Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
10 (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)
- Deletions. See discussion here.
- Signed and post-dated per request of Ottawahitech; ```Buster Seven Talk 15 August 2012
- There is a good reason why this thread was unsigned and undated: 1) so that following editors would feel free to add to a potential growing list of "things" , 2) so that they would not feel they were infringing on another editors thread (or toes). From my experience, it is common not to take credit for an idea or a compilation of someone elses idea. Pre-August, another editor commented that it might be a good idea to search out 20 things that cause the most climate damage. These were the 9 that I contributed/compiled/collected. And 3) had I signed and dated, it may have gotten archived before it reached "adulthood". It looks like no one else added to that number. But they easily could have since Aug 15. No harm done. I still don't think it will be archived. Feel free to add nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. That was the idea in the first place. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Do deletions at Wikipedia lead to editor attrition?
Just before this unsigned/undated entry disappears into the archives, I just wanted to say that for me the biggest issue at Wikipedia, from day one and until today, was and still is rampant Deletions. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's true for the 25% of newbies who start by creating a new page, and it is an especially big problem for the minority of them who are creating stuff we want but get tagged by sloppy speedy deleters. However I'm not convinced that page deletion is such a problem for the 75% of newbies who start by editing existing articles, I think that they are more likely deterred by unexplained reverts and that all editors, newbies and old hands, are damaged by the shift from SoFixIt to template bombing that happened about five years ago. ϢereSpielChequers 15:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers, thanks - useful statistics - where are they from? I am also curious to find out how many articles are deleted daily under the different deletion processes? Looking at the deletion log it is easy to determine that there are definitely over a thousand pages deleted every day - that makes hundreds of thousands of pages deleted per year! Ottawahitech (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
How deletions damage efforts to retain editors
- Here is a link to a deletion discussion that starts with these words "THIS ARTICLE IS PURELY TRIVIAL". What a welcome for a brand new editor who just joined Wikipedia on 26 October 2012!
- On the flip side, I see someone attempting to remove an article started by Simon Pulsifer who has been around since 2001. Would you blame Pulsifer for not sticking with this thankless volunteer job? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
"You have been warned"
Today's (Nov 17, 2012) caption:
- And the conundrum is: How should an admin close when there is apparently a clear consensus to keep (possibly by a multitude of SPA votes and votes by editors who are not aware of policies, when the 'keep' closure would clearly conflict with inclusion policies or guidelines? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Admins should have some leeway when the apparent consensu is mostly by newcomers - between the possibility that these votes don't take our policies into account, and the possibilit of sockpuppetry, I think that in such cases, admins may ignore the newcomers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Admins closing as Delete even when the deletion discussion has a clear Keep consensus?
Can this really be happening? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's called supervoting, and it bypasses discussion, and it sucks, and it's bad practice, and it breaks faith with the community, and it's kinda rapey, and if editors admitted they'd be doing this during their RfA interviews, they'd be nowhere goddamn fast. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Lexein, Thanks for participating here and helping me understand the complex rules regarding deletions at Wikipedia. I knew that admins are supposed to act according to the community's consensus in deletion discussions, but did not know that the example I provided here was not the only exception. Is this common? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Once a year is too often, but I have no idea how often it really happens. I observe that just happened 272 times, though, if that's any indication. So no more for about 272 years would be about right, by my lights. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- (Sorry for not linking, the "272" number is a quote of User talk:Koavf, with whom I had stern words about his representations of policy in his recent image deletion nominations.) --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe Lexein is referring to a Deletion Review that has been started at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25. If I understand this right this particular admin has deleted 272 pages against consensus? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Once a year is too often, but I have no idea how often it really happens. I observe that just happened 272 times, though, if that's any indication. So no more for about 272 years would be about right, by my lights. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin smoke signals needed. GiantSnowman 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear until I looked at the DRV and realised we're talking about using non-free images, which it's good practice to err on the side of not including them. Do you have any examples of articles being supervoted on? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this is the admin who is deleting image files against clear community consensus to retain them in the cases being made reference to here it should be understood that this admin has a long history of engaging in this practice often resulting in these deletions being reversed after a review is requested. This admin also has a history of arbitrarily removing long standing "non-free" images from articles even though they have been correctly justified and provided with complete conforming rationales for their use. After unilaterally removing the image files the admin then also immediately deletes the images themselves without going through the normal community review process on the specious grounds that they are "orphaned" non-free files. These practices are contrary to both the spirit and letter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- So is WP:FORUMSHOPPING (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Technical problems at Wikipedia - an issue for this WikiProject?
