3 of 30

Wikipedia actually has few strict rules, but rather is founded on five fundamental principles. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to clarify these principles and describe the best way to apply them, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free and reliable encyclopedia

4 of 30

FIVE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF WIKIPEDIA�(Wikipedia FIVE PILLARS)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
Wikipedia’s editors should treat each other with respect and civility
Wikipedia has no firm rules

5 of 30

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the community constantly strives for accuracy. Articles should be neutral and should contain only verifiable information and opinions that already exist in reliable sources.

Neutral point-of-view (or NPOV) means that content is written objectively and without bias, merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others. Striving for a neutral point-of-view helps prevent articles from becoming advertisements or propaganda.
Verifiability means that articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers and scholarly journals.
No original research means that articles may not contain previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, opinions, or theories.

6 of 30

The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is an in-depth guide that provides standards on how to format Wikipedia articles. Following these guidelines helps keep the encyclopaedia clear, consistent, and stable.

The simplest way to do this is to find a well-written article and copy its formatting. But if you want more information on any formatting, the MoS probably has a recommendation

Content is more important than formatting, and other editors can assist you if you're in doubt

7 of 30

This Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles (though provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles).

Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting

8 of 30

You've probably already heard the adage that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information. Maybe hundreds of people work on an article, fact-checking and reviewing claims and references. Maybe only one person has written it, using just one, biased, source. Or maybe someone has gone by and added text to promote their business or a client.

With so many possibilities, how can you tell if the information you find on Wikipedia is any good at all?

Let's look at some of the ways Wikipedians evaluate the quality of articles.

What makes a good article?

9 of 30

The best articles share certain qualities, which can serve as a model for you to strive for in your own work:

A clear, easy-to-understand lead section, that is, the overview at the start of the article.
A clear structure with several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically or by themes, with images or diagrams when appropriate.
Balanced coverage of many aspects of the subject; with more important viewpoints getting more prominence in the article.
Neutral coverage, written without bias toward a particular point of view, and representing disagreements according to their representation in reliable sources.
Reliable sources are used throughout the article. For example, references to NASA rather than relying on an amateur's blog for information about Mars.

Elements of quality articles

10 of 30

You'll want to read Wikipedia critically to decide for yourself if you trust it. Here's some signs that the article may not be so great:

Warning banners. Often these make a statement about the article's reliability, though sometimes it's simply a suggestion for improvement. Make a note and read accordingly.
Are there language problems in the lead? For example, a very short lead might indicate that the article was written through staggered contributions, and could use a rewrite to tie it together.
Are there value statements, such as "the best" or "the most important"? Those are flags that it's written to persuade, or at least, not properly referenced.
Are there references to unnamed sources of information, such as "some people say," or "many believe"? Can you answer the question, "Who said that?”
Are there very few references or citations? Are the citations from good, reliable publishers, or are they from questionable websites or publishers with a clear bias?
Are some sections longer than others, despite being equally (or less) important? Are relevant sections missing completely?

Elements of not-so-great articles

11 of 30

Now that you know how to evaluate a Wikipedia article's quality, you should have a good sense of the kind of thing you should be contributing to the articles you work on.

A key aspect of good articles is good sourcing. Everything you read on Wikipedia should come from a reliable source.

Let's look at finding and citing sources on Wikipedia.

Citations

12 of 30

Everything you write on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source.

Wikipedians are working to create an accurate encyclopedia. Adding sources means that your work can be fact-checked by these editors.

Editors (yourself included) can challenge unreferenced statements by adding a {{fact}} tag in WikiCode, which adds a [citation needed] tag to the statement. Some editors remove unreferenced material on sight.

Why cite?

13 of 30

In general, you should be citing at least once per paragraph you contribute to any Wikipedia, but any quotations, hard to prove facts (such as statistics) and controversial claims must be cited.

Basically, whenever you add information to an article, be sure to include references.

When should you cite?

14 of 30

Other sources may be tempting and easy to find, but should be avoided.

Poor sources include:

Blog posts and social media
Press releases and promotional material
Official websites
Self-published materials

While it can be useful to run a web search to help you find good sources (such as books or scholarly articles), most search results won't be useful in and of themselves.

What’s not a good source?

15 of 30

Plagiarism is a scary word, and it's important to remember that it isn't a value judgment on you as a person.

You might be thinking, "I'm a good person, I would never plagiarize!”

But as you will see, many people plagiarize by mistake, or simply don't know all the rules.

A note on plagiarism

16 of 30

There are three basic types of plagiarism:

Unattributed plagiarism, where you copy text and don't credit the author.
Plagiarism of cited sources, where you copy text exactly (even when you credit the author).
Close paraphrasing, where you just slightly change the text of another author (cited or not).

Types of plagiarism

17 of 30

Let's look at unattributed plagiarism first. This is generally the first thing that comes to mind with the word "plagiarism.”

You don't want to present another writer's ideas as your own. That takes credit away from the author.

It also means presenting a statement without a cited source, and nothing on Wikipedia should be posted without a reference to a reliable source.

Unattributed plagiarism

18 of 30

Plagiarism can also mean passing off someone else's words as your own.

