CorporateM (talk | contribs) |
John from Idegon (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
**Not naming names, like, but at least one Wikipedia admin regularly runs a "delete all" script over every expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]] and [[WP:CSD|CSD]] without bothering to look at them first, on the grounds that "if they were worth saving someone will complain". This is what you're up against. As is people who slap {{tl|spa}} tags on IP postings, come to that. [[Special:Contributions/188.29.127.191|188.29.127.191]] ([[User talk:188.29.127.191|talk]]) 12:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
**Not naming names, like, but at least one Wikipedia admin regularly runs a "delete all" script over every expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]] and [[WP:CSD|CSD]] without bothering to look at them first, on the grounds that "if they were worth saving someone will complain". This is what you're up against. As is people who slap {{tl|spa}} tags on IP postings, come to that. [[Special:Contributions/188.29.127.191|188.29.127.191]] ([[User talk:188.29.127.191|talk]]) 12:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::I had a similar experience creating a new article that was marked for speedy deletion before I even had a chance to add sources. The way I think about this problem - reviewers will be more cautious about speedy deletion, when there are fewer articles that need deletion. A good way to start might be with the edit notice editors get when they try to create a new article. [[User:King4057]] ([[User:King4057/EthicalWiki|EthicalWiki]]) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
::::I had a similar experience creating a new article that was marked for speedy deletion before I even had a chance to add sources. The way I think about this problem - reviewers will be more cautious about speedy deletion, when there are fewer articles that need deletion. A good way to start might be with the edit notice editors get when they try to create a new article. [[User:King4057]] ([[User:King4057/EthicalWiki|EthicalWiki]]) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::I had actually thought a while ago that it would be a good idea to require all articles created to be created on some sort of a template that required references and had a predefined structure. Not being much of a wonk, I wouldn't have any idea of how to implement that, but it seems a good idea to help avoid frustration caused by submitting a substandard article when the writer had no idea it was substandard. [[User:Gtwfan52|Gtwfan52]] ([[User talk:Gtwfan52|talk]]) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===An orphaned essay=== |
===An orphaned essay=== |
||
[[WP:DIG]] could be relevant here... an essay which is currently tagged as "orphaned". —[[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 11:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
[[WP:DIG]] could be relevant here... an essay which is currently tagged as "orphaned". —[[User:MistyMorn|MistyMorn]] ([[User talk:MistyMorn|talk]]) 11:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:05, 19 August 2012
This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Newbie icons
Just a germ of an idea. When viewing edit histories and discussions, I find it hard to know how experienced other editors are. So I develop a blanket and probably too unsympathetic kneejerk response. For example, should I throw lots of policy pages at them? It would be useful to me if every occurrence of an editor's ID were accompanied by a little mnemonic ("new", "med", "exp", "admin", etc) or icons (say a colored star) to show their experience. Would make it easier to be nice, harder to be thoughtless. Obviously would need to be implemented as a coding feature, not one for user space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Great idea. Some Internet poker rooms use a star to designate if a user was .net or .com. (which informed veteran players the "newness' of their competition). Some non-descript code would help at recent changes, for instance. It would assist in finding editors that have just begun their WP career and have made some timid steps into WikiWorld...lets say 50 edits worth but still have a redlinked user talk page.. A warm welcome to them would enhance their experience. The chances of retaining them would be much higher. And, the opportunity to watch over them (unbeknownst to them) is also greatly increased. This may sound harsh but its not meant to be....they have shown that time spent nuturing them has value. Good suggestion. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- This idea of a flag or icon that signifies newbies in a positive way has been bounced around at the Foundation too, though admittedly in a vague way. After having a hallway chat with one of the designers, I'm going to write up some notes. I'll make sure it's shared here too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds good, thanks Steven. There is some downside, obviously, but I think the upside benefits easily outweigh them. Like a "do not bite" button, but obviously something less intrusive, something welcoming and inviting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then the only issue is doing it in a way that doesn't degrade them. I doubt professors would appreciate anything that makes them look inexperienced (even if they are). In addition, how would we make the distinction? Would all new editors have it until they turn it off in their preferences? I think that would be acceptable because it allows an editor to state when they no longer feel they are new. Ryan Vesey 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd be wary of making it user-settable. It would be too tempting for a disruptive editor to masquerade as an old-timer or even as a bureaucrat - and that makes it something else to police, yawn. I'd rather see it be wholly transparent, based on something hard to game. For example, the number of days on which edits have been made (so multiple quick-fire mini edits don't rack up). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I like Steelpillows suggestion. It can be something casual and un-noticable....like the current (UTC) at the back of our signatures. ((What does that mean anyway?)) For, instance, add (NE) for new editor or the # of ediing days. Believe me. The college professors won't even know. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It means Coordinated Universal Time and we can't add anything after that in our signatures as that would mess up our archiving bots which are triggered by that last trailing timestamp in a thread. Our talk page guidelines do not permit altering this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)- How about....lets see.....in front of (UTC)? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It would have to come after "talk" in your sig and before the first number of the timestamp...or before your sig started. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)- Why not a green + graphic, before their name? It is neutral to slightly positive, it won't interfere with archiving by being a leading feature. It is a graphic so it won't interfere with copy/paste. It can be easily identifiable at any size due to the simplicity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and I wouldn't want it to be optional, make it automatic until they have $NUMBER of edits or $NUMBER2 months, or a combination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like this idea. Non-optional, $NUMBER of mainspace edits (don't know that I support the $NUMBER2 months, or a combination), green is a pleasant color, small/simple graphic. Yup, I like this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm flexible :) I was only thinking like after 3 months if they didn't do say, 100 edits, but I see the logic in making it a hard limit on number of edits only, in case they leave and come back they are still a newbie, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support non-optional and any graphic that is easily discernable at Recent changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. For some of us with really long watchlists, I might like to see an icon next to the article name as well, something indicating that the page relates to content under discretionary sanctions. Sometimes that can be easy to forget, given the number of them, and it might help get a bit more attention to those edits. And, yes, I acknowledge that I am one of those who forgets what counts under discretionary sanctions unfortunately frequently. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I support non-optional and any graphic that is easily discernable at Recent changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm flexible :) I was only thinking like after 3 months if they didn't do say, 100 edits, but I see the logic in making it a hard limit on number of edits only, in case they leave and come back they are still a newbie, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like this idea. Non-optional, $NUMBER of mainspace edits (don't know that I support the $NUMBER2 months, or a combination), green is a pleasant color, small/simple graphic. Yup, I like this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It would have to come after "talk" in your sig and before the first number of the timestamp...or before your sig started. :)
- How about....lets see.....in front of (UTC)? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It means Coordinated Universal Time and we can't add anything after that in our signatures as that would mess up our archiving bots which are triggered by that last trailing timestamp in a thread. Our talk page guidelines do not permit altering this.