I have been running into several technical problems at Wikipedia which slow down my editing activities. This seems to be happening more and more often, at least for me. Are others also experiencing this? - If so, I believe this to be an issue for editor retention. In my case it is cause for frustration.
What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- My desk has a dent in the shape of my head from the same thing, and it is all too common. Not sure what the Project can do in it though, and will leave to others to tell me. Like most problems with the Foundation, money is likely the primary problem. I read that we have less than 700 servers, yet we are the 6th busiest website in the world. Our redundancy is redundant enough, it appears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just wondering if it can be tied to the ever increasing number of software changes? (Just speculating) Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think a pseudo-solution would be to include links to the various village pumps in the sidebar. If everyone knew that village pump (technical) existed, technical problems wouldn't be so big. Ryan Vesey 18:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's happening again (and again and again...ad infinitum) this morning:
- Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
- Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
- (Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.73)) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
- @Ryan Vesey, I posted a couple of my compaints to Village_pump_(technical)- let's see what comes out of it. Today on top of Having to login to Wikipedia again and again I also got a Wikimedia Error page and lost a long and tedious edit which I entered, but which never made it to Wikpedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- My experience is that technical errors and downtime of a site tend to create more of a community as users are very happy when the site returns plus they then have something in common(the fault or the downtime) and appreciate when things are working well. That being said, Wikipedia has a WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK which may prevent the sense of community that happens elsewhere. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- ..and again:
- "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.", SIGH... Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to continue my first posting under this heading: this morning I tried to add two new categories to Hurricane Sandy. The first one was added with no trouble, the second one, even though I got no error message has not been added after two tries. Who else here has had trouble that they were able to resolve? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia surveys
For the first time in my wiki-career I have been invited to participate in a wiki-survey. I made it to page 2 (out of many more judging from the % completed bar at the bottom), but had to give up at that point.
So my question is, how many people complete the surveys out of how many who attempt? Does anyone at Wikipedia keep score? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Partial response sets are a natural part of every survey. However, I'm not actually sure that your responses are recorded if you "give up" midway through the survey. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I completed the survey, but by the end I was asking myself the same question. How many people actually finish it? I found it to be a little long. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Mabeenot, I was given a second chance to participate - I am completely drenched now because I was afraid to leave before completing the whole thing - didn't want my work to go to waste. Not sure if would have done it if I knew upfront how mUch work it would require :-) Ottawahitech (talk)
- I completed the survey, but by the end I was asking myself the same question. How many people actually finish it? I found it to be a little long. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Depends much on how important the users rate participation the survey. Other considerations are:
- 1. It it an official survey or one started by an independent user?
- 2. What identity protection guarantees were provided, and if so, did initiator signed an NDA with the WMF?
- 3. What security does the software offer?
- 4. Was the software easy to use?
- 5. Were the questions prepared by someone with experience in survey psychology and technique?
- 6. How was the data to be extrapolated and used?
- 7. What 3-party survey software was being used?
- 8. Is it locally hosted or offered by an online provider? (eg. The very name of SurveyMonkey is known to evoke skepticism).
- In my experience of conducting many (non Wki) surveys, respondents generally get fed up with surveys that take longer than around 10 minutes to complete. A Wikipedia survey I once initiated had around 3,000 respondents from about 5,000 targeted users. According to the WMF, after removing trolling and other unusable responses, only around 900 responses were used in the analysis. The survey was open for responses for 2 weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Answers from OHT:
- 1. it was official
- 2. no idea
- 3. don’t know
- 4. Sometimes, but:
- pull-down menus with tons-of choices took me awhile to figure out (gave up on my first try because choices were not alphabetized.
