sources. 4. Explain what the notion of 'verifiability' applies to? Answer: "Verifiability" means that you must include a verifiable source to any material that is quoted, challenged or likely to be challenged. A source is the subject itself, its creator, or its publisher. It must be a published work by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Academic and peer-reviewed publications, publications from newspapers, university textbooks,books published by respected publishing houses, magazines,and journals. Review: That's a good overview of what constitutes a reliable source! However, consider that an article consists of 3 main component parts: 1) The content: This is the actual body-text of the article. I.e. what has actually been written about the subject of the article. 2) The formatting: This is the bit that makes all articles stick to similar layout. Things like section titles, infoboxes, text formatting etc. 3) The references: These are the sources that have been placed in the article to 'back-up' what someone has written in the content. The notion of 'verifiability' applies only to the content. Whatever has been written about the subject must be 'verifiable'; that is to say, we must be able to 'check' that what has been written is supported by the the references. In summary: references must be 'reliable', content must be 'verifiable'. Does that make sense? 5. Imagine that you come across a new article created by a new editor. You decide to do a minor copyedit 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? Answer: No one owns the materials that they edit or create on Wikipedia, it is public domain. I would try and quote the Wiki polices to the user as an explanation of why I felt I had the right to edit their material, but I would also tell them positive things about what they wrote and try to keep the peace. Review: That's a great answer! Particularly, the part about giving them positive feedback. You obviously have the right mentality to do well on Wikipedia :). Material on Wikipedia is not quite public domain, but we will cover that in more detail during the 'copyright' assignment, later in the course. You are correct that nobody 'owns' a Wikipedia page, not even their own userpage, and other editors are free to edit it, provided the edit is constructive, and there is a reason to do it. Well done! 6. If two editors have a disagreement over an article, how should they try and resolve it (in the first instance)? Answer: They should discuss it on the talk page and try to work it out themselves. Sometimes a third party, informal mediation can help resolve. There are different levels of dispute resolution within Wikipedia. Review: Good answer, Spot on! In the first instance, editors should discuss things on a talk page and try to reach consensus. 7. Considering the fourth pillar is about how you behave to other editors, what's the basic rule of the 'no personal attacks' policy? Answer: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack" but certain statements are never acceptable such as:Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious,sexual, ethnic, political, etc. No 'outing' a person as to their real identity. No comparing to Nazi's, Hitler, Manson, or other such infamous personality's. . Rule of thumb: comment on the content, not the contributor. Review: Good answer! "comment on the content, not the contributor." is what I was looking for. Some good additional points covered, well done! Curveball question for extra points: You come across the user page of a new user. It contains their real, full name, their date of birth, their full home address and their mobile telephone number. They also write a little about themselves, saying they are a 10 year old boy and like football, playing x-box and hanging out in Green Park on Sundays. What should you do about this? Answer: I would refer it to administrators to deal with, for the person's protection. Review: The curveball question is designed to be tough. You have given a good, sensible answer! In this case, it is not quite correct. Wikipedia takes child protection very seriously, it also takes the publishing is personal information very seriously (as you have already touched on in 'outing'). In this case, we are dealing with the issue of personal details of child, being published on Wikipedia. User pages are indexed by internet search engines, meaning that potentially, the details of that child could appear in search engine results to millions of people around the world. In cases like this, we need to ensure that information is removed as quickly as possible, without drawing attention to it. Because of this, we would not 'post' about an incident like this on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In fact, you should not communicate with anyone 'on Wiki' about it (to avoid drawing attention). It is not sufficient to simply 'blank' the page, because the information would still be visible in the page history. In cases like this we need the help of an oversighter. Oversighters are highly trusted users (who are also administrators or foundation staff members), that can remove information from public view and even beyond the view of administrators. In situations like this, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight — which basically involves sending an email to the oversight team, drawing their attention to the page in question. The oversight email address is monitored 24hrs a day and is a secure, private means of contacting an oversighter. Summary Great work Selene, you have demonstrated a very good understanding of most parts of the five pillars. Please read over my comments, and let me know when you are ready to move on to assignment two. I have marked your performance in this assignment as Grade A. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second Assignment: Notability guideleines - Completed: Grade A

Second Assignment: Notability guidelines Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines that cover everything from the standards that articles should adhere to, to how editors should behave. When it comes to editing articles, there are a handful of policies that are particularly relevant. General notability When it comes to editing existing articles, most of the relevant policies are covered in The Five Pillars, which you have already learnt about. When it comes to creating a new article, there are additional and very important policies that must be considered—in addition to The Five Pillars. These are the notability guidelines. For an article to stand in its own right, as an independent article, the subject of that article must be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Generally, notability is established by evidencing that the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. See the breakdown below for further explanation. Subject specific notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) Wikipedia:Notability (books) Wikipedia:Notability (events) Wikipedia:Notability (films) Wikipedia:Notability (music) Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Wikipedia:Notability (web) Discussion This assignment concerns the notability guidelines. Take some time to read through the text above and I will post your questions within the next 24hrs. Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 22:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. Are any and all reliable sources (broadly construed) suitable for conferring notability, or are there additional requirements? Answer: Yes, there are additional requirements. Significant coverage in reliable sourcesthat are independent of the subject.Several references about the subject are required, not just passing mention. Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Review: Correct. Perfect answer. 2. If a company is notable enough for Wikipedia, is the person who owns the company also notable enough for Wikipedia? Explain your answer. Answer: There are no guarantees within criteria as to the suitability of a subject to be considered notable. Just because the company may be notable, that does not mean that its owner is notable enough to have a separate article written on them. Review: That's right, notability is not inherited (in any sense of the term...) 3. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer, you find an article submission about an NGO that helps to feed starving children in Africa. The person who created it leaves a note on the submission saying that it should be accepted into Wikipedia because it is for a good cause. You examine the submission and find that it is quite well written, but it has no references and falls short of the notability criteria at WP:CORP. What do you do? Answer: Just because its for a good cause does not make it suitable to be included in an Encyclopedia. I would politely decline the article, but I would state that if the article could be brought up to speed as to the references and meeting some of the criteria, that we would give it a second consideration for inclusion. This answer is a common sense answer, I had trouble finding exact reference to the subject. Review: Good answer, common sense is good, I like common sense. In fact, it's policy! 4. Imagine you are an AfC reviewer again, you find an article submission about a journalist. It has 20 references that all point to columns in The Huffington Post that discuss him in detail. On closer inspection you see that the subject of the article was the author of those columns (I.e. he wrote them). Is he considered notable? Answer: Not necessarily. He would need multiple instances of articles written about him not by him. And the articles would have to come from some other sources, not the Huffington Post. Review: Correct. 5. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yellow Emerald Mining Company, is the subject of the submission notable? Explain you answer. Answer: I would say that the subject has not had significant coverage from secondary sources. One of the references was from a blog page and I would consider the writing to be and incomplete, very brief stub. Review: Correct, the two sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Only one of those sources actually mentions the company by name, and only mentions it once. I see that I somehow combined the answers and questions together. I don't know how that happened or how to correct it. It looks okay here.? I fixed it, yaa! Don't worry, good work and fixing any display issues. Summary Very well done Selene, you have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of notability. I have marked your performance in the assignment as Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 19:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third Assignment: Copyright - Completed: Grade C*

