Proposal for Wikipedia Service Academy

Hello all, I am proposing that interested Wikipedians collaborate to create and maintain a Wikipedia Service Academy (WSA) for the voluntary training of Wikipedians by Wikipedians to learn Wikipedia policy and develop good judgment in applying Wikipedia policy. It would be especially geared to facilitate preparation for adminship. It could also be useful for training existing admins in their deficient areas, as well as training those who may just be interested in learning about Wikipedia policies. It would rely heavily on experienced and knowledgeable volunteers to help train those wishing to learn. I would like the input of my fellow Wikipedians to assess the perceived need for such a school. Please discuss. Guðsþegn (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Applying policy is difficult without a focus. I think that Worm That Turned has a general school for knowing policies, and that efforts should be directed towards collaboration with him. If you have a specific focus, then a project could be considered, perhaps informally. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would this differ from the Adopt-a-User program? Are you looking for something Teahouse-ish, basically an adoption school with collaboration among adopters, rather than running it on their own? Go Phightins! 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking of something a little more structured with a common curriculum with collaboration among adopters, yes. So that if someone in an RfA were to say they've graduated WSA, it would be meaningful to RfA reviewers, and in fact their review would go smoother because they were more prepared, because they had thought about relevant issues prior. Guðsþegn (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator wannabe club is not needed, although it would make it easier to identify RfA candidates to oppose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not a club, but genuine preparation, by genuinely knowing policy and how to apply it in real situations. Guðsþegn (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that close to 50% of adopters use at least an adaptation of Worm's curriculum (I know I do and my adopter did), so it is pretty well accepted. Go Phightins! 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read in the past that RFA generally looks down on "Admin coaching" for two reasons. One because the editor is learning one person's take on policies instead of learning naturally and developing their own opinion, and two because their focus is on becoming an Admin rather than on building an encyclopedia.--v/r - T P 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TParis's comment is what I should have written, were I a better person. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a concept proposed in good faith, but probably not feasible. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my thoughts on admin coaching are documented somewhere, but they largely echo TParis' comments. I think Phightins is slightly exaggerating the amount of adopters who have adapted their courses from mine, but if anyone would like to use my stuff, it's all available at User:Worm That Turned/Adopt. That's all I really have to say here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, as I've only looked at about half of the ones on the adopters page, but I think at least five or six of the dozen or so I looked at came from yours. Whatever, it's not that important. Go Phightins! 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guild system

It would be better to organize a guild system. For example, if people want to contribute to the encyclopedia, then they can evolve through the following stages:

New editors should copy-edit and add references to articles, working on improvement from horrible to pathetic.
Then they can write paragraphs, working on the improvement from pathetic to bad.
Then try to write an article (DYK) or develop a section, working on the improvement from bad to worse than mediocre.
Then improve an article to C quality (as a lead editor or as a copy editor, for example), arriving at mediocrity.
Then improve an article to B quality, now doing acceptable work as a journeyman.
Then improve an article to GA quality (and then to A quality), ideally good work, and being able to help able to guide lower writers.
Then beginning to review nominations for GA status or peer reviews, finishing the apprenticeship.
Then improve an article to FA quality, arriving at master status by being able to produce good articles routinely.
Apparently, there are levels even higher.

