Reply and various typos, punctuation etc |
→Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...: duplicate word (mobile edits) oops etc |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
# Wikipedia is the least dystopian and most inclusive body of staff in the world. It takes a good run at it to get yourself pushed out of the project. For the most part editors who would be out on their heel if this were a company are allowed to continue to contribute freely. Wikipedia is easy to fix not difficult to break, and for this reason it can afford to accommodate the odd muppet or two. This also means that policies have to cover non-standard contributions and new editors often find that their writing doesn’t quite fit the guidelines to start off with. |
# Wikipedia is the least dystopian and most inclusive body of staff in the world. It takes a good run at it to get yourself pushed out of the project. For the most part editors who would be out on their heel if this were a company are allowed to continue to contribute freely. Wikipedia is easy to fix not difficult to break, and for this reason it can afford to accommodate the odd muppet or two. This also means that policies have to cover non-standard contributions and new editors often find that their writing doesn’t quite fit the guidelines to start off with. |
||
# lastly: policy across Wikipedia CANNOT be consistently applied. We are volunteers trying to do our best for the most part. We are lucky if a group of concerned editors take it upon themselves to standardize and apply policy and manuals of style across a select category, but you can surely see the fact that an open project of this nature and scale is vast, flexible and evolving at different speeds in different areas. It’s unreasonable to make a complaint that because one article looks more poorly written, that an article you created, or to which you contributed ought to be left alone. It’s both a necessity and a compliment that, having written an article, editors want to get involved with your contributions and work with you. Again, that’s the reward and the merit of contributing to this project! |
# lastly: policy across Wikipedia CANNOT be consistently applied. We are volunteers trying to do our best for the most part. We are lucky if a group of concerned editors take it upon themselves to standardize and apply policy and manuals of style across a select category, but you can surely see the fact that an open project of this nature and scale is vast, flexible and evolving at different speeds in different areas. It’s unreasonable to make a complaint that because one article looks more poorly written, that an article you created, or to which you contributed ought to be left alone. It’s both a necessity and a compliment that, having written an article, editors want to get involved with your contributions and work with you. Again, that’s the reward and the merit of contributing to this project! |
||
: having said that it looks like You have got off to a flying start. In this respect, trust me you are having one of the better experiences a new editor can have if you have passed that many articles through AfC. Well done there. Please try to adjust to the idea of being part of a process, and embrace BRD. The editors who come at your work from different perspectives are not irrelevant. They all have experience in some facet of policy and aim to improve the articles you are creating. Thanks for your contributions this far. I’m in architecture myself. I enjoyed reading your articles but can also understand some of the criticisms you’ve encountered |
: having said that it looks like You have got off to a flying start. In this respect, trust me you are having one of the better experiences a new editor can have if you have passed that many articles through AfC. Well done there. Please try to adjust to the idea of being part of a process, and embrace BRD. The editors who come at your work from different perspectives are not irrelevant. They all have experience in some facet of policy and aim to improve the articles you are creating. Thanks for your contributions this far. I’m in architecture myself. I enjoyed reading your articles but can also understand some of the criticisms you’ve encountered. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 30 December 2018
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."
- Wikipedia:First contact
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests
Signpost WikiProject Report
Hello, WikiProject Editor Retention! I'm ProgrammingGeek and I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost.
From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost
- –
- –
- –
- –
Going forward, each participant receives a wikilink to the interview workspace questions about the project's work, problems and achievements.
Please let me know if you're interested! Thanks so much. Kindest regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (I am watching this page)
Wishlist proposal on one-click inline cleanup tags
The best editor-retention idea I've seen is proposed in the current Wishlist Survey. It suggests making it as easy to tag (with "citation needed" etc.) as it is to rvv, using semi-automated tools. There is evidence[1][2] that being tagged rather than reverted will cause more new editors to stick around and improve their edits and skills. Having their edits tagged for cleanup actually makes editors more likely to stay than if their edits go untouched. It should also be faster to tag than to write custom comments in a good-faith revert, so semi-automated tool users will be motivated to tag more, especially if they then see new editors fixing their edits. Our editor numbers started declining when we introduced automated vandal-fighting tools (see research, and graph); adding new functionality to those tools could reverse that change, and give us record retention rates, faster editor training, and better content. Please consider voting on the wish. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
- Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
- I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
- If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
- Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...
