User:GoldRomean/Adopt

This is GoldRomean's adoption course, which I have stolen and adapted from User:WormTT/Adopt.

Current Adoptees

Adoptee

Date Adopted

Adoption School

Enrolled?

Active?

10 June 2025

User:GoldRomean/Adopt/Axel1382004

10 June 2025

User:GoldRomean/Adopt/Not-cheesewhisk3rs

5 June 2025

4 June 2025

11 May 2025

9 May 2025

Example (talk · contribs)

Hi Example, and welcome to your adoption center! This is your official page, where you will find all of your lessons and tests. If you would like, you can use our own talk area, located at User talk:GoldRomean/Adopt/Example to ask any general questions or comments. GoldRomean (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. – Jimbo Wales

Lesson 0: Five pillars

One of the most important essays in Wikipedia is WP:FIVEPILLARS, which sums up what we're here for. Once you get your head around these five pillars, you will be a Wikipedian. All five will be covered in this adoption school, though at different lengths.

Q1. Please summarize and explain each of the five pillars in your own words.

P1:

P2:

P3:

P4:

P5:

Lesson 1: Sourcing

How articles should be written

The articles in Wikipedia are designed to represent "the sum of human knowledge". Each article should be written from a neutral point of view—personal opinions should never appear. Neutrality also means giving due weight to the different points of view. If the broad scientific community has one set of opinions, then the minority opinion should not be shown as much. For example, homeopathy should not be included in a neutral article about the treatment of a broken leg. On the other hand, both sides should be presented in a controversial article where many people disagree.

To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Anything written in Wikipedia should be available to confirm by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything not verifiable, or unable to be verified; in other words, it should contain no original research.

Reliable sources

So what is a source? In general, you would expect a reliable source to be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic, it must be regarded as authoritative in that topic. For example, whilst Airfix Monthly may be a good source on the first model aeroplane, I would not expect it to be authoritative on regular, full-size, airplanes.

A source that is self-published is, in general, considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception, so self-publishing is generally not allowed. This means that anything in a forum, blog, or even most websites are considered unreliable by default.

One interesting caveat is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful; the article should not be totally based on a direct source like that.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, but any single article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia—so be careful!

Please read WP:RS for a lot more about what makes a source reliable.

Practice

Q1. List two examples of generally reliable sources (ex. The New York Times).

A1.

Q2. List two examples of generally unreliable sources (ex. my friend Sally's personal blog).

A2.

Questions

Any questions, or would you like to try the test?

Test 1: Sourcing

This test is going to be based on questions. One word "yes" or "no" answers are unacceptable; please provide evidence of a "thought process". There's no time limit—answer in your own words and we will discuss your answers.

Q1. You have just discovered from a friend that the new Ford Escort is only going to be available in blue. Can you add this to the Ford Escort article?

A1.

Q2. A mainstream newspaper has published a cartoon that you think is clearly racist. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?

A2.

Q3. You find an article that shows that people in the state of Ohio eat more butternut squashes than anywhere in the world and ranks each of the U.S. states by squashes per head. Interestingly you find another article that ranks baldness in the United States and they are almost identical! Can you include this information anywhere on Wikipedia? Perhaps the baldness article or the butternut squash article?

A3.

Q4. Would you consider BBC News a reliable source on The Troubles? What about on its rival, ITV?

A4.

Q5. Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Facebook page a reliable source?

A5.

Q6. A "forum official" on a Daily Telegraph community forum comments on Daily Telegraph's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?

A6.

Q7. ChatGPT tells you that the moon is made of cheese. Can you add this to the moon article?

A7.

Q8. Would you have any problem with IMDb being used as a source in a film-related article?

A8.

Q9. Would you have any issue with using the About Us page on Xerox as a source for the history section of the Xerox article?

A9.

Q10. Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree—he says it is bronze. Do you need a source?

A10.

Q11. A Reddit post with over 100,000 upvotes reports that over 20 million Americans believe in the Flat Earth theory. Can you add that to the Flat Earth page?

A11.

Results

Final score:

Questions

Any questions regarding the test?

Lesson 2: Wikiquette

WP:WIKIQUETTE is the etiquette of Wikipedia. I'm going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember.

Assume good faith—This is fundamental and you'll be seeing it a lot if you stick around. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in and accuse things like vandalism or disruptive editing. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are also just trying to improve the encyclopedia.

On talk pages, sign your messages with four tildes ( ~~~~ ) and ping users if you want to get their attention. Try and keep to threading—have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works. Please note that if you use [reply] button, this is done automatically, but it's helpful to know for certain areas of Wikipedia where the button is not always there.

Don't forget to assume good faith.

Watch out for common mistakes.

Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated.

Comment on the edits, not the editor.

Did I mention that you should assume good faith?

Q1. Should you assume good faith?

A1.

Questions

Any questions?

Test 2: Wikiquette

Q1. A brand-new editor with a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should they be reported as a possible sockpuppet?

A1.

Q2. You notice an editor who made a vandalism edit. Should you go to the list of administrators and contact every single admin on that page so that the vandal can be blocked?

A2.

Q3. You notice an editor who has been warned many times for vandalism. Each time, he ignores the messages and continues vandalizing. What should you do?

A3.

Q4. In an Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion, someone writes, "This article should be deleted because the user who created it is obviously very stupid and if you look at their edits, they clearly are obsessed with math. Like, who likes math?" Is this okay, and why or why not?

A4.

Q5. In an AfD discussion, someone the following message and provides proper links to reliable sources: "This article should not be deleted because I found good sources in The New York Times and CBC News showing that it is important at these links: [1][2]. Everyone commenting delete is stupid. Is this okay, and why or why not?

A5.

Results

Score:

Questions

Any questions?

Lesson 3: Copyright

Read and summarize Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Plagiarism on Wikipedia.

Summary:

Questions

Any questions?

Test 3: Copyright

Q1. You find an article that matches a company website About Us page exactly. You check the talk page, and there's no evidence that the text has been released under WP:CC-BY-SA. What do you do?

A1.

Q2. Can you see any issues with doing a cut-and-paste move (copy and pasting an article to move it to a new name).

A2.

Q3. You find some information on Wikipedia that looks like it was copied from another Wikipedia page. What do you do?

A3.

Q4. You find material that looks like it was copied from a book. What do you do?

A4.

Q5. Someone takes a picture of themselves and uploads it to Wikiepdia. Is this okay?

A5.

Results

Score:

Questions

Any questions?