User:Bellerophon/Adoption/Selene Scott
Selene Scott (talk · contribs)
[edit]First Assignment: The Five Pillars - Completed: Grade A
|
|---|
First Assignment: The Five Pillars[edit]Are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. They are summarized in the form of five "pillars":
Discussion[edit]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)
Questions[edit]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)
2. Considering the second 'pillar' is about neutrality. Give some examples of 'Peacock' terms or words.
3. Imagine you come across an article that is sourced only to internet blogs. Are blogs reliable sources and why?
4. Explain what the notion of 'verifiability' applies to?
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?
6. If two editors have a disagreement over an article, how should they try and resolve it (in the first instance)?
7. Considering the fourth pillar is about how you behave to other editors, what's the basic rule of the 'no personal attacks' policy?
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?
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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]
Discussion[edit]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[edit]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?
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.
2. If a company is notable enough for Wikipedia, is the person who owns the company also notable enough for Wikipedia? Explain your 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
5. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yellow Emerald Mining Company, is the subject of the submission notable? Explain you 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.
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!
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[edit]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[edit]There are a lot of terms associated with copyright. Here is a glossary of the terms.
Image Copyright on Wikipedia[edit] 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 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
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:
Commons[edit]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[edit]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.
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[edit]This one is a heavy subject Selene, take your time, there is no deadline. Pol430 talk to me 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Questions[edit]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.
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.
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.
Yes, the work on Wikipedia can be shared and remixed, combined into collections and redistributed according to the CC-By-SA licence.
Only if it couldn't be replaced by a free alternative.
Either re-word it to say the same thing in different words or attribute the article to them.
It wouldn't violate copyright but isn't that what they call plagiarism, copying someone else's work?
Not of copyright but that kind of context can't be verified or attributed can it?
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.
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.
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.
Summary[edit]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[edit]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.
Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD)[edit]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[edit]Here is a list of general criteria. The criteria apply to all pages (meaning articles, talk pages, user pages, and even Wikipedia namespace pages.)
Articles[edit]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.
Proposed deletion (PROD)[edit]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[edit]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)[edit]
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[edit]Tagging CSD and PROD are much easier with Twinkle. Go to WP:TW for instructions on how to install and use it! Discussion[edit]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)
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)
Questions[edit]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.
The 'A' category is for Articles only while the 'G' category includes Articles and...........
Practical test[edit]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!
Summary[edit]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[edit]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.  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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards where you can get some help. Remember: you could be wrong![edit]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[edit]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[edit]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?
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?
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?
Summary[edit]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)
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[edit]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?[edit]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:
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.
IMPORTANT WARNING[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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[edit]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)"
Questions[edit]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.)
Test[edit]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.
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.
Summary[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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!
[edit]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!
- 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.
- Copy edit at least two short articles or one large article.
- Find and join a WikiProject.
- 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.
- Patrol 15 new pages (remember to read the New Page Patrol page first).
- Review 4 new article submissions at Articles for Creation.