This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Third Assignment: Copyright This is a very important assignment; because this is the only one where failure to adhere exactly to policy can result in an indefinite block from editing the encyclopedia! Glossary There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms. Term Explanation Attribution The identification of work by an author Copyright symbol © - used to show work is under copyright Creative Commons Creative Commons is an organisation that provides licensing information aimed at achieving a mutual sharing and flexible approach to copyright. Compilation A new work created as a combination of other works, which may be derivative works. Derivative work A work which is derived from another work, e.g. a photograph of a painting Disclaimer A statement which limits rights or obligations FACT Federation Against Copyright Theft Fair use Circumstances where copyright can be waived. These are strict and specific to the country. Copyright infringement Use of work under copyright without permission Intellectual property Creations of the mind, under which you do have rights. License The terms under which the copyright owner allows his/her work to be used. Non-commercial Copying for personal use - not for the purpose of buying or selling. Public domain Works that either cannot be copyrighted or the copyright has expired Image Copyright on Wikipedia What you can upload to commons Copyright is a serious problem on a free encyclopedia. To remain free, any work that is submitted must be released under the WP:CC-BY-SA License and the WP:GFDL. You can read the actual text under those links, but the gist is that you agree that everything you write on the encyclopedia can be shared, adapted or even sold and all you get in return is attribution. So, there are basically two types of images on wikipedia. Free images Non-free images Free images are those which can be freely used anywhere on Wikipedia. A free image may be either public domain, or released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Free images can be used in any article where their presence would add value. As long as there is a consensus among the editors working on an article that the image is appropriate for the article, it's safe to say that it can remain in an article. Free images can even be modified and used elsewhere. Non-free images, however, are subject to restrictions. Album covers and TV screenshots are two types of images that are typically non-free. They may belong to a person or organization who has not agreed to release them freely to the public, and there may be restrictions on how they are used. You have to meet ALL of Wikipedia's strict conditions in order to use them. (Non free content criteria) In practise, if it comes out of your head - is entirely your own work, you have the right to make that release. If you got it from somewhere else, you don't. That doesn't mean it can't be used though. You can in these situations If the work has already been released under a compatible or less restrictive license. If the work is in the "public domain" - Very old items, 150 years is a good benchmark If the work is not free in certain circumstances (Non free content criteria summary below, but actually a lot more detailed) There must be no free equivalent We must ensure that the owner will not lose out by us using the work Use as little as possible (the smallest number of uses and the smallest part possible used) Must have been published elsewhere first Meets our general standards for content Meets our specific standards for that area Must be used. (we can't upload something under fair use and not use it) Must be useful in context. This is a sticking point, if it's not actually adding to the article, it shouldn't be used. Can only be used in article space The image page must attribute the source, explain the fair use for each article it is used and display the correct tag It's a lot, isn't it! Well, let's have a look at the non free stuff. I'm going to suggest two different images. One, a tabloid picture of celebrity actress Nicole Kidman, and the other, the cover of the album Jollification by the Lightning Seeds. The tabloid picture of Nicole Kidman will instantly fail #1, because there can be a free equivalent—anyone can take a picture of Nicole. The album cover on the other hand is unique - there's no free equivalent. It's discussed in the article too, so showing it will be useful in context (#8). The copy we show should be shrunk, so that it can't be used to create pirate copies (#2). I couldn't put it on my userpage though (or even here) (#9) Here are a few more examples: I could upload a publicity picture of Eddie Izzard. Now, the photographer holds the copyright to that particular picture of the hilarious man. I can claim fair use, but the claim would be invalid because you could just as easily go to a performance Izzard is giving and take a picture of him yourself. (That's what happened here) The publicity picture is considered replaceable fair use and so cannot be used on Wikipedia. Person X could upload a picture of the Empire State Building from a marketing kit they distributed. This image would likely be copyrighted, and so they claim fair use. But I happen to have been to New York and have a picture of the ESB. I upload that instead and release it into the public domain. The first, copyrighted picture, is also replaceable, and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia. For the article on the Monterey Bay Aquarium, I want to upload an image of their logo (visible in no great detail here). I go to their website, take a copy of their logo, and upload it to Wikipedia. This fair use is allowable, because no matter where or how they display their logo, it'll be under the same copyright. Since the simple art of scanning or taking a picture of a piece of work is not enough to justify my ownership of the rights to the image, there is no way to obtain a free version of the logo. So, if it meets all the other criteria as well, it can be used on Wikipedia. Commons When people refer to Commons on wikipedia, they're generally referring to Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free material. Images on Commons can be linked directly to wikipedia, like that picture just to the right and above. Now, since commons is a free repository, fair use is not permitted. It is preferable to upload free images to commons, so that they can be used by other projects. Copyright and text So we've discussed copyright and how it applies to images. Now, let's talk how it applies to text. All the principles are the same—you can only include text which has been released under CC-BY-SA. In fact, if you notice, every time you click edit, it says right below the edit window. Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Now, let's think about the non-free content criteria apply to text. "No free equivalent" means that you will never be able to license text under it (except for direct overt quotes) as you can re-write it in your own words to create an equivalent. You always, always, always have to write things in your own words or make it VERY clear that you have not. Discussion This one is a heavy subject Selene, take your time, there is no deadline. Pol430 talk to me 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC) "Fair use images must be used in at least one article (not "orphaned")"? One article in what? Wikipedia or something else? And what is "article 'namespace'? I saw the term highlighted once but lost where that was. "Selene Scott (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)" Yes it means Wikipedia article. Article namespace is also referred to as the 'mainspace'. You can find out more at WP:NAMESPACE. Pol430 talk to me 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I'm going to go slowly through this chapter as I just started a new job."Selene Scott (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)" No problem, take your time. Pol430 talk to me 10:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Hey there, well lets call this a wrap. I'm ready for review. Clearly there are some aspects which I don't understand too well."Selene Scott (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)" Well done Selene! that was a tough assignment, but you've made it! Have a read through my comments and let me know when you are ready to move on. Pol430 talk to me 18:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC) Well, at least I passed. Cheers! That Gin & Tonic was needed right about now!"Selene Scott (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)" Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Name at least two situations in which it is appropriate to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons. Answer: When you want to publish your own image, you can release it into the public domain. And Fair use is allowable for logo's so I would say to upload one of those would be an appropriate reason. Review: 1) Yes, you can upload an image of your own to commons and either release it into the public domain or license it under a 'free license'. 