THIS IS STILL A DRAFT--DISCUSSION/COMMENTS/EDITS STILL WELCOME

Welcome to Dartmouth students in COSC 4, 2005

If you get stuck, try contacting these users on their talk pages.

User:Dpbsmith (talk page)

User:Shimgray (talk page)

User:Smoddy (talk page)

User:TheoClarke (talk page)

User:Tlogmer (talk page)

If you have problems with bias in controversial articles:

User:Ed Poor (talk page)

• Do look at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you are having trouble finding a suitable topic that has not already been covered. This is a huge list with hundreds of items in scores of categories, and there is at least a chance you will find a topic on which you have some special knowledge or one which you will enjoy researching.
• Do use your college library. It could easily be the best library you will ever use in your lifetime. Most Wikipedians don't have such convenient access to such a good library, and using it to research your articles is one specific way you can help Wikipedia. I don't know exactly what treasures your library contains, but you will probably find not just scholarly journals but also popular magazines, in some cases going back to Volume 1, Number 1; obscure books by well-known authors; and all kinds of original source material. Encyclopedia articles should be "secondary sources," not tertiary or quaternary sources. If you can, try to get a dollop or two of original source material into your article. If you happen to have the capability and the knowhow to scan relevant images from these sources and upload them to Wikipedia, as long as they were published before 1923 we would love to have them in your article.
• Do, by all means, re-use material you have researched or are in the process of researching for other class assignments. However, you will probably need to rework the material: write in encyclopedic style, stick to facts, don't present your own opinions even if they are well-founded.
• Don't use the "five-paragraph essay" format. Encyclopedia articles are not essays.
• Do use the "A said B about C" formula when it is important to present opinions. Don't say "John O'Hara is generally regarded as among the greatest short-story writers in English." Do say "Brendan Gill, who worked with him at The New Yorker, ranks him as 'among the greatest short-story writers in English...'" Do some research; present the opinion in the form of a quotation from a source whose credibility can be judged by the reader. If "everyone" knows something, then it should not be hard to find someone quotable who has said so.
• Don't spend much time learning Wiki markup or Wikipedia style. Just jump in and write content. You can type two single-quotes around a word like ''this'' to put it into italics, like this. Insert extra lines to make paragraph breaks. Beyond that, don't worry. Wikipedians are very helpful about editing for style and markup. You can learn more about markup and style if you become more involved in Wikipedia.
• A word to the wise: don't write an article about Dartmouth if you just want to complete your assignment without fuss or bother. You can accept this advice and read no farther. If you are a feisty individual who enjoys Internet flamewars, then rush in, but read the section below so that you'll understand why this is a place where an angel might fear to tread.

Virtually all Wikipedians accept that

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that
• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and its scope is broader than a traditional encyclopedia.

But just how much broader? There is no consensus.

At one end of the scale, there are Wikipedians, broadly called "inclusionists," who argue that Wikipedia should allow articles on virtually any topic as long as the information in it is verifiable and accurate. At the other end are "deletionists," who believe that cleaning out articles they deem inappropriate is vital to keeping WIkipedia healthy.

Certain kinds of problem articles are regularly contributed to Wikipedia, and most Wikipedians agree that they need to be deleted. There are "vanity articles," autobiographical articles contributed by ordinary citizens who do not seem to have accomplished anything very notable. There are attempts to advertise or promote things by submitting articles about them—we frequently get articles about small rock bands, for example.

When someone believes an article is inappropriate, they nominate it for deletion. Nominations for deletion are quite rare and it is possible to write Wikipedia articles for many months without even discovering that the process exists. A nomination begins a five-day discussion process about the article, called "votes for deletion" or VfD for short. Even supporters of the deletion process acknowledge that VfD is very unpleasant and tends to bring out the worst in everyone participating.

As a result of the 2004 class exercise, Dartmouth college is very well covered. There might be a case for adding more information to the Dartmouth college article, but new individual articles on small details about Dartmouth will be poorly received. Not all Wikipedians would object to an article about, say, the rules of a traditional drinking game played at some living group, but some will, and, fair or unfair, entire articles on small facets of Dartmouth life are likely to be nominated for deletion.

You can ignore this advice and explore the boundaries of Wikipedian community consensus, but please consider whether this really helps to build an encyclopedia—and whether you really need the aggravation. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)