- I like Steelpillows suggestion. It can be something casual and un-noticable....like the current (UTC) at the back of our signatures. ((What does that mean anyway?)) For, instance, add (NE) for new editor or the # of ediing days. Believe me. The college professors won't even know. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd be wary of making it user-settable. It would be too tempting for a disruptive editor to masquerade as an old-timer or even as a bureaucrat - and that makes it something else to police, yawn. I'd rather see it be wholly transparent, based on something hard to game. For example, the number of days on which edits have been made (so multiple quick-fire mini edits don't rack up). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then the only issue is doing it in a way that doesn't degrade them. I doubt professors would appreciate anything that makes them look inexperienced (even if they are). In addition, how would we make the distinction? Would all new editors have it until they turn it off in their preferences? I think that would be acceptable because it allows an editor to state when they no longer feel they are new. Ryan Vesey 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds good, thanks Steven. There is some downside, obviously, but I think the upside benefits easily outweigh them. Like a "do not bite" button, but obviously something less intrusive, something welcoming and inviting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- This idea of a flag or icon that signifies newbies in a positive way has been bounced around at the Foundation too, though admittedly in a vague way. After having a hallway chat with one of the designers, I'm going to write up some notes. I'll make sure it's shared here too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my ingorance, but does this generally positive discussion mean that the idea is being taken forward, or does that involve something else? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for not taking part in a while, but I really really don't like the idea of this being non-optional. All this edit does is identify an editor as new. According to this discussion, the purpose of this is so that other editors might be more careful not to bite the new editor, not so they can discount the editors opinions. I feel that the worries that an editor might "game the system" go along the lines of discounting the contributions of that editor. User talk:198.102.153.2 should immediately be able to turn this off if he became an editor. I could still see an automatic shut off once an editor hits a certain point, but I see no reason to disallow an editor the ability to turn it off. Ryan Vesey 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Official logo and userbox
User:Amadscientist has created this image that I think represents the group quite well, and I would like to adopt it as the "official" logo for userboxes and other functions. Of course, this requires consensus.
This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention |
Anti-Semitism
i just want to tell you also this:
- This isn't really the proper venue. Additionally, I previously left you a warning on your talk page (which is likely how you found this place) because of your vicious attacks against Wesley Mouse on his talk page, unjustly associating him with anti-semitic behavior and trolls, which was unfounded and block worthy, although I chose to warn you first. WP:WER isn't a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- You defend articles by discussing what is in the articles (or what should be in the articles). You do not defend articles by attacking other editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- A couple issues which i will spell out if you don't already know פארוק:
- Don't use personal attacks. Challenge arguments and statements but without attacking people. WP:AGF.
- Don't use your presence here as a walking soapbox shouting out the same thing over and over. People ignored you on the Israel talk page because they were arguing over content and you were shouting the same thing and trying to use the bible as a reference, which isn't appropriate in many situations.
- Don't use talk pages as forums for general discussions of a topic. WP:NOTFORUM
- Do use reliable sources to formulate a decent argument.
- Do keep your cool and take a break if the situation gets heated.
Regular templating of user talk pages
Can somebody explain what this means? It has been added as a reason for editors leaving. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is refering to users receiving template based messages such as the ones listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Most veteran users prefer not to get those template based messages. See also Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Best regards. 64.40.54.8 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most veteran editors are probably not too worried about it though, because they realise that such templating is often done by newbies. What we are probably mainly concerned with is the over templating of new users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't imagine that any veteran editor has left because of templating. It would be like saying someone divorced his wife because of the color of her lipstick.```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I hear a few people get upset over templates, but it is rare and I never understood the big deal. I don't use them very often, except with socks and vandals, and use hand written notes because I think they are more effective, but I'm not offended by getting them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most veteran editors are probably not too worried about it though, because they realise that such templating is often done by newbies. What we are probably mainly concerned with is the over templating of new users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. An ecosystem I have never really bumped into before - thank you all for not over-templating me, at any rate! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- To add a data point to this - I'm taking a bit of a wikiholiday at the moment because I got templated by somebody last week for something which, although their complaint had legimate concern, I found extremely patronising. I'll contribute as and when I have time, but if I find good faith contributions are met with hostility, I'm inclined to go elsewhere. FWIW this GA review is an example of how I would deliver bad news to good faith contributors. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
A concern
I want to urge just a little caution over the direction this project takes. My understanding when it began was that it would focus on the problems that are causing editors to leave, and would try to take steps to solve those issues; that is, it would try to turn WP into a healthier environment. I understood that it would not focus on attracting or retaining new editors (i.e. it would not copy the Teahouse), or on simply persuading experienced editors to stay.