2) No, you cannot upload images to commons under a fair use rationale. Fair use images must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. 2. What sort of media should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia, rather than commons? Answer: Free images which may be either public domain or under a free licence such as CC-By-SA. Non free images can be uploaded as long as the fair-use policy is strictly adhered to. Review: 1) Although you can upload media directly to Wikipedia under a free license, Wikipedia would prefer it if people uploaded such images to Wikimedia Commons. Very cleverly, if an image is hosted on Commons, you can still link to it in a Wikipedia article, just like you would if the file was hosted on Wikipedia directly! 2) Yes, fair use media must only be uploaded directly to Wikipedia; it cannot be uploaded to Commons. 3. Can anyone reproduce Wikipedia articles elsewhere on the internet? Explain your answer. Answer: Yes, the work on Wikipedia can be shared and remixed, combined into collections and redistributed according to the CC-By-SA licence. Follow up question: Does the person reproducing the Wikipedia article have to give Wikipedia any credit? Answer: "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the C.C. license" I think this statement says that to do the above is all that is required. Review: Correct, on both counts. Good answer! 4. Can you upload a press photo of the pianist Lang Lang under a claim of fair use? Answer: Only if it couldn't be replaced by a free alternative. Review: The term 'press photo' generally means an image sourced from a media website like Getty images etc. You cannot upload these under a fair use rationale because you could quite conceivably take a photo of Lang Lang yourself, by attending one of his concerts, and upload that. Per point 1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. 5. You find an article about a company. The text of the article is a direct copy of the 'About Us' page on the company's website. The company webpage has a copyright logo at the bottom, with the words 'All rights reserved'. What should you do? Answer Either re-word it to say the same thing in different words or attribute the article to them. Review: 1) Yes, you could fundamentally re-write the article, that would eliminate the copyright violation. 2) No, attribution only applies where the content is licensed under a 'free license' that requires attribution (like Wikipedia pages released under CC-By-SA). 'All rights reserved' means exactly that. The copyright holder (usually the creator) holds all the rights to the material and you have no right to reproduce it. The correct answer was that: It is a copyright violation, it should be tagged for speedy deletion as such. We will cover deletion in the next assignment. 6. You find another article about an organization. You notice that the text of the article is basically identical to the organization's webpage. The editor who created the article has changed a few words, but the text is basically a reproduction of what is written on the organization's home page. The organization's home page does not contain any information about copyright, nor does it contain a 'copyleft' statement. Is the article a copyright violation? Answer: It wouldn't violate copyright but isn't that what they call plagiarism, copying someone else's work? Review: You're right, it is a form of plagiarism, called 'close paraphrasing'. If the article were a direct copy of the company's home page then it would still be a clear copyright violation. This is because, even though there is no copyright info on the company's home page, it is a matter of Wikipedia policy to presume that copyright exists unless is explicitly disclaimed. In the absence of copyright information, the default position is to assume that 'All rights are reserved'. Most webpages do contain copyright information at the bottom of the page. Where 'close paraphrasing is concerned, it starts getting more complicated. It depends on how close the paraphrased text is to the origional. The article needs to be investigated thoroughly by an editor who is experienced in copyright investigations. We won't cover this here, if you ever come across this problem, seek help. 7. Is it a violation of copyright to copy and paste text from a facebook page, to use in a Wikipedia article? Explain your answer. Answer: Not of copyright but that kind of context can't be verified or attributed can it? Review: It is a copyright violation. The content of a Facebook page is presumed to be subject to copyright, and the person who created the Facebook page is presumed to be the copyright holder. 8. Under what conditions is it acceptable to reproduce copyrighted text in a Wikipedia article? Answer: If you know who owns it you must ask permission to use the material. You must explain to them that by allowing it, it would then fall under the bylaws of the CC-BY-SA license and what that entails. It is recommended that you try to obtain dual licensing from them that also includes GNU Free Documentation License. Review: Good answer but if the text is released to Wikipedia, it is no longer considered 'copyrighted' -- in the traditional sense. 'Free licensing' statements are sometimes called 'copyleft' statements. The correct answer is that copyrighted text can be published on Wikipedia, only as a direct quotation. It must also be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. 9. Explain the conditions for uploading a copyrighted company logo, for use in the Wikipedia article about the same company. Answer: This fair use is acceptable because no matter where or how the logo is displayed it will be under the same copyright. There is no way to obtain a free version of the logo. Review: Correct, well done! 10. Curveball question for extra points: Considering that Wikipedia can be accessed and edited globally, which country's copyright laws are generally used and upheld on English Wikipedia? Be specific about the legal jurisdiction. Answer: I remember reading about it but for the life of me I can't find where that was. I believe that the country was the US. Review: Correct! I have just realized that I erroneously asked you give a specific legal jurisdiction. However, I believe US copyright law is a federal matter and therefore the simple answer of "US" is perfectly correct. Summary Good work Selene, this was a tough subject but you have got through it! You still seem a bit unsure of some areas, but that is to be expected at this stage in your 'Wiki career'. You have shown sufficient grasp of the basics of copyright to pass this assignment. Also, because you got the curveball question right, you get a star! I have marked your performance in this assignment as Grade C* The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fourth Assignment: Deletion - Completed: Grade B*