- Originally from WP:Teahouse#Perceived_Flyspecking_Editors_..._Is_This_Normal?, I've just re-pasted the wikitext version, to preserve the formatting Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This thread took place in the past 48 hours in the Teahouse and should serve as a case study on how and why editors are lost ...
Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?
There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear.
They seem to be on a power-trip at times.
I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs)
- Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply.
- Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere.
- The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page.
- I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another.
- We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here.
- If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT.I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS.As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted that, not because it was original work on your part, or accused of being autobiographic (that was a different editor's error), but specifically because it was from an interview with the subject of the article. Interview content is not appropriate. What people say about themselves - interviews, their own blogs/websites - is not usable content. It's not personal, it's just Wikipedia (to loosely paraphrase The Godfather). David notMD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Architecttype: Continuing to refer to others as "wiki-enforcers", "wiki-cops" and "wiki-bullies" and assume they are only interested in browbeating others or are acting in WP:BADFAITH like here and here is a WP:BATTLEFIELD type of approach that is not helpful at all. You might feel the way Wikipedia has been set up is sad, but all of us have to learn to try and edit according to its policies and guidelines, which include Wikipedia:Behavioral guidelines. If we deviate too much from these guidelines too many times to the point that it starts to get disruptive, then the community may decide that whatever specialized knowledge we are capable of providing simply doesn't outweigh the problems we are creating. The community may then decide to tell us its time to either slow down and reassess our approach or to move on altogether. New editors are expected not to know everything Wikipedia right from the get go and good faith will be assumed when they make mistakes; however, as per Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, the community does have its limits on assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Architecttype: Sadly, I have to agree with Marchjuly's comments above. Having taken a fair bit of time yesterday night to try to explain to you how we operate, and why sometimes messages left for users who breach our policies can seem a little terse (and effectively apologising to you for that), I'm really disappointed to see you are still using derogatory terms like 'wiki-cop' and 'wiki-enforcer' in your posts. I am starting to sense that, whilst you might be a technical expert and are making great contributions in your field, you may also have an attitude problem towards other editors. Please drop it, and simply recognise the essential efforts of those who maintain this site, and stop disparaging the necessary task of those who ensure that the 5.5 million articles here are maintained in good order. OK, so you've received a couple of minor notices encouraging you to modify your editing (one of which I still don't understand), but it's time to get over it and stop being nasty about other contributors here. Being belligerent is not a nice way to deal with others - it just sounds arrogant. And that almost inevitably leads to conflict. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not perfect by any means, and it has received a fair amount of criticism over the years. If you'd like to make suggestions on how it can be improved, then the place for that is probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), one of the general noticeboards or a relevant policy/guideline talk page. Not only will more people be watching those pages than are watching your user talk page, but also project-wide changes are best decided by the community as a whole and not by user talk page discussion. I believe what you're sincere and mean well, but at the seem time you seem quick to see things the issues your having as "a Wikipedia problem" instead possibly being a problem with the approach your taking. Even the very title you've chose for this thread and the tone you used in your original comment kind of indicated that you've decided that you are in the right and the others are in the wrong. Wikipedia, however, is not really about winning and its policies and guidelines have been established over many years with input from many different people. This doesn't mean they don't need to occasionally be reviewed and changed as needed, but it does mean that some thought went into establishing them and it was determined (at least at the time) through a consensus of the community that they are consistent with and help further the project's overall goals. Part of being WP:HERE is recognizing those goals and doing our best to adhere to them at all times. It's OK to be WP:NOTNOTHERE and propose changes in good-faith without feeling the need to attach a label to everyone who disagrees with you along the way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has become dystopian. The process has become more important than the product. Seriously, take the time to read the boilerplate written above (You're not doing it right ... there's a certain way we do things here ... you can't say that here. No, TALK pages, TEAHOUSE, and PNB are for just talking, you need to go to VILLAGEPUMP. No, you must use our NOTGALLERY and NOTNOTHERE policy. Nope, cannot BLANK pages, against policy, you actions have been reverted.) IMPERFECT.OWN.CONSENSUS.NOTEVERYTHING.YFA.CIT.CITE.NOTABLE.HERE.REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend the fortress against outsiders. Thats why there is a dearth of good editors.
- Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles. Bye. Architecttype (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This conversation took place simultaneously on the author's user talk page and article talk page ...
Image use
While adding images to article is often a good thing, adding too many images can be counterproductive per WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. For example, Wikipedia might use a book cover image for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a book, or perhaps as an example of an illustrators work in an article about an illustrator, but the way the two covers are being used in the "Bibliography and media" section seems a bit unnecessary. If the books are Wikipedia notable enough for stand-alone articles to be written about them, then the covers could be used in those article. In this article, however, they seem out of place and are not needed in my opinion.
Same kinda goes for the "Selected work" gallery as well. It would be better to incorporate these into the body of the article near relevant article content and then use a template such a Template:Commons category to let the reader know that more images of this type can be found on Commons. There's really no need for two images of the same building/house or of the same representative style of technique; so, pick the ones for the better known examples discussed in the article, incorporate them into the article and then remove the rest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the comments on the books. The "Four Florida Moderns" book image was already being used in Wikimedia. Can take or leave them. As far as gallery of selected work ... it would seem that artists, and architects, are among those who should use 'gallery' more than anyone (as in 'art gallery'). Trying to describe an architects' work without visually showing the evolution of his design through multiple images would be near-impossible. I've always wondered why, if the gallery function exists, people like Frank Lloyd Wright, don't have an extensive gallery of works in their page (except that many of Wright's works have their own pages). So perhaps, 'gallery' really works best for people like Peterson, who have a plethora of works that deserve to be seen, but individually can't justify their own pages. Check out Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. How can you possibly explain that stuff without seeing it in their galleries?? What makes Wikipedia so much better than a book is that you can click on a gallery image and see it in full-monitor-size HD (without the need to navigate to Commons)!! Frankly, I think every significant architect should have image galleries of some type in their articles, they would improve them greatly!! If not for a purpose like this ... then why have 'image galleries' at all?Architecttype (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The gallery seems to work OK here and Wikipedia:Image use policy says…a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Why cannot individual images supporting text do the job in this article? I have removed the images with no apparent connection with the subject.SovalValtos (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I would be happy with that or a reduced gallery with subjects not mentioned in the article removed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of brevity, I had removed his awards, which mentioned all of the buildings in the gallery. By reinstituting the list, they are all included. Voila!!Architecttype (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
With the removal of the gallery and addition of individual images the article now looks a complete mess, the awards section is sprawling and unreferenced, also please note we don't use external links in the body of the article. Also please don't attack other editors and assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is the complete inconsistency with which the rules are applied. I'm looking at dozens of other architect articles, none of which receive the attention of this one. Why? Is there some subjective judgment being made somewhere? This guy deserves a gallery, but that guy does not? All we ask is consistency and fairness in the process. Check Max Strang for example. His list is far more ridiculous and sprawling than this one. Not one word or edit, however. Someone has a bone to pick, methinks. Architecttype (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
other crap exists is not a good argument, I have tagged the Max Strang article which is VERY poorly sourced indeed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Ok. Willing to work with you. Can all the AIA honors be sourced with one link (i.e. footnotes 34 and 35)? Or must each and every award be footnoted? I can do this, but it will make it a complete mess and double (possibly triple) the size of the reference list. Then the article will likely be criticized for being too long. Ideas?Architecttype (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain we need a giant list of awards, sourced or not, are there some notable ones (ie those that have their own Wikipedia articles) that can be picked out? Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Still working in this area (or at least I was). I get it ... "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". I have an interest in these pages being good because the discipline is important to me. To see the work being compressed down into insignificance in order to satisfy a hornets nest of wiki-bullies is hardly worth the effort. All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade. Watching this process for the first time, it seems to work like this: "This person is worth "X" amount of space, and certainly no photos. We need to shrink it down to no more than three vertical inches" Born. Died. Architect. Done. Architecttype (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
OK I'm taking it off my watch list you clearly don't assume any good faith on my part. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────┘ @Architecttype. Please don't remove or WP:BLANK talk page discussions, especially when they include posts made by others. If you're no longer interested in responding, then you don't have to; however, removing an entire thread like you did here may give others the impression that you claiming some kind of ownership over the page or trying to discourage others from participating. If you'd like to remove one of your own posts or change something you previously posted, then please follow WP:REDACT. If the talk page starts to get too big, archiving can be done to keep things more manageable; however, the page is nowhere near that point at the moment.
FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that all of the images need to be removed, only that image use be more selective and tied into the article content. A smaller gallery of images might have even been workable, but redundant images of the same structure or type of structure probably weren't necessary if there wasn't corresponding article content particularly related to said images. A balance between article content needs to be found because in its most basic form a Wikipedia article is intended to be textual content supported by selected relevant images, not the other way around.
A Wikipedia article is really only intended to be written in a summary style; so, not every bit of information (even verifiable information) about the subject needs to be included per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So, in many cases, links to other existing articles as well as links to other existing pages are used to avoid articles becoming too dense with detail. In some cases, this might mean that each and every article on a particular subject matter are not formatted or laid out exactly the same way, but that's OK because of WP:OTHERCONTENT. So, just because something is being done on another similar article, does not be mean is also should done on this article, and vice versa. It could also mean that it shouldn't be being done on the other article as well, but only that nobody has noticed it and gotten around to fixing it as of yet.
Theroadislong's point about the awards is one often made on this type of article. Once again, article content tends to try and focus on main awards and honors which appear to be Wikipedia notable and encyclopedically relevant to reader. Of course, there may be disagreements over this, but these disagreements are worked out through discussion. Referring to others as a "Wiki-bully" just because they don't agree with your vision for the article is not helpful and might actually be seen as a personal attack against these others. This is exactly the type of thing I tried to advise you to avoid doing in my response to your Teahouse question because it's not conducive to constructive talk page discussion or collaborative editing at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have learned much today ... and have posted thoughts about it in a thread on my user talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype)Architecttype (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Cardinal rule is be nice[edit source]
Disagreements over content are common, and expected. However, editors are expected not to attack the good-faith actions of other editors: "Still working in this area (or at least I was). I get it ... "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". I have an interest in these pages being good because the discipline is important to me. To see the work being compressed down into insignificance in order to satisfy a hornets nest of wiki-bullies is hardly worth the effort. All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade. Watching this process for the first time, it seems to work like this: 'This person is worth "X" amount of space, and certainly no photos. We need to shrink it down to no more than three vertical inches.'" For all biographies, of people living or dead, there is no no need to list all works by that person, nor all awards. These are not CVs. your sentence "All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade." makes it clear that you are editing contrary to Wikipedia's intent. For all of us, our own areas of expertise are important to us, but we do not try to impress our own opinions on what is important on the articles we edit. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I will add that statements on editors' Talk pages such as "There seem to be malicious motivations with your editing. It is also apparent that you have a history of edit-warring. Please advise." are unduly confrontational. Again, there are places to debate what does and does not belong in an article and those places are the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, David notMD. I appreciate your input and advice. However, as I have already stated, there is a huge lack of consistency in how articles are edited. An architect is acknowledged by his peers for outstanding achievement and such a 'merit' award apparently does not merit inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia. Kim Kardashian falsely claims to be Armenian, and an entire paragraph is written about it. What does this say about the standards employed at Wikipedia? (Refer to MIT comment below about Pokeman and Porn)
- There is also a great deal of editor-trolling on the site. An author gets somewhat defensive and its like blood in the water. The collective hive becomes angered, creating a frenzy to destroy or diminish the article as much as possible, all done with civility of course, and by using the rules to incrementally carve it down to a predetermined consensus-appropriate size (or eliminate it entirely). Some of them even go so far as to find and maliciously edit every other page the author has done as well, literally chasing them across Wikipedia. This does not happen to every contributor, only the ones lucky-enough to annoy particular wiki-enforcers. Please read: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_"hive_mind") about hive-mind mentality, excessive use of rules, and social stratification. I respectfully disagree with your cardinal rule. The cardinal rule should be consistency and fairness in the way the rules are applied, rather than using rules to justify ones' personal or bureaucratic subjectivity.