The latter is a problematic thing to get involved in. Lots of editors are here because they are addicted to Wikipedia, despite the fact that it has caused them problems in real life and that their editing experiences are increasingly unpleasant ones. Contacting someone who has broken away from a stressful environment to ask them to return to it, or trying to stop someone from breaking away, would be doing them no favours.
Therefore, I feel we ought to focus on the environment, not on the people. What can we do to make the environment a more pleasant one for the editors we have -- to make it more respectful, less stressful, etc? Ethically, that is a legitimate thing to do. It's the only thing that will work in the long term anyway, if the aim is to keep Wikipedia going into the future without a large percentage of its participants feeling miserable about their involvement. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hear! Hear! ```Buster Seven Talk 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- We don't want to duplicate the Tea House, we do want to support them because they do excellent work, and don't require our input to do so. I left a msg on Sarah's talk page a few days ago, asking her to put up a stronger presence here, so we can refer people to the Tea House when appropriate, or so they can find it more easily as this Project isn't designed to deal with that, even if many are interested in help with new users. WP:WER is a broad concept, and we can't save all "lost editors", so I agree with that point, even if I would like to keep from losing editors due to fixable issues. For many, being here can no longer be a joy, they lose interest or the real world is demanding, and we can't change that. As to the environment, I agree. I seek out someone regularly, usually someone quietly working in their own area, and just say "thanks". When I see a retired banner, I ask why. I don't talk them into staying, I just try to find what the problem is. Often, they are just discouraged by edit wars and drama and appreciate someone just listening. And we need to all take responsibility on talk pages and the boards, to encourage a calm, rationale discussion, lead by example, and politely try to direct heated discussion into productive discussion by keeping a moderating tone, or simply moderating the discussion fairly. There is no "silver bullet" and it is the little things that add up. I think it starts with all of us having a positive and constructive attitude, and spreading it in all the different areas we work. Of course, I would love to hear ideas on larger initiatives as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with SlimVirgin. 'Retired' users are not a significant number of all registered accounts, and scouring the site to find them and badgering them to return (if in fact this is happening), is probably not the optimal way to address this issue. The environment angle is the best way to prevent users from leaving, and active users should be encouraged to use more forethought when tagging articles, leaving uw, or making non-admin comments (and/or closures) on WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Unblock requests, etc., or indeed making flippant reports to such noticeboards. Extremely important is also the way communications are conducted over CSD, PROD, and AfD cases; many of the concerned users are new, and hence can hardly 'retire' - instead, they just quietly slip away. Recent concerns are being expressed over areas where new users are involved, such as at Articles for Creation. See WT:Articles for Creation#standards for current discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The only way to Change the Conversation is to...change the conversation. We need to confront arguing, quarreling and bickering when it begins around us. We need to confront the stance of 'Adversary' when we see it. We need to step in the way of incivility and remind editors that collaborators don't talk to each other in that way. The more "changing the conversation" happens the more it becomes commonplace. I've seen the 3 of you step in front of (between) attacking editors. More of us need to do that. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, Buster, though one problem with confronting it is that it can sometimes have the effect of prolonging things. Sometimes it's good to step in, and sometimes to ignore, and it can be really hard to know which is best. I also agree with Kudpung's point about established editors really needing to watch how we word things, and taking care not to tag articles frivolously, propose things for deletion unnecessarily, etc.
- The only way to Change the Conversation is to...change the conversation. We need to confront arguing, quarreling and bickering when it begins around us. We need to confront the stance of 'Adversary' when we see it. We need to step in the way of incivility and remind editors that collaborators don't talk to each other in that way. The more "changing the conversation" happens the more it becomes commonplace. I've seen the 3 of you step in front of (between) attacking editors. More of us need to do that. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with SlimVirgin. 'Retired' users are not a significant number of all registered accounts, and scouring the site to find them and badgering them to return (if in fact this is happening), is probably not the optimal way to address this issue. The environment angle is the best way to prevent users from leaving, and active users should be encouraged to use more forethought when tagging articles, leaving uw, or making non-admin comments (and/or closures) on WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Unblock requests, etc., or indeed making flippant reports to such noticeboards. Extremely important is also the way communications are conducted over CSD, PROD, and AfD cases; many of the concerned users are new, and hence can hardly 'retire' - instead, they just quietly slip away. Recent concerns are being expressed over areas where new users are involved, such as at Articles for Creation. See WT:Articles for Creation#standards for current discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wondering whether we should draw up a checklist (top 20 things that cause most "environmental" damage, as it were), so that people interested in editor retention can try to avoid doing them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- If the list hasn't been started, I will do so below. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wondering whether we should draw up a checklist (top 20 things that cause most "environmental" damage, as it were), so that people interested in editor retention can try to avoid doing them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
20 (or more) things that cause the most "climate" damage
- Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.
- See Wikipedia talk:First contact#un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example.
- Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.
- One is a closing. The other, an opening.
- Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
- Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and, at times, it can get messy.
- Sarcasm.
- Sarcasm rarely works in RL. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.
- Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.
- Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.
- The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.
- The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20' pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.
- Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.
- The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands".
- Not enough praise for a new editors hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are "clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles."
- Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor)
I've begun a thread on Jimbo's talk page to open a cultural discussion about the retention of the relatively small subset of contributors who bring articles to GA or FA. In particular, about how to avoid their morale from becoming seriously undermined by some of the "background noise" on Wikipedia, which I feel seems to pay little or no respect for such editors sensibilities.
As I've written in a prominent disclaimer. there's "No intention to canvas here about infoboxes, involved individuals, or anything else. Rather, to use this concrete example to raise an issue which goes beyond individual personalities or any particular dispute."