Fourth Assignment: Deletion Policies and Process Deletion of an article, or any other type of Wikipedia page, occurs when the page would require a fundamental re-write to conform with Wikipedia's accepted standards for content of the encyclopedia. There are many reasons why a page would be deleted. Only administrators can delete pages, but any editor can 'tag' a page for deletion. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, attack pages, patent nonsense, or gibberish Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Redundant or otherwise useless templates Categories representing overcategorization Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established policy for that namespace. Any other content which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) The fastest way a page can be deleted is through speedy deletion. If a page meets at least one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, it must be tagged for speedy deletion, the creator of the page should be notified, and the page be deleted as quickly as possible. Here is a list of all general criteria and important article criteria. For a complete list please view WP:CSD. General criteria Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.) General criterion 1 (G1) – Patent Nonsense. Pages that meet this criterion consist entirely of incoherent text or gibberish and lack any meaningful content or history. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not in English, vandalism/hoaxes, poor writing, poorly translated, or basically anything that is coherent. It also doesn't apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-nonsense}} G2 – Test Pages. Pages meant entirely to test Wikipedia editing. Like G1, this criterion does not apply to pages in the sandbox or in the user namespace. Tag these with {{db-test}} G3 – Vandalism and Hoaxes. Pages that are pure vandalism, such as blatant and obvious misinformation (hoaxes) and redirects created from page-move vandalism cleanup. Tag these with either {{db-vandalism}} or {{db-hoax}} G4 – Recreation of Pages Deleted via a XfD. Pages that are sufficiently identical to another that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. This criterion does not apply to pages that are not identical at all to the deleted page, pages in which the deletion was overturned as a result of a deletion review, or if the page was deleted through proposed deletion (PROD) or CSD. Tag these with {{db-repost}} G5 – Banned Users. A page created by a block- or ban- evading sockpuppet in violation of the master's block or ban with no substantial edits by others. This criterion does not apply to pages that have substantial edits by others. This criterion should also not be applied to transcluded templates. Tag these with {{db-banned|banned user name}} G6 – Housekeeping. A page that needs to be deleted to perform non-controversial housekeeping tasks. Tag these with one of these templates: {{db-g6|rationale=reason}}, {{db-move|page to be moved|reason}}, {{db-copypaste|page to be moved}}, {{db-xfd|votepage=link to closed deletion discussion}}, {{db-maintenance}}, {{db-house}}, {{db-disambig}} G7 – Author Request. The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith by either tagging the page or completely blanking it. Tag with {{db-author}} G8 – Dependent on Non-Existent Page. A page that is dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as a talk page with no corresponding subject page, subpages with no parent page, an image page with no image, or a redirect to a bad target, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles. Tag with one of these: {{db-g8}}, {{db-talk}}, {{db-subpage}}, {{db-imagepage}}, {{db-redirnone}}, {{db-templatecat}} G10 – Attack Pages. A page that threatens or disparages its subject or some other entity, and serves no other valid purpose. Attack pages include libel, legal threats, and a biography of a living person that is completely negative in tone and unsourced. Attack pages should be deleted when there's no neutral version in the history to revert to. Tag attack pages with {{db-attack}} and tag negative unsourced BLP's with {{db-negublp}} G11 – Spam/advertising-only pages. A page that serves no other purpose but to promote its subject or some other entity. Spam pages should be deleted if it would take a fundamental re-write in order to be encyclopedic. This criterion does not apply if the page describes its subject from a neutral point of view. Tag these with {{db-spam}} G12 – Copyright Violations. Pages that are a direct copy of copyrighted material with no assertion of the content being in the public domain or used under a claim of fair us. This criterion does not apply to pages that have non-infringing content in the history; consider posting to WP:CP if that is the case. Tag these with {{db-copyvio|url=source URL}} Articles I have only listed the most important article criteria here. These criteria apply only to articles. This means Articles for Creation submissions do not count. Article Criterion 1 (A1) – No Context. A very short article that does not feature enough context to identify the subject of the article. It is advised that new page patrollers wait at least ten minutes before tagging this criterion. Although its purpose is to avoid WP:BITE, the page creator may not have finished working on the article in the first revision. Tag these with {{db-nocontext}} A3 – No Content. Any article other than a disambiguation page or redirect that features only external links, category tags or "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help desk, chat-like comments, or a gallery of images. An article that has context but is very short does not apply under this criterion. Be very careful when tagging this criterion on newly created articles. Tag these with {{db-nocontent}} A7 – No Indication of Importance. A page about an individual, organization (excluding educational institutions), musician or band, club, or web content that does not state why it is significant. The criterion does not apply to albums (A9), books, or software. Do not confuse this criterion with "not notable". The criterion does not apply if the article makes a credible assertion of notability, even if the assertion is not supported by a reliable source. If the notability is unclear, you can either propose the article for deletion or list it at articles for deletion. Tag with either {{db-person}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-inc}}, {{db-web}}, or {{db-animal}} A9 – No Indication of Importance (Albums). An article about a musical recording or album that does not indicate why it is significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or has been deleted. Both conditions must be true to tag under this criterion, so if the artist's article exists, this criterion does not apply. Tag with {{db-album}} A10 – Duplicate of Existing Topic. A recently created article with no page history that duplicates an existing topic, and that does not improve information within any existing articles on the subject, and when the page title is not a plausible redirect to another page. Tag with {{db-same|other page title}} Proposed deletion (PROD) If a page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion but you feel that it can be deleted without any controversy, you can propose it for deletion via WP:PROD. To propose an article for deletion, tag the article with {{subst:prod|reason}} and then notify the page creator. There is only one disadvantage to proposed deletion. Anyone, even the page creator, can prevent the proposed deletion by removing the template. If you still believe the article should be deleted if that happens, open an Articles for Deletion debate, which I'll explain about below. If the tag is not removed after seven days, the proposed deletion will expire and so the page will be deleted by an administrator. PROD of unsourced BLP's A biography of a living person that does not feature any references needs to be proposed for deletion. Do this by tagging the article with {{subst:blpprod}}. Unlike regular PROD the tag can only be removed after there is at least one reference to a reliable source. The page is deleted if the tag is not removed after ten days, or if there are still no references. Deletion discussions (XfD) Deletion discussions (XfD, stands for 'Anything for Deletion') allows Wikipedians to discuss whether an article should be deleted or not. The result of the discussion depends on consensus. Only policy based arguments are considered when the discussion is closed — Deletion discussions are not a vote. Deletion discussions last for seven days, although the duration can be extended if the consensus is not clear after a week; likewise, they can be closed early if a consensus would be clear. The template on the right shows all types of XfD's; the most common is AfD (Articles for Deletion). Cool tools Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it! Discussion Hi Selene, your next assignment is on deletion. You should find this a bit easier to