Wikipedia/Quizzes

This page contains multiple-choice self-tests that are part of the Wikiversity course about Wikis and Wikipedia. First read the relevant Wikipedia learning resources.



Wikipedia policies and guidelines
This multiple choice self-test is related to the five pillars and to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

{Wikipedia policies and guidelines are often referred to by shortcuts and short-names. Match the shortcut to the text that best describes it. (Check one radio button per row, and one per column.) -+--- Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideas or unpublished scientific results. + An article should not be biased, but should refer all significant perspectives, especially the perspectives of leading scientists and experts in the field. This is a non-negotiable principle. + Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be sourced by reliable sources, even if you know it is the truth. --+-- The wiki process is the decision mechanism. When all editors agree or are silent, a suggestion or an edit is considered as accepted. Seek compromises. ---+- You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If a policy prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
 * type="" coef="5" }
 * NPOV | NOR | CON | IAR | VERIFY

{Wikipedia policies and guidelines are often referred to by shortcuts and short-names. Match the shortcut to the text that best describes it. (Check one per row, and one per column.) + If you notice a problem in an article, try to fix it yourself! Don't worry too much about making mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. ---+- Avoid writing "some people say" without providing sources. + Do not revert a single page more than three times within a 24-hour period, with some exceptions. --+-- Uncited or biased contentious statements about now living persons can be deleted immediately without discussion. -+--- Even during heated debates, be reasonable and calm.
 * type="" coef="5" }
 * 3RR | CIVIL | BLP | WEASEL | BEBOLD

{According to the Wikipedia notability criteria, What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy, which of the following articles should be deleted from Wikipedia (unless they are largely extended with encyclopedic information)? (Check 5 alternatives.) - An article about a commercial product or other advertising subject that is notable in media, literature or research publications + A culinary recipe + A dictionary entry, that only provides information on definition, synonyms and pronunciation of a term. + A "how to" instruction or manual - An article with poor language + An essay that argues for a certain opinion. + An article that is a mere collection of external links
 * type="[]" coef="2" }

{According to the Wikipedia notability criteria, What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy, which of the following articles should be deleted from Wikipedia (unless they are largely extended with encyclopedic information)? (Check 6 alternatives.) + An article about persons or events that are notable only in primary sources (written by the person himself or herself, or a first-hand witness) - An article about a now living person that is notable only in secondary sources (independent from the person) + Genealogical entries involving non-notable persons + A list of commercial products that has the character of a sales catalog + A song text + An article about an event that is mentioned in media today, but is expected to not be remembered as historical event within a short time + A point-of-view fork, i.e. an article that treats the same subject as another article, but from a non-neutral point-of-view. - A stub article
 * type="[]" coef="2" }

{According to the Wikipedia notability criteria and What Wikipedia is not, which of the following material should be deleted from Wikipedia articles? (Check 5 alternatives.) - Words or images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene, but are important for the article topic - Theoretical descriptions that only can be understood by experts + Information that serves as journalistic primary sources, providing correct first-hand news reports + Previously unpublished research results + Biased contentious statements about now living persons + Violations of U.S. state of Florida copyright laws - Prices related to notable sales of rare collectors items - Prices related to historical discussion of economic inflation + Current price comparisons of products existing on the market today
 * type="[]" coef="4" }

Wikipedia criticism
This multiple-choice self-test is related to the Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia. {What common Wikipedia criticism (the rows) are the following incidents and controversies (the column headers) examples of?


 * 1. The Seigenthaler incident (Check three tick boxes in this column)


 * 2. The Essjay controversy (One tick)


 * 3. The Henryk Batuta hoax (Three ticks)


 * 4. The CAMERA campaign (Two ticks)

+-+- A. Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged +-+- B. Lack of formal peer reviewing or other fact checking of topics that very few understands -+-- C. Anonymity and pseudonyms are the norm. There is no verification of user credentials or affiliation. D. Systematic bias due to that 82% of the edits are made by people younger than 35, and 60% of the edits are made by men +-+- E. Exposure to obvious or subtle vandalism F. A target for purveyors of pseudoscience and anti-intellectualism. G. U.S. and west main-stream point of views are privileged. ---+ H. Some editors do not have a neutral point of view, due to conflicts of interest I. Systematic bias due to more liberal, secular and Jewish views among wikipedians than the rest of the world population. See Statistics of Wikimedians by religion the views of the dominating editors. J. Systematic bias due to that scientific sources are considered more trustworthy than religious sources, and the views of scientists are considered more notable than the views of religious scholars.
 * type="[]" coef="8" }
 * 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

{What common Wikipedia criticism (the rows) are the following four incidents and controversies (the column headers) examples of?


 * 1. The Microsoft offer to Rick Jelliffe (Check one tick box in this column)


 * 2. WikiScanning results (One tick)


 * 3. The William Connolley case (Four ticks)


 * 4. The "Community, Consensus, Coercion, Control: CS*W or How Policy Mediates Mass Participation" research paper. (Four ticks)

++-- A. Some editors do not have a neutral point of view, due to conflicts of interest --+- B. Academic experts who have tried to participate have been denigrated as "self-promoters", censored and then blocked. C. Wordy and dull prose, poor quality of writing. --++ D. Edit wars, power plays and other types of nonconstructive conflicts among editors. --++ E. Attempts by strongly opinionated editors to dominate articles. F. Inaccurate or sometimes non-existent sourcing for controversial assertions. G. Coverage dominated by trivia on non-notable news events, persons, products and pop culture important only to a selected group of fans. H. Factual accuracy in dates, names and events, but poor theoretical analysis and interpretations. List of Wikimedians by religion --++ I. Controlled by often changed policies, that are inconsequently enforced, depending of the views of the dominating editors. ---+ J. "Wikiality" - wiki-reality, implying "truth by consensus rather than fact".
 * type="[]" coef="10" }
 * 1 | 2 | 3 | 4