—MistyMORN 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've spent the last 3 days, drafting (and editing and rewriting and refining) a response to that particular battlefield, in an attempt to mediate. I was emailing some people to try and get preliminary feedback, before posting anything publicly, but the people I poked haven't replied. I'll contemplate posting what I've drafted, in the next few hours. I strongly agree that this is both an interesting and relevant example, but also a delicate situation... Anyway, more later. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's good to know. I understand your concern that this particular situation may be delicate. I do hope that by focusing on the broader issues my intervention won't aggravate any personal grievances. —MistyMORN 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that conversation, because of your linking, and agree it isn't a simple issue, which is why I haven't offered an opinion there at this time. Obviously, retaining editors that are highly skilled is a top priority, but as you both point out, that isn't always a simple thing to do. The goals here are to help create the environment to make it more rewarding for them to stick around, which often means mediating fairly in disputes and helping reduce the drama in those discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- The thread has now been archived with relatively little input/response. Had the "disclaimer" not been there, I guess the thread would have gained much more traction, but mainly as an excuse for a general brawl. That sort of dynamic encapsulates for me one of the main communication issues on Wikipedia. A significant culture (or cultural tendency) here seems to be: 1) threaten to be heard; 2) use ridicule as a weapon; 3) vaunt you're perceived strength by being 'above' caring. —MistyMORN 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Asking at jimbo's talkpage pretty much never helps. (Context: Until you've tried it once, it can seem like a potentially good idea! But if you watchlist his page for a few months, you'll see that it's a
wormholegravity-well for a huge quantity of crackpots, misassumptions, and histrionics. Hence most of the background-regulars will start with an eyeroll, if something has been brought there.) It's just one of the many "mistakes/lessons that we all learn the painful way". ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)- Did you read the disclaimer in my post? Jimbo explicitly invites "philosophical" input. It was in that spirit that I posted there (quite clearly not as a request for any implausible form of intervention). —MistyMORN 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Of course! And I can completely agree with the intent, and I do believe your motives were sound (because I've read your userpage, and many comments elsewhere, and gotten a feel for your archetypes), and I do also remain naively hopeful that occasionally jimbo's page leads to insightful discussions and tenable solutions...
- But I can also draw upon years of experience (7yrs inside, 3decades+ outside) to point out that a "large quantity" of editors will always lean or leap to the opposite conclusion if a topic is brought there, basing those conclusions on abundant evidence (Ie. A metric shitload of people do bring issues to jimbo's talkpage for imperfect intents. (And they include disclaimers, too!))
- Hence the existence of essays like WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem and WP:Appeals to Jimbo and WP:What Would Jimbo Do? (See the bottom of my Annnotated guide to navboxen, for what I think about essays!). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. But I also feel that Jimbo deserves to be taken at his word -- if for nothing else because this guy who is the founder of this Wikipedia deserves the respect he elicits. Anyway, I've now culled a couple of simple insights which I feel genuinely address the root issues. Of course they may be old hat, because I'm relatively new around here. Nevertheless, I thought of setting the ideas out here rather than on Jimbo's page. However, I'm aware that the difficult step is not making the causal diagnosis as such, but devising potentially effective intervention/s that have a realistic chance of gaining consensus. And then of course finding ways and means to build that consensus... Regards (and thanks for the friendly "stalking"), —MistyMORN 23:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the disclaimer in my post? Jimbo explicitly invites "philosophical" input. It was in that spirit that I posted there (quite clearly not as a request for any implausible form of intervention). —MistyMORN 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Asking at jimbo's talkpage pretty much never helps. (Context: Until you've tried it once, it can seem like a potentially good idea! But if you watchlist his page for a few months, you'll see that it's a
- Thank you, that's good to know. I understand your concern that this particular situation may be delicate. I do hope that by focusing on the broader issues my intervention won't aggravate any personal grievances. —MistyMORN 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The environment
Ok, so here goes...
A premise: Wikipedia as a rule/process-based environment, populated by a large population of volunteer "wikipedians" (contributors) who are completely free to leave for good. Survival of individual contributors (ie editor retention) can be viewed as a form of natural selection. Those best equipped to adapt to the wikipedia environment, and its climate changes, are more likely to achieve short-, medium- or long-term survival. Wikipedia needs to tweak its environment to facilitate the long-term survival of the sorts of users it wants and needs to attract. That's to say, many different kinds of people to cover the many different useful tasks available on Wikipedia. Including (though of course not limited to) scholars, experts and other professionals with valuable specialist skills. But those types of people struggle to survive in an environment perhaps more geared to suit the sorts of people who have helped engineer its rules, processes and culture: a relatively "geeky" population who really have helped make Wikipedia the extraordinary success it is today; and more worryingly, a "bloggy" population comfortable with a high level of conflictuality not only in the content of discussions but especially in their tone.
How to make the wikipedia environment more friendly for a broad range of good editors? I think we need to adopt an occupational perspective, where the population of good editors (ranging from sporadic to almost full-time contributors) can be seen as a particular type of workforce, and Wikipedia as a virtual workplace.
We really need to help make that workplace congenial, both from an engineering perspective (editing software etc) and socially. But how? Certainly not by adding more rule/process creep. Imo, we need to introduce simple processes to facilitate a more "normal" environment for social human interaction.
A small example: When one thinks of a large international conference, it isn't hard to see that there's no single, universally accepted standard of civil discourse adopted in all situations. Styles vary by group (interests, nationalities, age groups, etc) and setting (foyer chats, mealtimes, small-scale seminars, large-scale debates, etc). People spontaneously gear the way they speak to their fellows and the setting. So, people naturally tend to speak in different styles in the bar and the conference room. And a good speaker won't use a lot of unexplained technical jargon when debating in a plenary session attended by a broad audience. Does that sort of spontaneous differentiation tend to happen in the wikipedia environment? Sometimes, maybe, but often not... And too often discussions tend to degenerate into a sophisticated virtual brawl. Imo, any participant in a serious talk page discussion should be allowed to request – and legitimately expect – that the other participants communicate in relatively plain English rather than an in-group slang or highly personal idiolect filled with obscure citations. I realize that such a change will meet with strong opposition (for example, the first post here under "oppose view 12"). Nevertheless, imo, that's the sort of basic, cultural change may help the wikipedia environment become easier for the general contributorship.