get to grips with than copyright, but it can still be a fairly involved subject. Questions will be posted in 48hrs; as always there is no deadline for answering them. Take your time and good luck! Pol430 talk to me 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Okay thanks. BTW, what is the * after my grade C mean?"Selene Scott (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)" The star is awarded for correctly answering the 'curveball question'. Pol430 talk to me 19:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC) I do only average work on copyright but I get the curveball question right?!!! wow"Selene Scott (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)" Yep, you're doing well! Ok, I have added the questions for the deletion assignment, there is also a 'sort-of' practical test to complete. Have a read through and pay attention to the 'Rules' of the practical test. Complete in your own time. Good luck! Pol430 talk to me 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I'm ready for review! That was kinda fun and amusing!"Selene Scott (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)" I'm glad you enjoyed it! The examples in the practical test were mostly based on real stuff, that I have found as a new page patroller. I've moved your answers up onto the same line that you see ::'''Answer''': I know you said that everything looked bunched-up but it makes it so much easier for me to reiew if it's on the same line. It also means the Wikimarkup works properly, could you place your answers on the same line in future? I'd be very grateful. Have a read through the review and let me know when you are ready to move on. Oh, and have you installed Twinkle yet? If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just let me know and I will guide you through it. Pol430 talk to me 11:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC) I will put my answers on the same line from now on. What major point of the last chapter did I not quite grasp? Whenever I get a mark lower than an A, I suspect that there was some statement you were looking for that I didn't include in my answers( With the exception of the copyright chapter because I know there were many points I didn't quite understand). I will install Twinkle now and post again if I have any questions on its use. Thank you ! "Selene Scott (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)" It's not that you failed to grasp major points, you are doing very well! The only reason I gave a B rather than an A is more on minor misunderstandings. Such as: applying the F1 and F5 criteria to question one in the practical test. In answer to question 3 you seemed to blur the terms 'proposed' and 'discussion' in relation to page deletions -- they are two separate mechanisms for deletion. I hope you aren't discouraged by these grades? An grade B is defined as 'a good understanding of the subject matter' so you have exceeded the standard required. The purpose of the grade system is to highlight areas that you may wish to do a bit of 'extra-curricular' reading on, not to disparage you or suggest your understanding of the subject is insufficient so please don't think it's personal :) Pol430 talk to me 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC) No, I didn't take it that way. I confess to being a bit of a perfectionist which is why I wanted to know exactly what I missed a little. Your critique on the questions is actually so positive I have a hard time telling which ones I missed! But what you said here is exactly what I was looking for in this particular case! Thanks! I'm ready for assignment 5 when you are."Selene Scott (talk)" Will you be going over the use of Twinkle with me?"Selene Scott (talk)" Hi Selene, yes we will be covering the use of Twinkle a little later on. Pol430 talk to me 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please note that short yes/no answers are not acceptable. 1. According to the deletion policy, approximately how many pages does Wikipedia delete in one day? Answer: Approximately 5 thousand pages are deleted per day. Review: That's correct, I suspect that info might be slightly out of date and highly changeable. 2. What does CSD mean? Answer: Criteria for Speedy Deletion Review: Correct 3. Explain how the CSD criteria differ from other deletion processes. Answer: CSD articles can be deleted, by an Administrator, without any discussion, if they meet one or more of the criteria. For articles that don't meet the CSD, they are proposed and given the opportunity for discussion and determined by group consensus. Review: That's pretty much correct. CSD criteria are very specific, if something does not quite meet the criteria it should not be tagged for CSD. Pages that don't meet the CSD criteria but obviously need to be deleted can be PROD'd (with a rationale for deletion). If the deletion is likely to be controversial, or someone removes the PROD tag, then the page should be listed at the appropriate 'deletion discussion'. 4. What does PROD mean? Answer: It stands for 'Proposed Deletion'. Review: Correct 5. Who is allowed to remove a PROD tag? Answer: Any editor who disagrees can remove the tag. If a page gets tagged with a CSD tag, the page creator cannot remove the tag, but other editors may. Review: Correct and good additional information about CSD tags. 6. What is a BLPPROD and when can you remove a BLPPROD tag? Answer: BLPROD is 'purposed deletion of Biography of a living person. In 2010, a policy was created that requires all biography of living persons to include one reliable source that supports at least one statement in the bio. If tagged no one can remove the tag until the material is properly sourced. If it does not get sourced after 10 days it can be deleted. Review: Correct 7. How long must PRODs and BLPPRODs remain unchallenged, before they can be deleted by an administrator? Answer: If unchallenged, they can be removed by Admin in 7 days. Review: Almost, remember that BLPPRODs have to hand around for 10 days, normal PRODs for 7 days. 8. What is the difference between the CSD 'A' criteria and the CSD 'G' criteria? Answer: 'A' criteria deals with tags for Articles. 'G' criteria deals with tags under General category. Review: Correct, A criteria only apply to articles, G criteria apply to any page. The 'A' category is for Articles only while the 'G' category includes Articles and........... Curveball question. Give at least two examples of other 'namespace' that have CSD criteria associated with them. Answer: .......All other Namespace such as: user pages, talk pages, redirects, files, and test pages. Review: Yep, although there is no 'test' namespace. Practical test Please take a look at User:Pol430/Sandbox5. This page contains seven examples of new pages that may be suitable for Speedy Deletion. Please read through it and explain below which CSD criteria would apply to each example—if any! Rules: You may utilize any of the CSD 'Article' criteria and any of the CSD 'General' criteria; Except, CSD G3 (Vandalism) -- you may not use that criteria in this test, other criteria must be appropriately applied. For the purpose of the test all the examples appear on that one page, but treat each example as if it were a separate page that you had found somewhere on Wikipedia. Each of the examples gives an indication of namespace: some say 'Article' others say 'Page'. You must apply the correct criteria, according to namespace. In your answers, you may just give the correct deletion code. For example: G11. You do not have to write out the whole name or explain your answer, but feel free to do so if you really want to. Answers 1. G1,F1,F5 Review: Yes this patent nonsense with some example image markup thrown in, criteria G1 applies. The images are blank examples images, we would not delete those. The F criteria only apply in the 'File' namespace -- that is to say the page title must begin with File:. E.g. File:Example.jpg. 2. G10 Review: Yes, this is an attack page. 3. G10 Review: Yes, this is what we call a negative BLP. It can be deleted under the G10 criteria as well. 4. A7 Review: Yes, I'm sure Henry is a lovely cat, but he is not in the least bit important or significant. 5. Its useless info but on a user page. I was going to say no content but that doesn't apply. I think you got me with this one, although I thought I remembered reading something about pointless information. Review: I screwed up with this example, I should have made it clear that the example is not a userpage. In which case it would be a test edit and G2 would apply. You get full marks anyway :) 6. A1,A3 Review: Yes, I would suggest it is more appropriate to tag this example as A1 than A3. You could arguably use A3, but I suspect the reviewing admin would be happier to delete it under A1. 7. G11 Review: Yes, a very clear cut case of promotion/advertising. Summary Good work Selene, I have graded your performance in this assignment as Grade B* Pol430 talk to me 17:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution - Completed: Grade A