- pages were too cluttered for my taste – several questions on the same page
- I was not told which questions were optional - trial and error wasted precious time
- 5. I don’t think I was told…
- 6. I don’t think I was told…
- 7. I don’t think I was told…
- 8. I don’t think I was told… Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Answers from OHT:
The questions were actually rhetorical but thanks for answering. If it was official there would have been an email address to provide feedback on the survey itself. If you were asked to provide your user name or email address, there should have bee a legal disclaimer on the survey introduction. Obviously I can't ask what the survey was as that would publicly connect you with it, but it sounds a bit fishy to me. If yhou know who raised the survey, I would suggest taking all these points up with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is the link I was given: Wikimedia:Research talk:Wikipedia Editor Survey 2012. This will provide me with way too much reading material, as usual :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- That link's dead. This is the information on the survey. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was indeed a very poorly designed survey, from the partly non-neutral MC options to the use of the extremely expensive 3rd party software service provider, and the formatting of the questions. I'm no simpleton (because survey design was part of my post-grad studies), but it took me nearly double their estimation of the time to complete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
SPAs - should we work on retaining them?
Should we work on retaining Single Purpose Accounts (SPA)s at wikipedia? Those are the bad guys at Wikipedia, right? Well, in my opinion we should all do more to keep at least some of them here.
Let me give an example: has any of you checked out Malala Yousafzai? This article was built with a whopping 528 contributions from an SPA, User: Fortibus in a span of 8 days in October of 2012. An impressive contributor who not only conributed the majority of content, but also did a superb job of motivating others on the talk page of this article.
Many here believe that the number of views of articles don't matter, but I still believe that 755,270 views in Octber of 2012] alone is a excellent way to draw more potential contributors and donors.
Unfortunately, User: Fortibus has now disappeared and has not contributed anything substantial for almost a month. Do you all agree that this is the type of wikipedian we should do more to encourage? If so – what can we do? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a priority for this WikiProject. An SPA can choose to become more involved and if they do all well and good. Editor retention should concentrate on those who have shown their commitments to the project as a whole. Many SPA's that I have come across are spammers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Alan Liefting, Your mcomment intrigues me. I, like most other editors, started my wiki-life as an SPA. [le=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 How about you]? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Being a SPA doesn't mean someone is a bad editor. It's not perjorative, it's just a descriptor. Many SPAs only edit to push a niche POV though, while others are very productive. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- While it is true that SPA are largely responsible for the addition of promotional pages and edits and autobiographies, some produce excellent work and I would hesitate to class them all as bad editors. That said, I think it is highly unlikely that many SPA have an interest in becoming regular editors - that's why they are 'SPA'. There may be some rare exceptions, but It's probably not worth editing time and effort doing a 'sales' job on them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
J
- My thoughts are pretty consistent with the above. Being an SPA isn't against policy and as long as they act within policy, I have no issue with them, even if they are paid. They aren't a priority when it comes to editor retention, however, as their goals aren't to build an encyclopedia but instead to maintain singular facts or pages. Our priority should always be to first concern ourselves with editors who contribute in multiple article areas for the betterment of Wikipedia in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to respond -- not sure how this figures in to your discussion. I had been a long-time donator to Wikipedia, becuase I believed in the mission statement: to provide the sum of world's knowledge to all people, free, without ads. I'm also a writer. So when the Malala Yousafzai tragedy occured, I felt compelled to lend a hand. I feel proud of the work I did, and the people who helped me. But I have to admit, after the experience I felt a little jaded. The constant vandalism, the concensus-building on Talk pages, the reversion/rewording of newly edited content -- they all took a toll on me. I came away thinking that the "everyone can edit everything" model has its flaws. I feel that individual contributors can make a difference on this website, which is admirable, but their work can also be washed away against countless other editors. As a writer, i'm used to complete control. I guess I found that hard to give up. Fortibus (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It IS hard to give up. There are lots of flaws to Wikipedia's model, but I think it is still a good model. It really isn't designed to replace all encyclopedia's, just to be an alternative. There is also many advantages to this model, primarily in that the content is free "as in beer" and free "as in speech". Just about the only way to have that is either through a benevolent corporation, or crowd-sourcing. I would still consider it an experiment. You might read WP:Randy in Boise, a short but interesting essay that expands on your frustrations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just wanted to respond -- not sure how this figures in to your discussion. I had been a long-time donator to Wikipedia, becuase I believed in the mission statement: to provide the sum of world's knowledge to all people, free, without ads. I'm also a writer. So when the Malala Yousafzai tragedy occured, I felt compelled to lend a hand. I feel proud of the work I did, and the people who helped me. But I have to admit, after the experience I felt a little jaded. The constant vandalism, the concensus-building on Talk pages, the reversion/rewording of newly edited content -- they all took a toll on me. I came away thinking that the "everyone can edit everything" model has its flaws. I feel that individual contributors can make a difference on this website, which is admirable, but their work can also be washed away against countless other editors. As a writer, i'm used to complete control. I guess I found that hard to give up. Fortibus (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think *some* SPAs are acting in good faith. The best way to test their good faith AND retain them would be to find some way to encourage them towards other topics that they're interested in. If they take to it, great. If they don't, well that proves they were never cut out for the encyclopedia anyway. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Building one good article is still 'building an encyclopedia' --Greenmaven (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- @ Jack Greenmaven, I completely agree. Building one good article at Wikipedia can have tremendous value. For example this particular article that is used in this example is approaching one million views. Nothing to be sneezed at even by those purist-wikipans who claim that popularity is inconsistent with wiki-values. In my opinion one article that brings that many eyes to wikipedia helps those other less viewed articles by getting more visitors, a few of whom may stay on to edit. It also helps bring more money donations to keep our servers running. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- @ Shooterwalker, I believe bringing back some SPAs just to keep their SPA creation alive is well worth it, and likely to entice them to improve other areas of Wikipedia. For example how about trying to help Fortibus in bringing Malala_Yousafzai to good artricle status? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Building one good article is still 'building an encyclopedia' --Greenmaven (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
SPA editors who are trying to build WikiProjects
I am not sure about this one, but have run into a few editors who made hundreds of contributions trying and create and promote a wp:WikiProject. They stop after a while when they don’t seem to be able to get their project off the ground. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide examples? I'm just not aware of any. Most projects that aren't being used might be candidates for being marked as historical only, and I'm working with merging some NPOV issue projects, but I've not run across projects like you talk about yet. Not shocked, it is a big place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Dennis_Brown, Absolutely (and sorry for taking so long to respond). One example of an SPA I ran across when I posted here is the one who created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stanford_University. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
RFC
There is an RFC ongoing that may be of interest to many members of this Project. It concerns returning of admin tools to admin who have been desysoped due to inactivity. View it here Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, a while ago you started a thread on this talk page bringing some problems with the wp:Requests for adminship process to the attention of partcipants in this wikiproject. I can see what you were talking about now that I have gathered the courage to participate. I suspect this particular RFA will be used in future to point to all that is wrong with process. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The sad thing is that we often lose good editors at RfA, sometimes the candidate, sometimes their peers. I don't have a problem with adminship having a high bar, but I think we dwell on minutia too much at RfA. While adminship isn't the primary focus of WP:WER, it certainly does affect editor retention directly and indirectly. We want good admin who are calm, fair and can learn from their mistakes. Some want perfection. My own RfA wasn't exactly a walk in the park [1], although I now get along just fine with almost every one of the 31 people who opposed me. I had been here over 5.5 years and had 18k edits, including a 90% track record on 1600 AFDs, well over 90% in CSD (that was the main complaint, btw) and hundreds of ANI contribs, and an Arb co-nom'ed me. It could have easily gone farther south. I've seen better candidates than me get opposed off the page. To keep good editors here, we need good admin as well. Admin that still understand they are part of the community, not separate from it. And thank you for participating! Never be afraid to be on the minority side of an issue, as that can change in the blink of an eye. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, never be afraid to be on the minority side? - Not all editors seem to agree with you. See this comment: ..are afraid that by participating, they might create more enemies in the future for only one such example. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any disagreement. My words are encouragement, not directives or judgements. If there wasn't some truth in what MBisanz was saying, there wouldn't be any reason I would need to say "Never be afraid to be on the minority side", would there? The words are to overcome the reality MBisanz speaks of, not contradict it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Free stuff for great editors
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation! |
- This is a new project by the foundation, which I think highly of. It gives away some free stuff, but it also provides a mechanism for editors to nominate editors who are exceptional. We need to get involved and vote, nominate, and of course, setting the example by keeping it positive and avoiding some of the negativity. I discovered it by being nominated, but I withdrew so I could promote it here instead, so please don't vote for me there. Check out the main page for the new program here, and click above for the nominations page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown, I hope you are not implying that criticism (negativity) is not welcome? I hope Wikipedia is not turning into an army of yesmen? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying there is a time and place for everything. A program like this Giveaway isn't the place for negativity. Just as we deal with general problems here at WER and not individuals. If there is a problem with a user, their talk page is the place, then an appropriate board, but not in the middle of a positive program designed to reward quality users. It isn't designed to vote editors up or down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
GET OUT THE VOTE!