My apologies if this is the "rediscovery of warm water", as we say in Italian. —MistyMORN 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes, if not at all times, stating the obvious is necessary. Its the secret ingredient that makes the "conversational stew" savory and edible for all.```Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is spot-on. Plain English is much more important than many people realise; I think a lot of Wiki-Old-Timers don't realise that they're almost talking a WP/Collegiate American "dialect", which others may not understand the same way that they do. The ability to communicate in a really common language, as opposed to idiolect, is of vital importance. Otherwise, the only people who will stay, long term, are those who speak the same idiolect. British idiolect tends to get one a bite, or a slap on the wrist, from our American editors, for example. Pesky (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Imo, this sort of language 'civility' issue is just one example of diagnosing and addressing the mechanisms which create a certain sort of toxic culture on Wikipedia (rather than relying on disciplinary fixes). If we don't examine the cultural issues at their root – in the relationship between the working environment and the editors who are helping shape that environment – we're going to continue naturally selecting certain types of long-term contributors (and, crucially, dysfunctional communication) at the expense of others. In other words, carefully targeted cultural interventions of this sort are needed to help shape a more healthy and congenial working environment. —MistyMORN 09:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if they don't realize that they're speaking that way, Pesky, or if it's that they don't care. One hallmark of cultural groups or clubs is the development of their own language or dialect, after all. To be one of the "cool kids" you have to know what every acronym and abbreviation means, along with the special variations used by sub-sets of the larger group. I expect that the concept of Plain English is actually threatening to some (even if it's at an unconscious level), because it means giving up a part of that group identity that they've struggled to create. When you couple that specific language with the creation of varying status levels, it makes for a convoluted mess that can be quite difficult to untangle. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've provisionally scouted in a couple of places about the possibility of a WikiProject Plain English for Policies. Other places have come to realise the importance of this (see Plain Writing Act of 2010, Plain English Campaign, etc.) What our policies really should strive for is " ...communication in English that emphasizes clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language – particularly in relation to official [...] communication.
The goal is to write in a way that is easily understood by the target audience: clear and straightforward, appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, free of wordiness, cliché and needless jargon. This is a laudable goal. The question we really need to find the answer to is this one: Why is there so much opposition to it? Pesky (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree completely that more clarity is needed. "Eschew obfuscation"!
- A few logical components as to why change is difficult and feared: (partially for listmaking/cataloguing, and partially to play devil's advocate ;)
- It's hard to explain Detailed Rules and Technical Guidance without using terminology (hence we're implicitly stuffed with jargon)
- It's especially hard to do so without referring to precedent using a lot of short-memorable-handles (eg. "See WP:RS", versus, a 5 paragraph explanation, trying to explain each of the relevant factors (any of which, the editor that you're typing to, might not be fully aware of).)
- Basic words, are usually more general, and less specific. So you need a lot more words, to get across the same nuanced contexts/implications, as a handful of terms from a finely honed lexicon. (basically offering a layman's definition of a technical word, instead of using the word itself, every time.)
- As someone noted in a current discussion about whether or not we should be encouraging some of the younger editors to also try editing at Simple: Wikipedia, "you probably need a slightly higher proficiency [of English, to edit there], as you need to take complex concepts and break them down into a very small range of possible words."
- Mostly the exformation. We're swimming in it. But not all in the same oceans...
- Rambleramble. =) -- Quiddity (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect that we need to simplify some of our processes and then we can simplify how we communicate to people. For example, I'm keen that we introduce autosigning on talkpages. If we do that we can remove this bizarre set of instructions that we give all newbies about when to sign and how they do so. Once people have got more involved then they might choose to default to unsigned and start adding tildas, but that is OK - some people like to personalise. The default should be simple. But the problem is that over the years we've gone the other way. If you can get people to upgrade their skin to Monobook then they don't need to work out what the symbol is for their watchlist, or which sub menu includes "what links here" - it is conveniently one click away. Vector didn't just slow things down by adding an extra click, it complicated things by hiding useful stuff in submenus. I was in the UK office this afternoon doing one of my training sessions, and I don't include long lectures on copyright or reliable sourcing. I start by getting people to do basic things like link articles, fix typos and add a photograph. Explaining preview, edit summary, the advantages of editing sections rather than whole articles, and how you create sections is to me the basic Wiki 101. One day I may write a welcome message that goes through that. I may even get people to upgrade to Monobook as well as setting and confirming their email address. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've provisionally scouted in a couple of places about the possibility of a WikiProject Plain English for Policies. Other places have come to realise the importance of this (see Plain Writing Act of 2010, Plain English Campaign, etc.) What our policies really should strive for is " ...communication in English that emphasizes clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language – particularly in relation to official [...] communication.