This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Fifth Assignment: Dispute resolution No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, and no matter how simple and obvious your changes may seem, you are very likely to end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more likely as you get into more contentious areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more evocative the subject - the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious. Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. I'm going to go through the different methods of dispute resolution there are on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking. Simple Resolution No. I'm not expecting you to back down. You obviously believe what you are saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. What you can do though is attempt to resolve the dispute. How??? I hear you ask. Firstly assume good faith, remember the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. They are not trying to deliberately damage the encyclopedia. Try to see things from their point of view and see if you can both come to a compromise. Keep calm. There's no urgency to the change you are trying to put in or take out, it will wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version there is a large chance that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Rerverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay in the top 3 sections of the pyramid to the right. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Well, this pyramid explains the different forms of disagreement. Attacks on the character of an editor is never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that. If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond you realise that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways, 1): it will address the editors argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor will be able to understand, and 2): It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, vandalism or any number of negative suggestions are going to fall into (2). If there are issues with one of these problems, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, walk away and have a cup of tea. Play a game of "racketball". Whatever you do to calm down and just not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia dispute resolution process If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution Assistance If you want someone to talk to but not necessarily step in, there is an WP:Editor Assistance notice board. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation. Third opinion You can get someone uninvolved to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another option to get a third opinion is to go to the project noticeboard associated with the article to ask for an opinion (the talk page lists which projects are associated with the article). Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP Mediation If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here. Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). There's also WP:DRN which is fairly informal but focuses more on content disputes. The editors involved with all of these processes specialise in resolving disputes. Request for Comment You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community here than a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor to be certified. Arbitration I really hope you'll never see this place in a case. It's the last resort, the community has elected its most trusted willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but try not to end up there. Reports If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong! You could be acting against consensus! But as long as you are open to the possibility and have been sticking the top 3 sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realise you are flogging a dead horse. Discussion Here is assignment 5 for you Selene, questions will follow soon. When I've thought of some ;) Pol430 talk to me 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Questions are ready Selene, just three for this assignment. However, question number 3 will be added to with 'follow-up' questions once you have answered it. There will be several follow-up questions for question 3... :) Pol430 talk to me 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 1. Imagine you have just reviewed a submission at Articles for Creation. You have decline the submission because it is about a non-notable person. A short while later, the author of the submission leaves a message at your user talk page saying: "why don't you just fuck off!" they have also undone your review of the submission which has resulted in the submission being placed back in 'pending review' status. What do you do? Answer: Well, I would try talking with the author to reach a compromise. I would direct them to the notability guidelines. I would 'assume good faith' and not follow suit with the name calling. If that failed and the author remained uncivil, I would turn to wikiquette assistance. About the fact that the revert placed it back in pending, I think I would try to resolve with discussion first. If I change it back first they will do the same and we would be edit warring. This doesn't fit RfC/U criteria Review: I should probably consider adding to this lesson, a section about warning other users. In this kind of situation, you should consider leaving a message at the other users talk page warning them against personal attacks and of the requirement to behave in a civil manner. Telling another editor to 'fuck off' is not a legitimate comment about your contributions to Wikipedia, it is a grossly uncivil personal attack. Often, new editors will submit submissions about non-notable people (living and dead), unfortunately no amount of good editing will make an unimportant person notable, so it may not be possible to meet this new editors expectations through compromise -- but ten out of ten for for trying :). 2. Imagine you add some well referenced info to an article about a living celebrity. The info details some negative media attention the celebrity received last year. The info you have added is attributed to multiple, reliable sources and is written from a neutral point of view; it is relevant to the article and is proportionate; it fully complies with WP:BLP. Not long after this, you get a message on your user talk page. It is from a newly registered editor who claims to be the legal representative of the celebrity in the article. They threaten to sue you for liable because they believe you have added negative information to their clients Wikipedia page. They state that they are going have your account traced and start legal proceedings against you. How do you react? Answer: I would stand by my edit and show that it followed and complied with all criteria of BOLP in a discussion with the user, but, until resolved I would revert the edit to the former version. Review: No need for you to revert your edit if you are sure that it did not violate any policy. If someone makes a legal threat against you, warn the user and seek assistance from an administrator -- consider posting at WP:AN/I. If the new editor is a professional lawyer, they will know better than to make arbitrary legal threats on a public internet site. Any legal problems should be properly directed to the WMF's legal counsel -- you should not have to put up with being threatened with legal action on Wikipedia. 3. You have made five edits to an article, making minor improvements. Another editor comes along and undos all your edits without leaving an edit summary to explain why. They do not leave a message at your talk page, or on the article talk page either. How do you react? Answer:This actually happened already with the edits I made to 'The Prestige' the film page. I didn't want to start edit warring. Also, the new version that was written was well written and included re-writes to some area's that I had not gotten to yet. My reason for editing the article in the first place was to try and improve it. The page as it is now written 'is improved'. I would handle this situation the same, since they were only minor edits, better just to leave it alone, rather than get into a dispute. Review: Excellent! You've rather blown my followup questions out of the water... But that's ok because you seem to have exactly the right attitude to handling disputes, so I don't think we really need to dwell on this section too much. Summary I've just realized that my questions were pretty poor for this section because the reading material I have put up does not help you with the answers to questions 1 and 2. I will revise this lesson to make it more comprehensive. You have shown a very good attitude to handling conflict Selene and you seem to have easily absorbed the information about the dispute resolution process. I have graded this assignment Grade A. Pol430 talk to me 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Oh thank God! One out of three is not good. In searching for answers to 1 and 2 I clicked every link that even remotely pertained to the subject, but was unable to find exactly what I was looking for. I was thinking 'Man these questions are hard, why can't I find the answers?" So I just ended up thinking them over and writing down what I would do if hit with the circumstances at this time. I guess in the process of trying to 'overlook, assume faith, no angry mastodon' etc,.I missed the point that says "All that considered, don't be a door mat!" to people who go ballistic right off the bat, as in 1 and 2. "Selene Scott (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)" (don't know why there is a space there, it doesn't show on here)? The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sixth Assignment: Vandalism - Completed: Grade A