At each level, they can benefit from the advice of persons a level or two above their station. Superior editors can repay their debts to earlier writers who showed them the ropes by helping out the lesser writers.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mix in some administrative (not sysop, I'm talking in the more general term) tasks and that sounds like a good plan.--v/r - T P 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, like other functioning organizations, Wikipedia does have an informal guild-system. Ditto with administrative tasks. Senior administrators spend a lot of time helping out new administrators, as well as shooting the shit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current adopt-a-user programme and the Teahouse are quite sufficient. What we do not want is yet another 'academy' operated by well intentioned, enthusiastic, but inexperienced users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Adopt-a-user program is for newbies, not admins in training. The Admin Coaching project is a dead letter... a ghost town. I think there is a need for admin training. What am I missing here? Guðsþegn (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that anyone with the experience to be an admin will have been around long enough and edited enough to know what adminship is all about; it doesn't need coaching and if anyone that desperate to be an admin wants training there's something not quite right. And that's probably why Admin Coaching is a ghost town. There's already plenty of advice out there for admin candidates - all they need to do is read it. And as Kiefer says, experienced admins are always ready to help new ones. We all asked for some advice of some kind after we got the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Kudpung. The community has implicitly decided over time that the best way to learn to be an admin is to be actively involved in various aspects of the project. Active pursuit of the admin hat actually distracts people from fully participating in the project, and having received coaching actually became a red flag for some voters (like me). Townlake (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kudpung is right here. I do a great deal of future admin mentoring, but it is very individual, primarily showing them ways to shore up areas where they need experience. A school would be very problematic, as there is no "one way" to be a good admin, or become one. Inexperienced users could easily be getting or giving some bad advice, particularly since there is no singular consensus on anything relating to admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a consensus on things related to admins. We're abusive, a cabal, we hate content, we're kids, and we like the powaz. If you have those qualities, you'd make a fine admin. So, lesson one in this school should be how to hit people with sticks.--v/r - T P 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me that thinks there are problems? Everything is going swimmingly in RFA-ville? We don't need no solutions, cuz there ain't no problems? Guðsþegn (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that everything is going swimmingly. It's just that this proposition, while well-intentioned, probably is not the answer to the problems. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is anything systemic that needs to be done, and could be done by interested Wikipedians? Guðsþegn (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, the problem is not the RfA process but some of the people who participate. I'm coming to a point where I believe that Wikipedia is unable to improve itself because the people involved are unwilling to make the necessary changes to do so. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that RfA is going swimmingly. There are a few more requests for adminship than we have had in recent months maybe, but they all contain the kind of votes and/or comments that we're desperate to avoid. Only stats over a much longer period will demonstrate any real improvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a big problem is a lack of clerking. That is a topic that needs to be discussed to reach consensus. Currently, it is a free for all. In some RfAs, it poses no problems. When there is contention it is a different story as there are no set rules for clerking and no independent clerk to keep things running smoothly. Clerking alone would go a long way towards removing some of the anarchy there. It would at least be a start, and likely could achieve consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather use a straight vote than the current system where we're pretending to reach "consensus" on candidates through discussion (all discussion could be moved to the RFA's talk page), but the bottom line is the RFA process is working fine at this point. Good candidates are passing, other candidates are not, the 'crats seem to be doing a good job on the discretionary calls. Townlake (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most ways, it is a vote, no matter how much we pretend it is a discussion. Never do you see 80% not get the bit, or 70% get the bit. Crats love a landslide, understandably. The discussion is mainly centered around persuading others to change or add their vote in a particular way, which is one reason clerking the threads with multiple responses to the back of the page is helpful, to be fair to both the candidate as well as the voter who took a stand. Most RfAs are more or less fair and drama free, but if you still around long enough, you see a pattern of drama that crops up at regular intervals. I would imagine that most of the time, very little clerking would be needed, but the act of clerking it will reduce the need by itself. It is pretty normal to have someone independent to oversee processes here, admin often do this but you don't see it, as they interject only when needed. AfDs get patrolled this way, as do RfCs. It isn't a perfect system, but independent oversight is helpful to keep one or two people from turning a legitimate discussion/vote into a slugfest for their own purposes. Knowing it is clerked may be enough to reduce much of the occasional drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that over a year ago at WP:RFA2011. I felt that if it were known that RfA is being actively clerked, it would act as a deterrent to the drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really *need* an RfC to implement clerking though? I would maintain that any WP: area is subject to clerking, using the best judgement of the admin. Maybe a discussion to establish a consensus on where to draw the line, via the talk page, but actual clerking shouldn't be controversial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: By "clerking", do you mean moving off-topic side debates to the talk page and striking votes of socks, etc.? If so, then I agree that an RfC probably wouldn't be necessary as that falls within the general role of an admin, I would think. Go Phightins! 