- I'm not sure if they don't realize that they're speaking that way, Pesky, or if it's that they don't care. One hallmark of cultural groups or clubs is the development of their own language or dialect, after all. To be one of the "cool kids" you have to know what every acronym and abbreviation means, along with the special variations used by sub-sets of the larger group. I expect that the concept of Plain English is actually threatening to some (even if it's at an unconscious level), because it means giving up a part of that group identity that they've struggled to create. When you couple that specific language with the creation of varying status levels, it makes for a convoluted mess that can be quite difficult to untangle. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Imo, this sort of language 'civility' issue is just one example of diagnosing and addressing the mechanisms which create a certain sort of toxic culture on Wikipedia (rather than relying on disciplinary fixes). If we don't examine the cultural issues at their root – in the relationship between the working environment and the editors who are helping shape that environment – we're going to continue naturally selecting certain types of long-term contributors (and, crucially, dysfunctional communication) at the expense of others. In other words, carefully targeted cultural interventions of this sort are needed to help shape a more healthy and congenial working environment. —MistyMORN 09:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Meetups
On Sunday I was at the London meetup, as were more than twenty other editors including a crat, half a dozen current EN wiki admins, a couple of former admins, at least three newbies, at least four of the 200 editors with the highest edit counts on EN wiki, half the board and employees of the UK chapter and quite a few other editors. Some people there were regulars like me, others come perhaps once or twice a year. I think that meetups provide a really important part of our social glue, perhaps one way to improve editor retention would be to expand the network of meetups to some of the areas which don't yet have them, obviously they won't be to everyone's taste, nor does everyone live within reach of other editors - but I do believe that we could usefully expand this, it is one of the techniques we are consciously trying here in England. ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Like a Birmingham meeting...Nice suggestion WereSpielChequers ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I remember that a couple of years ago, I attended my first WP meetup in London. At the time, it was pretty much the only meetup that existed in the UK, and it was a long way to travel. Scared the hell out of me, as a bumpkin who isn't keen on the big city. However, I ended up sitting between two very friendly wikipedians and did enjoy the meeting. I did manage to get along to another two and the more people I knew online, the more I enjoyed the meetups.
- Last year, however, I noticed a new meetup, Liverpool. I've been to a few of them, and though there's only half a dozen of us, I make a lot of effort to get to it. I'm hoping to get myself along to the Manchester one too. I've got to say, the community feel at meetups that WereSpielChequers points out is definitely a plus for me and I do encourage the promotion of them :) WormTT(talk) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately a bit too far away for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- For those of us state-side, Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 4 is coming up 11/17/2012. I'm several hours away, but hoping to make it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad Atlanta is so far from Philly, the Philly meetups have been less than a mile from my dorm but there hasn't been one in 2 years. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So organise one, Ryan! WormTT(talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, I don't actually live there. Ryan Vesey 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest Cabo San Lucas in the Baja. Wonderful weather year-round, sandy beaches, warm water (pool or Sea of Cortez), whale watching (in season), bikini's (always in season), world class golf courses and deep-sea fishing and Mexican hospitality. We could set-up a meetup for late 2013. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, I don't actually live there. Ryan Vesey 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- So organise one, Ryan! WormTT(talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad Atlanta is so far from Philly, the Philly meetups have been less than a mile from my dorm but there hasn't been one in 2 years. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- For those of us state-side, Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 4 is coming up 11/17/2012. I'm several hours away, but hoping to make it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would love to attend a WikNik in the New Forest, but I would definitely not love to organise one! (Though I can suggest some really nice locations ;P) Pesky (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Virtual meetups
wp:WikiVoices is dormant now, but it could easily be revived. I don't see why those who can't make real life meetups can't have virtual meetups using Skype conference calls. Maybe it would be an idea to relaunch it but as a non-recorded meetup, as I remember it recording was a hassle and was based on the idea that we were producing an event that others would be interested in, so as a result the conversation was more focussed and orderly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is an excellent suggestion. One that is rarely exploited. I would also suggest that if there is a WiFi connection at a real venue, some other users could be invited to take part by Skype, and not restrict this to casual meetups either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- This wouldn't work at the current London meetup, partly because the WiFi is rubbish at the venue, but also mainly because it is in a pub and the background noise rules it out. But we have had virtual participants in at least one of our editathons at London museums and I hope that we can repeat that. Though the emphasis there has been to bring in other languages, but we can make the technology and everything else work. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is an excellent suggestion. One that is rarely exploited. I would also suggest that if there is a WiFi connection at a real venue, some other users could be invited to take part by Skype, and not restrict this to casual meetups either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Quote
I had to "tweak" this quote abit to fit the Wikipedia Experience but I think it is worthy of sharing. I know it speaks more toward WP:Civility but I think it also whispers to us at WP:PER to realize the long term potential of every new editor and that we have no way to predict their greatness.....