This article incorporates text available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Sixth Assignment: Vandalism What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect. To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds). What is vandalism? What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases. The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks: (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→Competition with Sony and Microsoft) So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links. A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right. The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing. The next link is the article that the edit was made to. The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time. The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism. The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page. The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that. IMPORTANT WARNING IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. How to Revert Well, if you're using anything but Internet Explorer 8 and below, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE Vandalism and warnings You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read. Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first. When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a {{uw-npa}} warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a {{uw-npa4im}} warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway. The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text "{{BASEPAGENAME}} has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist. Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page. Task Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.) Discussion I don't feel like I did this right. Can we try another exercise? I like this subject, and the study material was good."Selene Scott (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)" okay check this out [1] you see where they put a promoting statement before the first sentence? that's inappropriate. So if I were to try and take that out, what would I do? I went to edit that paragraph but for some reason that sentence doesn't appear in it. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get this. So the page shows the left hand column like it was and on the right it shows the sentence was added in. Across the top of the right hand column it says rollback( ) then just rollback and then in red rollback vandal. We use those the revert edits right? So if I thought it was vandalism, I'd click rollback vandal, right? "Selene Scott (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)" Hi Selene, sorry for the lack of response I've been away for a few days, I'm back now but very jet-lagged so I'll go through this tomorrow evening (UTC) if that's ok. :) Pol430 talk to me 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC) No problem. I'd been up for about 22 hours when I first attempted the assignment so no wonder it didn't make any sense to me. I'm going over it again and should have the three answers posted shortly. "Selene Scott (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)" Okay, I'm ready for you to check these. Disregard comments above. the 'rollback' options are from Twinkle, I got that now!"Selene Scott (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)" Some questions: Why do some user names in Recent Changes appear in Red? A bold N means new article, what does a bold m mean? Hi Selene, sorry for late response (again). USer names appear in red when that user does not have a user page. Either because it has been deleted, or they never created one in the first place. Red user names are generally an indication of a very new account, but a few very experienced editors choose to not have a user page also. The bold m means that edit was marked as a minor edit, by ticking the minor edit checkbox. Rollback edits are automatically marked as minor and bot edits are often marked as minor. Pol430 talk to me 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC) See my talk page as one of the users of an edit I marked for either vandal or nonconstructive left me a message saying they disagreed. I left a short note on their talk page saying Noted. and that I'm learning and would let my mentor know."Selene Scott (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)" Noted. Not to worry, we all learn by our mistakes. That particular page is a bit of Wikipedia oddity. There will be a lot of other Wikipedians who think it should be deleted, but an almost equal number who think it should be kept. It was listed for deletion back in 2010 (see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes ) but the result was 'keep'. Pol430 talk to me 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Questions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Now that that's over with, go do your task. Have fun! (By the way, please ignore new pages, indicated by a bold "N" on the log entry.) Diff 1:[2] Why you think this is vandalism:This is a vandalism revert made by a bot. I agree that the sentence needed to be taken out. It was added in using bad grammar and the text just didn't belong shoved into that sentence. I think this would be a case of a person who didn't really intend to vandalize but who made a poor edit that did not improve the article. Yes, this was an unconstructive edit. Cluebot probably reverted that edit because it contained the words 'hitler' and 'racism' in an article that had nothing to do with either of those things. Diff 2:[3] Why you think this is vandalism:It's obvious. IP added inappropriate sentence containing sex talk. Yes, classic vandalism. Diff 3:[4] Why you think this is vandalism:I think I found one that hasn't been corrected yet. It looks like they took out a reference and added useless info in its place. I would revert this. Would that be a correct action? I wouldn't revert that as it looks like that info had some relevance to the paragraph. I would re-insert the reference and advise the user who made the edit not to remove references without good reason. I wasn't in Special Recent Changes. So here are 3 more: Diff 4:[5] Why you think its vandalism:Another revert by a bot for foul language Yes, another example of classic vandalism Diff 5:[6] Why you think its vandalism:they added in information to beginning of paragraph. I don't know what to call the type of sentence they put in. I would call that example 'patent sillyness' and would label it as a form of vandalism. Usually these kind of edits come from bored/stoned college students who think it's incredibly witty of them... Diff 6:[7] Why you think its vandalism: Flippant comment deleted. Yes, It looks like that editor was just trying to make a point -- using very poor prose. I would revert that as POV pushing or soapboxing. It's so flippant, that I would be happy to label it vandalism. Test Now that you have demonstrated you can identify vandalism, it's time to put those skills into practice! I would like to you patrol Special:Recentchanges and find 10 examples of vandalism or other unconstructive edits. Then, revert those edits using one of the 3 Twinkle rollback links. Once, you have reverted the edit, you should advise/warn the user who made it. You can also use Twinkle to warn users. By navigating to an editors user talk page, you will see a tab at the top of the page that says 'warn' clicking on this will bring up the warnings menu where you can select an appropriate warning. You can use the 'preview' link to check that the warning is the correct one, before you click submit. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout#Levels (just the levels section, ignore the rest) to find out more about warning users. Remember! Vandalism has a very specific set of definitions on Wikipedia. You can find the definitions at WP:VANDTYPES and a list of things that are not vandalism at WP:NOTVAND. You should only use the 'Vandalism' rollback link if the edit was clear-cut vandalism. For other examples of unconstructive editing, use the blue 'rollback' link which will give you the option of leaving an edit summary to explain why you reverted the edit. You can use the green 'AGF' link in cases where the user clearly tried to improve the article, but actually made it worst. Good luck, and ask me if you are not sure of anything. Diff 1:[8] turns out I had to revert my own edit because it wasn't vandalism! see page diffs to see it. from this link I took out lizard and spock then had to revert because I noticed the image corresponded to the lizard and spock additions. So, I in essence was the vandal and I reverted my own vandalism! Hope that counts! :) Yes, it's all part of the learning process. Diff 2:[9] quack comment with a touch of patent nonsense. Used vandal2 since they had two other general disruptive warnings and I thought that 3 in good faith wasn't applicable. "Lugar mt mt foda" looks like Portuguese slang for "Place to fuck" or something similar -- which constitutes vandalism. Diff 3:[10] I don't know what to do about this. In my opinion the whole page is inappropriate, whether or not its suppose to be humorous. There are links to tons of porn and every other type of offensive statement made throughout the article. I clicked vandal for the one change user made but after reading most of it I think the whole thing should go. Its beyond my level of intervention, you should handle it. Yes, it's one of those pages that was kept for posterity reasons but is now just a page of sillyness. I've added a more obvious tag. Diff 4:[11] I screwed this one up and copied the warning instead of the edit I changed. (*the 'you're wrong' jeopardy buzzer goes off*) Yes, when you issue a warning using Twinkle just link to the Article/Page name in the 'Linked article' field. If you want to add a personal message to the end of the template message, you can type it in the optional message box -- otherwise leave that box blank. Diff 5:[12]issued a caution warning against removal of maintenance tags Good, but you can't copy and paste the URL of a diff into Twinkle. It won't work. Just put the page title in there -- i.e. the article name. Diff 6:[13] user warned Good Diff 7: Diff 8:[14] I gave user a level 1warning of vandalism for his 'deer balls' edit Good Diff 9:[15] warned user about making commentary and adding personal views to Wikipedia. Good Diff 10:[16] issued warning although revert had already been made by a bot. Patent Nonsense. Good, remember that when you link to a page, you need to type the page name exactly (it is case sensative) or the link won't work. I find it best to copy and paste page names; which works best when you browse using tabs :-) Summary Good work here Selene! I'm going to grade this one an A but just take on board my comments about linking, especially when using Twinkle. Pol430 talk to me 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Final Assignment: Working on Wikipedia