Even with proper credit, using full passages of another author's work is a copyright violation.

Except for very brief quotations that are essential to understanding a topic, copying content from copyrighted sources onto Wikipedia is against policy.

Instead, you should paraphrase the ideas and concepts you want to share on Wikipedia: present the information, phrased in a new way.

Plagiarism of cited sources

19 of 30

When you find good information for a Wikipedia article, you'll want to put it into your own words.

Make sure the words, and structure, of the information you share are substantially different from the source it came from.

Close paraphrasing is when the basic structure of a sentence or passage stays the same, even with small tweaks to the wording.

This is bad news, whether you cite it or not.

Close paraphrasing

Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy

20 of 30

When you find a good source, it's important to share what you've found without plagiarising or violating the source's copyright.

Paraphrasing your sources without plagiarizing them takes some practice. It can be easy to unconsciously mimic the structure and word choice of the original source.

Copying words, structure, or phrases from the original source — even when cited to that source — violates Wikipedia’s copyright policies and is a form of plagiarism.

The best way to avoid this is to find information from a variety of good sources, make sure you really understand the information, and then write it using your own words.

Close paraphrasing

21 of 30

Here's an example of "close paraphrasing.”

Original text:

Because the weather forecast called for rain, the league decided to switch the location of the game to an indoor facility.

Close paraphrased text, not acceptable on Wikipedia:

The league switched the game’s location to an indoor facility due to a weather forecast calling for rain.

Acceptable text:

Forecasted rain caused the league to move the game indoors.

Example of close paraphrasing

In the close paraphrased text, a few words have been changed, and the sentence structure was flipped. That doesn't make it distinct enough from the original.

The second text says the same thing but in an almost entirely unique way.

22 of 30

Here are some tips to avoid close paraphrasing:

Find a few different sources, and take notes in your own writing. Write notes like you were explaining the idea to a friend, rather than just transcribing the source.
Don't write your article with your original sources open in front of you. Take careful notes, then reference your notes as you write your article. When you're done, re-read the article. This time, make frequent references to your original sources to verify that they're not too similar.
Start by taking notes of key concepts, not phrases, from your sources, noting where each came from.

In the next slide, we'll let you see if you can find some forms of close paraphrasing.

Avoiding close paraphrasing

23 of 30

Take a look at this original (fictional) passage. Then, look at the options below. Choose the one you think is an acceptable way to present that information on Wikipedia.

"In 1967, only 25% of eligible Boston voters supported a measure to limit the space afforded to keeping cattle in the city. Dr. Bickford's research suggests that this was on account of the confusing language on the ballot measure, and that support for the measure would have been higher had the memorandum been more clearly stated on the ballot."

"In 1967, a quarter of votes approved a measure limiting the space for cattle in Boston. Some researchers suggest this was a result of a confusing memorandum, and that more voters would have supported limiting grazing space if the ballot was more clear.”
"Dr. Bickford wrote that 25% of eligible Boston voters supported a measure to limit the space afforded to cattle rearing in urban spaces.”
"Research suggests that the 1967 support for cattle grazing in Boston was the result of confused voters and unclear balloting questions.”
"Most Boston voters couldn't understand the ballot question, so most voted in favor of limiting the space cattle could use to graze in the city."

Close paraphrasing quiz

24 of 30

Wikipedia is a free resource that anyone can use. But don't assume that you can upload anything to Wikipedia.

In fact, because anyone can copy and re-use Wikipedia's content, it's crucial that you never upload any material that isn't explicitly allowed to be shared.

We already discussed copying and pasting material from an author, even with a citation, as being a copyright violation.

The same goes for using song lyrics, quotations, or copyrighted educational materials.

25 of 30

Material in your sandbox is still subject to Wikipedia’s policies, so do not copy and paste information from your sources into your sandbox.
Start by taking notes of key concepts, not phrases, from your sources, noting where each came from.
Write the draft from your notes rather than from the original source, so you are not unconsciously mimicking the original author’s structure or diction.
The more sources you use, the better you’ll understand the topic, which can help you paraphrase and summarize it in your own words.

Tips on plagiarism

The stakes of plagiarism are high. It could be a violation of your student code of conduct, and could get you banned from editing Wikipedia

26 of 30

Which of the following is a sign of a good, reliable source for an article?

It's written by the person or institution that the article is about.
The source is from a reliable, independent publisher, and shows various perspectives on the subject from experts in the field.
The source has been widely read and appeared on best-seller lists.

Article quality quiz

27 of 30

When should you cite a source?

Only when you use a direct quote from the author.
Whenever you cite any information from that source.
When you find one that supports what you want to say.
Only when someone adds the "citation needed" tag to your article.

When to cite quiz

28 of 30

Which of the following is an acceptable use of source material?

Copying a sentence from a source and changing the words to synonyms you find in a thesaurus.

Using it to understand a concept, which you then write using your own words, and share on Wikipedia with citations to the original source.

Copying a lengthy passage from a book, but providing the name of the author and citing it.

Using it to craft a compelling and emotional call to action about a pressing human rights issue.

Using source material quiz

1 of 30

2 of 30