ArbCom elections are coming up. WikiProject Editor Retention will not endorse or comment on individual candidates, and I would ask we don't discuss individual candidates here as that might look like Project endorsement. However, Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution at Wikipedia, and everyone who cares about editor retention should educate themselves about the candidates, look at the questions, and vote for candidates that they believe will best serve us. It is important that we all participate and encourage our friends to participate to insure the results reflect the wishes of the greater community. Most or all of the Arbs are elected for two year terms. Put another way "Ya can't complain if ya don't vote".
- Voting is secret and will take place Monday 00:01, 26 November until Sunday 23:59, 9 December, UTC
- Please note that more candidates are joining every day and will until the cutoff on Nov. 20th 23:59 UTC
Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- UPDATE
Looks like voting will be delayed one day due to issues getting the secure (private) software installed and tested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Shit Happens T-Shirt Theory
- When you wear a T-Shirt that says,
- SHIT HAPPENS, then that's what happens, shit.
- If your T-shirt says,
- MIRACLES HAPPEN, then Miracles will happen.
- It all depends on your viewpoint.
- Some editors wear a T-shirt that says,
- DRAMA HAPPENS. So that's what they see. Drama.
- But pointing out a problem is not Drama.
- And Protecting the Encyclopedia is not Drama.
- And Protecting New Users from their own Innocence is not Drama.
- It's Love.
- B7 aka Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wearing a T-shirt with a hot dog on it but I'm still hungry! ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wearing a T-shirt with a dwarf on it but I'm still tall! ```Buster Seven Talk 04:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Community Co-ordinator of the Campaign for Equal Heights will be speaking to you, later. —Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- He called this A.M. He said not to look down on him. I said I couldn't help it. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I most often wear a blank but brightly colored t-shirt, not sure what that says about me except I get tired of ruining nice shirts due to running out to the warehouse to solve a problem from time to time. Perhaps it says I am a cheapskate ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- He called this A.M. He said not to look down on him. I said I couldn't help it. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Community Co-ordinator of the Campaign for Equal Heights will be speaking to you, later. —Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Train wrecks
Take a look at this train wreck of user templates. (Yes, one's from me). Amazingly, the user is still contributing - perhaps they haven't come across their talk page yet. This template overload would scare any newcomer off, in my opinion, particularly as this does appear someone writing about a musician with a credible claim to notability - not that stopped anyone coming out and whacking the CSD hammers (although I see they were retracted). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Around half of those are file permissions, part (far from most, but part) of that bulk is just duplicated boilerplate. I realize we're unlikely to get an end to templating for such problems--we don't put much in the way of brakes on new contributors before they've had a chance to hear, never mind assimilate policy, and there are so many such problems that patrollers are going to use automation to help handle the load. Which means, templates. Where I'm going with this is this: I wonder if it would be possible for that automation to notice, when we place such templates, that a page already has a similar template--and to use a shorter version automatically in that case. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- A depressing number of user talk pages of newbies look like this. One step in the right direction would be to simply reduce the length of these messages; there's absolutely no reason why a simple notification about file permissions or speedy deletion needs to be two large paragraphs. In fact, we showed via randomized testing that short and sweet, with a focus on conveying one action for editors to take rather than a treatise on policy, is what works best. If anyone wants to draft new versions, let me know and I'll help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Steven, Template:Di-no_permission-notice is, without question bulky. I haven't worked much at all in that area, but I'd be happy to try and help figure out how to make it more digestible. My first thoughts is that there might be a way to collapse the "if you're the creator" and the "if you can talk to the creator" sections, there's some replication there. Some of the instructions might be movable to a second page, as well, not that they wouldn't be longer (copyright being what it is), but at least they wouldn't be replicated when the template was placed multiple times on a page. Thoughts? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad this has been brought up. It's sorta scary to get a big bright bold-bordered block of official-sounding corrective text. Some balance is worth pursuing. "Friendly" text is too chatty and verbose, short text is invariably too stern and scolding (I'm guilty of that). I have opted for personalized, remedy-oriented text with a minimum of linking:
- == File:Serbian Orthodox Church Vinkovci.jpg ==
- This image is likely to be deleted, because it's a non-free image of a building for which a free image could reasonably be taken. If you want the image kept, and kept at high resolution, I strongly suggest getting the photographer to license that image freely under Creative Commons, using CC-BY-3.0. This means the photographer retains their copyright, but licenses anyone to use the image forever with credit given ("attribution") to the photographer, with no share-alike, meaning no derivative uses or remixing permitted.