Welcome to your final assignment! Great job for getting this far. This assignment is designed to teach you about the different areas you can work. It's a big wide encyclopedia out there.

Building

The first option is to build new articles. You've got a good insight about how Wikipedia works now, what's notable and what's not, and what are reliable sources and what are not. How about trying to write an article? Something new, something different. You may have already done this. If you can write 1500 characters about a subject, you can submit it for Did you know (DYK). Did you know, is a great way to ensure your new articles are up to scratch (they need to be less than 5 days old in the article mainspace, well sourced and have a catchy "hook"). If accepted, the "hook" will appear on the Wikipedia main page, in the Did you know section! You can also apply for a DYK if you expand the characters in an article by 5x. That can be quite tough, but it is possible.

If writing a new article is not your thing, or seems too daunting, why not try to expand or improve existing articles... If you're English is good, you could try your hand at copy editing articles. You can find a list of articles that have been marked as 'in need of copy editing' at this category page. You can also find a list of requests for copy editing at the Guild of Copy Editors' requests page. If this option appeals to you, have a read of Wikipedia's how to copy edit guide.

Join a WikiProject

Have a look at your favorite articles. On the talk page, you'll often find that they have an associated WikiProject. The project is always looking for new members and will enjoy your help! They often have to-do lists and you could help out. If you're not sure where to start, check out the Directory of WikiProjects.

Deletion discussions

Why not mozy over to WP:XfD? There's always debates going on about articles that might need deleting from the encyclopedia. Throw in a view! You've been reading so much theory, you'll know as much as most people. There's a page on arguments you should avoid in deletion discussions, which might help you.

List of areas

There's a lot to maintain on Wikipedia, and your help would be gratefully received.

• New Page Patrol checks every single new page to see if it meets the guidelines, wikifies it, tags it and marks it as patrolled. Have a read and see if you might be interested in helping out there. You may end up using your CSD knowledge, or even propose or nominate them for deletion.
• Articles for Creation allows for any experienced, auto-confirmed user to review new articles. Check out WP:WPAFC of you'd like to join!

Help the encyclopedia move forward

There's always discussions going on at requested moves and Requests for comment. Why not see if you can offer a point of view? The most important (supposedly) at any given time are listed at WP:CENT. You can even wander around the village pump (the encyclopedic version of the water cooler) and see if there's any general discussions you're interested in.

Tasks!

To complete this module you must complete all six tasks shown below. As usual, I will be around for advice and support. There is no time limit, work at your own pace. I'm looking for quality editing and for you to put into practice all that you have learnt so far. Once you have completed a task, make a note of the page/article you have edited in the "Workbook" section below; your mentor will be more pleased if you do this in the form of a Wikilink ;-) Good luck!

1. Create at least one new stub, or start class, article on any subject. Or, expand and improve an existing article by at least 500 characters — remember that additions should be attributable to reliable sources.
2. Copy edit at least two short articles or one large article.
3. Find and join a WikiProject.
4. Participate in at least five article deletion discussions. Remember, your arguments must be policy based and not just "Per editor X". Read: arguments you should avoid in deletion discussions first.
5. Patrol 15 new pages (remember to read the New Page Patrol page first).
6. Review 4 new article submissions at Articles for Creation.