“Let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side for many years to come. Let’s treat this work as if it is one of the most important things on the Internet. Because, to some, it is...ANONyMOUS”
```Buster Seven Talk 15:05 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahem....He didn't want to be completely anonymous so he choose anon-o-mous...unknown identity, but still unique. ¿Are you buying this?```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Show Appreciation
There was some research last summer that showed that the community problems such as lower retention rates of new editors coincided with a shift from a culture of praising good work to one of negative feedback. Personally I don't accept that it was as simple as that, my feeling is that it has been the shift from collaborative editing to template bombing that is just as corrosive. But it almost certainly is one of the causes of our problems, and we can all take steps to counter that. If you have a nice message for someone then if they've earned say it with a barnstar. If it doesn't merit a barnstar then it can still be an excuse to say something nice on their talkpage or in their guestbook. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think shifting the emphasis to rewards is indeed important. On a personal level, this is something I try to do regularly and encourage others to do as well. Sometimes it is more difficult to find these editors that quietly go about their daily life just making Wikipedia a better place. If you have any ideas to make locating these editors, I would love to hear them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have any of you worked with the NewPagesFeed? It now includes the ability to leave a note for an editor when patrolling their page. If I place tags, I like to thank the editor for their addition and remind them that the tags are there to help them improve their article. I've already got some positive feedback from a new(ish) editor. Sadly, I've seen people using the comment field to leave notes (all on one editor's page) that consist of "Expand this article" (x2) and "Expand it". I've discussed this with the user in question, but we should look out for this (and all try to do some friendly new page patrolling ourself.) Ryan Vesey 18:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- While I like a lot about the new system there are some aspects that don't work as well as the old one. When using the old system I would make a point of patrolling articles by authors with redlinked talkpages and if the articles were good faith and at least borderline notable I would drop them a welcome. The problem with the new system is that the redlinking isn't updated in real time and I'd often find that they'd already been welcomed and often warned. That and the new curation tool bar obscuring the edit buttons on the right hand side means I may return to the old system. I do worry that people will move from templating articles that need work on them to the even more bitey level of tagging the author's page to assert that those authors should do that work. My experience is that if you wikify and categorise articles then new editors quickly pick up on that and copy what you've done in their latest articles. I'm not convinced that templating articles is as effective at teaching new editors as actually improving articles. It certainly isn't as effective at improving the articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- We probably need to inject a little love over at New Page Patrol. I think you are right. I used to patrol new pages to tag them way back when, but instead jumping in and wikifying a few things, improving in even a small way, will have much more positive results, including letting the new user instantly know they are not alone and others are willing to help. This might help offset some of the quicky tags and bad warnings the new users often get. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- While I like a lot about the new system there are some aspects that don't work as well as the old one. When using the old system I would make a point of patrolling articles by authors with redlinked talkpages and if the articles were good faith and at least borderline notable I would drop them a welcome. The problem with the new system is that the redlinking isn't updated in real time and I'd often find that they'd already been welcomed and often warned. That and the new curation tool bar obscuring the edit buttons on the right hand side means I may return to the old system. I do worry that people will move from templating articles that need work on them to the even more bitey level of tagging the author's page to assert that those authors should do that work. My experience is that if you wikify and categorise articles then new editors quickly pick up on that and copy what you've done in their latest articles. I'm not convinced that templating articles is as effective at teaching new editors as actually improving articles. It certainly isn't as effective at improving the articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have any of you worked with the NewPagesFeed? It now includes the ability to leave a note for an editor when patrolling their page. If I place tags, I like to thank the editor for their addition and remind them that the tags are there to help them improve their article. I've already got some positive feedback from a new(ish) editor. Sadly, I've seen people using the comment field to leave notes (all on one editor's page) that consist of "Expand this article" (x2) and "Expand it". I've discussed this with the user in question, but we should look out for this (and all try to do some friendly new page patrolling ourself.) Ryan Vesey 18:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support the Article Feedback System
Since Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 is focused on gaining more editors from encouraging them to start off reviewing and commenting on articles, they'll come into this area if they do join where we're trying to keep them and make their experience here better. So the more this tool attracts, the more new blood we'll have to work with and encourage to stay, train etc. Keeping in mind we lost User:Swifty for about the third time this week because he feels someone wants to argue with him every time he un-retires, then maybe we should also be working on the areas of Wikipedia that are widely slated for not working and only exacerbating things? Hopefully that makes sense, i'm struggling to word it atm. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the WP main page about dispute resolution, a majority of issues can be addressed with it. Though the feedback tool is definitely cool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should also work together with the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign since they have a similar goal to ours. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the WP main page about dispute resolution, a majority of issues can be addressed with it. Though the feedback tool is definitely cool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- A handshake barnstar (a variation of WP:REP's icon) from the Kindness Campaign page:
The Friendship Barnstar | ||
Nice to meet you (then add your tilde) |
{{subst:Friendship Barnstar| your message}}```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A challenge
Ok, one of the big problems here that puts people off is pov nationalistic edit warring. Throw in possible sock puppets. changing sourced text, etc and it's just the sort of environment that causes editors to walk away. So, anyone want to take a look at WP:ANI#Ambitious Stance by Kurdo777 and see if they can help? Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oy, I don't have time to look right now, and you are 100% correct that this is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia: editors from nationalities that have spent generations at war with each other. It isn't likely that we can make them "play nice" here either. Nationalistic POV issues are difficult, and something I've avoided as I'm not as familiar with the topic (any of them) to comfortably jump in and determine truth from fiction on. Most of the time, I would rather slam my head in a sliding glass door than jump into those areas, but I suppose we all need to do our fair share if we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Editor retention versus editor education
I'll tell you where I am with all this. A number of people I know actively shun Wikipedia. They could do great work on here, in fact they're the sort of diligent people who think nothing of going to libraries (including some seriously big and scary ones) or researching content to prove verifiability. They won't touch Wikipedia because they've been alienated by a couple of unfortunate experiences that stem back some years, with everyone generally getting the wrong end of the stick.
I've been having a think about what the cause of this is, and I notice the following problems :
- Understanding of policies : If you've spent time at Articles for Creation, you'll quickly realise that our core policies, particularly verifiability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV, are not at all obvious to newcomers. Typical errors (which I've seen multiple instances of in each case) include :
- An article about yourself
- No sources
- Sourced entirely from blogs, Facebook or Twitter
- Sourced from several news articles that mention the article subject in one sentence
- The latter one of these is really interesting, because to the untrained eye, it may look like an excellent, well formatted article that looks aesthetically good, but if it's not backed up by references that determine notability, it's got a good risk of heading off to WP:AfD and getting wiped. We need to make sure that when something fails a core policy, we must explain to people why, and do our best to make sure they understand. Otherwise they'll just get brassed off, call us names, and go elsewhere. Mention of AfD brings me onto....
- Unawareness of discussions : I've seen a number of people say "hey, I was reading this article about 'x' a few months back, and I can't find it. Where's it gone?" Of course, somebody decided it wasn't notable enough and sent it to AfD, where the regulars all got their whack-a-mole sticks out and shouted "Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SFoD". How is an intermittent editor going to spot that? Granted, our policies state you should send the main contributors to the article a note, but somebody just casually browsing an article and not being able to find it some time later doesn't come under this remit, so they'll get left out. Still, at least with AfD you can find the discussion, where you might have a hope of working out why the consensus went to delete, which you won't get for...