- Here are the steps:
- Copy and fill out the form from Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F (scroll down) with the CC-BY license 3.0 indicated.
- Send the form and image to the photographer.
- Get them to fill out the rest of the form. Have them email reply with the attachments intact to you, that way you can doublecheck their work.
- While you're waiting, put {{OTRS pending}} on the image Description page. No kidding around, get the permission.
- After the photographer sends back the filled-out form+image to you, forward it, attachments intact, to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org
- (if the image has been deleted in the meantime, upload it to Commons, with the CC-BY license, and {{OTRS pending}} as above)
- After OTRS responds by email, they, or you, will add the OTRS ticket # to the image file.
- --signature
- I'm glad this has been brought up. It's sorta scary to get a big bright bold-bordered block of official-sounding corrective text. Some balance is worth pursuing. "Friendly" text is too chatty and verbose, short text is invariably too stern and scolding (I'm guilty of that). I have opted for personalized, remedy-oriented text with a minimum of linking:
- I've had a discussion elsewhere on the internet about the merits of sending verbose template messages that explain the problem in detail, versus short and succinct messages that don't get parsed as tl;dr and ignored, and the only conclusion I can reach is - it's really hard to write an effective message for one editor, and impossible to write an effective message for everyone. Meanwhile, I'll continue the "A7 CSD != not notable" fight as and when I can. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
retention and where to draw the line
Although I am kinda new here at Wikipedia, and am very grateful for all the help I received when I was getting started, I have developed a major concern about some editors and what we can or should do to help them.
I have come to notice that there are a "class" (for lack of a better term) of newer, and sometimes not so new, editors that seem to have a total disregard for any kind of authority. Any social interaction (which Wikipedia definitely is) also comes with some social constraints. It is the nature of society. Back when this was Jimbo and a few of his friends, anarchy worked. As the number of editors grew, so did the rules. Again, just the nature of society. That haphazard development of our structure of social constraints here is (IMHO) the main reason why Wikipedia is so damn confusing for new, and even not so new, editors. Not a day goes by that I don't learn yet another rule that I hadn't heard of before.
All the previous paragraph is somewhat an aside to my point, that being: Where do we draw the line and recognize that there are just some people who's problem isn't their misunderstanding of the way we do things, but rather, their insistence that we do things their way, not the way we do them? The most ongoing wastes of time around here are not the drive-by editors (or even the vandals), not the SPA's, not the untrained newbie's, but the possibly well-intentioned folks that just cannot accept that there are going to be some constraints on what they do here.
I have advocated in the past for some more restrictive ways of approaching editing, including requiring registration and requiring new article creation occur on a template that requires referencing. Wikipedia has gotten huge, I think much more so than Jimbo ever envisioned it, and I believe the time has come to require a step into the field of editing. That step would need to include an acknowledgment that there are rules here, just as in any social interaction, and you will be required to follow them.
As an example, let's just say, that I am a nudist (scary thought). I believe fervently that nudism is right and proper. In the USA, no-one will contest my right to practice nudism in my own house or in the houses of other people that agree with my viewpoint. But the first time I go to the grocery store nude, I AM going to jail. If I were a nudist, I can promise I would recognize that constraint. People come here to Wikipedia and edit, sometimes for years, not understanding, no matter how many times they are warned or blocked, that the truth is not what we are after; but rather verifiable, referenced factual material. It is getting to be a big enough of a frustration for me that I am considering walking away, at least for a while.