- I am a new contributor. You should be so lucky, especially when contributors are bailing by the thousands from Wikipedia. From Wikipedia's own Wikipedia page: "In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008. The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, in 2011, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable". A 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" in MIT's Technology Review questioned this claim. The article revealed that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia ... and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae. In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline. In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis"."
- The administrators and editors who stay, of course, love it ... for obvious reasons. I've been doing this for three weeks, and the effort on the part of some folks to purge me is palpable. David notMD, I sense that you're a sincere guy, but the power trip I've witnessed today is excessive and capricious. Your peers are certainly not living up to your cardinal rule either. Architecttype (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Directly from the MIT article mentioned above: Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores. The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/)
- Amen. Architecttype (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Just pinging the other editors (@Nick Moyes, Edaham, David notMD, Bellezzasolo, Theroadislong, SovalValtos, and Ariconte:) whose comments/posts are being referenced above as a courtesy in case they wish to further clarify anything that was written. For reference, the links where most of the above took place, in addition to the Teahouse discussion, are Talk:Guy Peterson#Image use and User talk:Architecttype#Cardinal rule is be nice; there were. however, some posts at User talk:SovalValtos#Guy Peterson, and User talk:Ariconte#Autobiographical ... which are also related. Just for future reference, it probably would've be better to just link to the relevant pages instead of copying and pasting entire threads onto this page so as to make it a little easier for others new to the discussion to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do have a comment actually. User:Architecttype To new editors in general who have information in a specialist field to contribute: if you were contributing information to any other literary body, it would be a job, with submission guidelines and a review process. An author probably wouldn’t have the final say in what got printed if they were writing copy for a dictionary or text book. It would be edited by different departments with different concerns in mind. Because parts of Wikipedia somewhat resemble social media and you don’t have to face a job interview to get on board, lots of people have the idea that it’s going to be easy to contribute or that they have a free right to see their efforts go to print.
- you don’t have a right to see your work in print. That’s not why we contribute. We don’t write articles to see them stand as a memorial of our effort. We get to be a part of an editorial process. That’s the reward.
- it’s not easy. Nor would any similar job be expected to be easy. If you jump straight into article writing, get used to the bold-revert-discuss cycle pretty quickly or bang your head on the table trying, if you believe that standing guard over your work is the way to keep it template free and unedited.
- Wikipedia is the least dystopian and most inclusive body of staff in the world. It takes a good run at it to get yourself pushed out of the project. For the most part editors who would be out on their heel if this were a company are allowed to continue to contribute freely. Wikipedia is easy to fix not difficult to break, and for this reason it can afford to accommodate the odd muppet or two. This also means that policies have to cover non-standard contributions and new editors often find that their writing doesn’t quite fit the guidelines to start off with.
- lastly: policy across Wikipedia CANNOT be consistently applied. We are volunteers trying to do our best for the most part. We are lucky if a group of concerned editors take it upon themselves to standardize and apply policy and manuals of style across a select category, but you can surely see the fact that an open project of this nature and scale is vast, flexible and evolving at different speeds in different areas. It’s unreasonable to make a complaint that because one article looks more poorly written, that an article you created, or to which you contributed ought to be left alone. It’s both a necessity and a compliment that, having written an article, editors want to get involved with your contributions and work with you. Again, that’s the reward and the merit of contributing to this project!
- having said that it looks like You have got off to a flying start. In this respect, trust me you are having one of the better experiences a new editor can have if you have passed that many articles through AfC. Well done there. Please try to adjust to the idea of being part of a process, and embrace BRD. The editors who come at your work from different perspectives are not irrelevant. They all have experience in some facet of policy and aim to improve the articles you are creating. Thanks for your contributions this far. I’m in architecture myself. I enjoyed reading your articles but can also understand some of the criticisms you’ve encountered. Edaham (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)