- Understanding CSDs : I cannot overstate this enough - there is a legitimate time to speedy delete stuff, but we have got to make really, really sure, we get it right. I've stated my opinion recently on AN/I here about this, but to quickly recap, I think if an article doesn't make you go "So what?" or "Big deal!" at the end of it, it's not a valid candidate for A7 or A9. Let's take our hypothetical casual browser - all he sees is a note saying "doesn't assert importance", which doesn't really mean anything unless you have a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, ideally with a bit of experience at AfD. He can't find out why the article was deleted. Well, he could ask the deleting admin - if he can work out how to do that. And if the admin can remember. Let me give you an example of the sort of collateral damage a CSD can do - this comes from a forum that requires registration and assertion of an interest in the subject, so I'll requote part of it here. As you might expect, it's a response to a thread that started with somebody saying "Where's the article about 'x' gone?" I've blanked out the names to avoid mentioning the guilty party! :
Wikipedia's deletion log wrote:
[date and time] [name redacted] (Talk | contribs) deleted "[article name]" (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
(a quotation from WP:CSD#A7 follows)
God, why can't these people write in plain English? Even after reading the so-called explanation of code CSD A7, I'm none the wiser. I have to say I don't think I've ever looked at the Wikipedia page on [article], but if it explained briefly what [article] is, who has the right to take it upon themselves to decide it's insignificant? I think there's something I'm not getting about Wikipedia's deletion policy, which isn't helped by the impenetrable gobbledegook its administrators hide behind.
...and a short time later on the admin's talk page (to, IIRC, no response)
Why did you delete this using "speedy deletion"? [Article] is quite possibly the foremost authority on [subject], and the [article] name has been mentioned in the media a few times - certainly, enough to give it notability.
I request that you either revert your deletion, or place the matter up for discussion.
Thanks.
- And that's written from a person I'd consider to be reasonably intelligent, too.
I could go on, but it's a sunny day outside and I fancy going for a run. Anyway, I thought I'd throw that lot up in the air, to see what people think.
Discuss! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your implication that an admin unilaterally deleted the article in question without explanation is disingenuous to say the least. What actually happened was that the admin in question painstakingly explained what the issues were regarding the article, gave long lists of suggestions as to what might be done to prevent deletion, and when these issues weren't addressed after lengthy discussion merged the saveable parts of the article with the parent topic, in a way I'd consider absolutely exemplary for the way an admin should treat a well-intentioned user who's obviously devoted a lot of work to a topic which isn't really appropriate as a Wikipedia article. Certainly, some admins are more trigger-happy than others, but I've never seen a WP admin who's not been willing to explain their reasoning when questioned regarding any action they've taken. 188.29.235.116 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — 188.29.235.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That wasn't the admin in question at all. That talk page you refer to is fine - we discussed issues and reached a consensus. There wasn't any CSDing at all. In fact, the issue I refer to predates that by some years. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your implication that an admin unilaterally deleted the article in question without explanation is disingenuous to say the least. What actually happened was that the admin in question painstakingly explained what the issues were regarding the article, gave long lists of suggestions as to what might be done to prevent deletion, and when these issues weren't addressed after lengthy discussion merged the saveable parts of the article with the parent topic, in a way I'd consider absolutely exemplary for the way an admin should treat a well-intentioned user who's obviously devoted a lot of work to a topic which isn't really appropriate as a Wikipedia article. Certainly, some admins are more trigger-happy than others, but I've never seen a WP admin who's not been willing to explain their reasoning when questioned regarding any action they've taken. 188.29.235.116 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — 188.29.235.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm a reformed deletionist, and have the dubious distinction of being the only admin to pass through WP:RfA and get the admin bit based on a pledge to get mentoring for CSD. Fortunately, they saw other attributes worthy of adminship, and I'm always up for a slice of humble pie. I can honestly say I see the problem from both sides of the issue. Part of how we counter this is to catch up with editors early in the process, welcoming them, so they have someone to contact if they get an article deleted via CSD. Just ask, unless it is defamatory or a copyright violation, I will happily restore a copy of the article in their userspace so they can work on it, and even pitch in with a source or two. All the admins here will do the same, and a good chunk of the members of WER are admins. Just ask here, it will get picked up quick enough. Buster7's (and many other's) efforts to catch good editors early help as well. Anyone can periodically check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and check out borderline articles, making an argument on the talk page of them, or simply removing the CSD tag if it obviously doesn't apply. A look at the history of the article and the history of the creator will tell you what you need to know. Of course, we aren't here to prop up SPAs, which is sometimes a difficult call to make for a new user, but a warm welcome and offer to help if they need it is free and will help offset any perceived biting by the CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not naming names, like, but at least one Wikipedia admin regularly runs a "delete all" script over every expired PROD and CSD without bothering to look at them first, on the grounds that "if they were worth saving someone will complain". This is what you're up against. As is people who slap {{spa}} tags on IP postings, come to that. 188.29.127.191 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I had a similar experience creating a new article that was marked for speedy deletion before I even had a chance to add sources. The way I think about this problem - reviewers will be more cautious about speedy deletion, when there are fewer articles that need deletion. A good way to start might be with the edit notice editors get when they try to create a new article. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I had actually thought a while ago that it would be a good idea to require all articles created to be created on some sort of a template that required references and had a predefined structure. Not being much of a wonk, I wouldn't have any idea of how to implement that, but it seems a good idea to help avoid frustration caused by submitting a substandard article when the writer had no idea it was substandard. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I had a similar experience creating a new article that was marked for speedy deletion before I even had a chance to add sources. The way I think about this problem - reviewers will be more cautious about speedy deletion, when there are fewer articles that need deletion. A good way to start might be with the edit notice editors get when they try to create a new article. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
An orphaned essay
WP:DIG could be relevant here... an essay which is currently tagged as "orphaned". —MistyMorn (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)