I am hoping that this will start a discussion that will lead to some steps that will improve editor retention, while recognizing that there are editors that we would all be better off if they just walked away. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- At it's core, Editor Retention is about keeping as many quality editors as possible, productively working in a fun environment. This means that people who stand in the way of providing that environment need to find a different hobby. Whether the reason is POV warrioring, sockpuppeting, or just being disruptive. We don't sacrifice the whole for the one.
- I've found that often someone "new" who knows too much and hates authority is just another sockpuppet. No one starts at Wikipedia with a hatred of admin, for example (that is often earned or learned). Anyone who is anti-social or can't conform to basic rules of civility is a liability, not an asset. We can be tolerant, flexible and forgiving, but not fools. We also have to accept that this environment isn't for everyone, so we focus on making the environment as healthy as possible, for the maximum number of people. This will never include "everyone", but instead "most people". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- One of the main problems are the new and inexperienced editors themselves who think it's cool to jump right in and start doing Wikipedia policework and/or helping out on help desks and noticeboards rather than concentrating on adding and/or improving content. Unfortunately, nobody - for some reason - appears to be too keen to discuss these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how to fix those issues except one at a time, and half the time that gets them bent out of shape no matter how polite and educational you try to be. I have no issue with experienced non-admin closing discussions and such, and even encourage it if they have been here a few years and have shown to have clue, but it is difficult to debate with someone who knows the words to policy but doesn't understand the meaning behind them. Fortunately, these are more rare problems, but they can lead to new editors getting bad advice from inexperienced editors who fancy themselves an admin-helper. Dealing with this type of user without being ham-fisted is very difficult, and usually fruitless. Again, our goal is working on the larger environment so that the vast majority of people can edit in peace, which (unfortunately) means weeding out disruptive influences. How to weed out well meaning but disruptive influences, that isn't an easy one to figure out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Disruptive" is in the eye of the beholder. Many have claimed that I'm disruptive, but of course they're talking out of their arses. I saw a classic Jeremy Bentham attitude displayed by one of the current crop of ArbCom candidates along the lines of "it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong [in a case taken to Arbcom]; all that matters is which outcome is likely to lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number". A bit like a justification for lynch mobs really. The guy being hanged will likely be a bit pissed, but most of the townsfolk will think it a job well done. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how to fix those issues except one at a time, and half the time that gets them bent out of shape no matter how polite and educational you try to be. I have no issue with experienced non-admin closing discussions and such, and even encourage it if they have been here a few years and have shown to have clue, but it is difficult to debate with someone who knows the words to policy but doesn't understand the meaning behind them. Fortunately, these are more rare problems, but they can lead to new editors getting bad advice from inexperienced editors who fancy themselves an admin-helper. Dealing with this type of user without being ham-fisted is very difficult, and usually fruitless. Again, our goal is working on the larger environment so that the vast majority of people can edit in peace, which (unfortunately) means weeding out disruptive influences. How to weed out well meaning but disruptive influences, that isn't an easy one to figure out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to try an automated rating system for editors. Users could wear a Userbox badge with pride, and aspire to ever higher levels of recognition. Or see where they stood in a quality distribution curve. "Encourage people to improve!" As far as I know, we are limited to the haphazard awarding of barnstars and the self-awarded ranks based on the number of edits and time elapsed since registration. Surely a better and more objective assessment could be attempted? --Greenmaven (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Such an "automated rating system" for editors sounds very similar to the "karma" point systems employed by communities such as Stack Overflow, etc. While they have worked in some of those cases, I'm pretty skeptical of them as are many Wikipedians. It's also the kind of thing that is extremely complex to engineer, without leaving huge gaps for gaming of such a point system. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- In agreement with the above, as there are SO many different things people do at Wikipedia. I personally don't create too terribly much content. Mostly just rewrites for clarity and referencing of already created content. This is because I live in a very small town and don't drive, so my access to quality reference material is very limited. But I do revert a ton of vandalism and I do a lot of work in bringing certain types of articles into line with the established guidelines for such articles. I also help out with questions at the Teahouse and mentor some editors one on one when they ask for help. I feel I make a valuable contribution here, but how would I get graded in a point system? There are also editors that crank out dozens upon dozens of stub class articles, which I also feel is a valuable contribution, as it gives others who may have access to some unique sources a chance to have an established, well-formatted platform to expand upon. Are their contributions going to be rated lower than editors who specialize in improving articles to good or featured status? A rating system would just be a can of worms and something else to piss people off. My thought are kinda like this: Notre Dame and Harvard graduates generally get better jobs than graduates of Boise State. Is that because they are such better schools? Partially. But mainly, I think it is because you don't get in the door at Notre Dame and Harvard unless you have already demonstrated an ability to do good work. Perhaps a probation period with plenty of available mentoring would be more productive. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- A simple beginning would be the percentage of reverted edits to total edits. Actually the point of discrimination is: is this a 'good' editor or a 'bad' editor. I don't believe this simple test should be that hard. Don't try to set the bar too high at first. Once someone is 'over the threshold', there is no need for further refinement (contradicting myself already). We need to identify the 'low performers' and then find out the best ways to attend to them. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- What happened to AGF? I don't support any point system. I understand Gtw's frustration. A recent attempt to assist a not-so-new editor didn't go well. But not from amy lack of effort and concern on Gtw's part. Reciprocity was non-existant from the other side. Where we started this thread seemed to be that some new editors (and some not-so-new editors) may not be worthy of retaining. No matter how many warnings they get, no matter how much good advice they get, they contnue to sit in cow-pies wherever they go. Gtw's concern seems to point to those new editors that sit in the cowpies on purpose. They
like, need the attention. Creating Drama is all they know. No point system is necessary. They become obvious by the amount of cow-shit they carry from article to article. What to do with them is the problem. How do we convince them to watch where they sit...that a better, happier WP experince awaits them if they would just stop. I do think new editors need a "learners permit" before they hit the Main highway. Not too long ago a new editor set up an adoption agency and led a few newer yet editors completely astray. Good intentions, but terrible results. Resulting mis-information that still requires repair. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- What happened to AGF? I don't support any point system. I understand Gtw's frustration. A recent attempt to assist a not-so-new editor didn't go well. But not from amy lack of effort and concern on Gtw's part. Reciprocity was non-existant from the other side. Where we started this thread seemed to be that some new editors (and some not-so-new editors) may not be worthy of retaining. No matter how many warnings they get, no matter how much good advice they get, they contnue to sit in cow-pies wherever they go. Gtw's concern seems to point to those new editors that sit in the cowpies on purpose. They
- A simple beginning would be the percentage of reverted edits to total edits. Actually the point of discrimination is: is this a 'good' editor or a 'bad' editor. I don't believe this simple test should be that hard. Don't try to set the bar too high at first. Once someone is 'over the threshold', there is no need for further refinement (contradicting myself already). We need to identify the 'low performers' and then find out the best ways to attend to them. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- In agreement with the above, as there are SO many different things people do at Wikipedia. I personally don't create too terribly much content. Mostly just rewrites for clarity and referencing of already created content. This is because I live in a very small town and don't drive, so my access to quality reference material is very limited. But I do revert a ton of vandalism and I do a lot of work in bringing certain types of articles into line with the established guidelines for such articles. I also help out with questions at the Teahouse and mentor some editors one on one when they ask for help. I feel I make a valuable contribution here, but how would I get graded in a point system? There are also editors that crank out dozens upon dozens of stub class articles, which I also feel is a valuable contribution, as it gives others who may have access to some unique sources a chance to have an established, well-formatted platform to expand upon. Are their contributions going to be rated lower than editors who specialize in improving articles to good or featured status? A rating system would just be a can of worms and something else to piss people off. My thought are kinda like this: Notre Dame and Harvard graduates generally get better jobs than graduates of Boise State. Is that because they are such better schools? Partially. But mainly, I think it is because you don't get in the door at Notre Dame and Harvard unless you have already demonstrated an ability to do good work. Perhaps a probation period with plenty of available mentoring would be more productive. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)