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire topic of clerking and the tasks involved was examined and discussed in depth at WP:RfA/C and on the talk page. There is no need to rehash it here, but comments there would be most welcome. That said, I would think that any editor (or editors) in good standing should declare themselves as clerks at top of a RfA and recuse themselves from voting. IMO, clerks should be recognised as an official capacity as they are, for example, at SPI and Arbcom, because unfortunately like all adminiy areas, the task would be a magnet to newbies and/or younger editors; otherwise it would just pave the way for yet ore polemic such as 'I don't agree with this RfA being clerked by User:Foo' - more drama that we are anxious to avoid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea; what's the plan for implementation about this? And by "good standing" I assume we're doing the typical 500 edits + 6 months? Go Phightins! 22:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't elect a clerk on that basis. My own criteria for a clerk would be someone who is either an admin or one who would stand a fair chance of becoming one if they tried. I'm pretty well known for my opinion on keeping newbs off admin areas - especially PERM as one clear example (see Townlake's comment above about 'active pursuit of the admin hat'). That said, as I mentioned before, the place for this discussion and where it would have more impact is elsewhere. This page may also be of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to my non-admin friends, in the absence of a structured system like you have mentioned (and it does sound good) I would suggest limiting to only admin. ie: only admin and/or official clerks, to prevent it from become amateur hour there. I do know of several good non-admin would would make excellent clerks, but RfA isn't the place to start learning how to clerk. Until a structured system is in place, it would seem acceptable if any admin were to recuse and clerk of their own accord. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that's why I asked about the text on the page that said any editor in good standing, which usually seems to mean 6 mths/500 edits. I think that having non-admins clerk RfA would be a bad idea for a few reasons: a.) If they were to eventually go for an RfA of their own, there would be a possibility someone would use their clerking style against them, if that makes sense, b.) Be it a conscious decision or not, personal preference of who becomes an admin before whom could also come into play, something that clearly should be avoided and lastly c.) a controversial action (correct or otherwise) performed as a clerk could affect user's opinions of said clerk in a future RfA or just through general disdain in the community. Therefore, I would agree, at least at the beginning, non-admins probably shouldn't be clerking the process by which non-admins become admins. Go Phightins! 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or not I like this "clerking" idea, but I do know this user-space decision to designate official clerks for RFAs seems out of process. I'd personally feel free to reverse official clerk decisions about moving discussions, regardless of whether I'm voting in the RFA, because there's no clear community consensus that I'm aware of to appoint RFA referees whose decisions about moving selected RFA statements out of the discussion would be binding. Townlake (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus because the idea, although discussed thoroughly on a WP project it was never submitted to RfC. That was probably due to the fact that RfAs had become so rare that there seemed little point in pursuing the idea. Therewass no point in attempting to reform somethig that hardly existed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, but the "let's start now" attitude that has developed in this thread is troubling. Townlake (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any 'let's start now' attitude. I just think the idea is worth revisiting. The very fact that clerks would be watching RfA may encourge participants to exercise more restraint. You may wish to check out these pages and your comments would be most welcome:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem with the guild system in that for most of the skills involved we are far from being the only group with those skills, by contrast in a mediaeval guild all the cobblers of one city would be in the cobblers guild. Most people with good writing skills are not currently Wikipedia editors, and some newbies will come in and start by writing a good paragraph of prose. It might need wikilinks, but adding wikilinks is the sort of thing that a non graduate can readily do to improve the contributions of a retired academic..... Which raises a second problem - we are sufficiently complex that we have an uneven rate of progression. Taking me for example, I like to think I've mastered our categorisation system and less than one in a thousand of the deletions I've done have been disputed, but I've scarcely added any infoboxes and only created some fairly basic templates. One of the successful aspects of this site is that it allows people to play to their strengths by self selecting their tasks and doing things that hopefully they become good at. My understanding of a guild system is that you don't start doing the next level of tasks until you've mastered all the ones at your current level. This has two implications for a guild system, firstly some of the people currently doing high level tasks would have to stop doing that until they've mastered some of the low level work, and secondly it would be difficult to maintain the right balance between guild members of particular levels and available work for those levels. A third issue is that a large proportion of people start here by editing subjects where they have some knowledge, almost regardless of the "quality" of the article that we currently have. The guild system as currently proposed would require various degrees of semi protection for editors who have not yet progressed to the point where they should be allowed to edit C class B, class, GAs and eventually featured articles. Yet an article on a mountain can be B class to the Geologists and C class to the rock climbers and botanists but to the Professor of Pre Columbian culture it completely omits any mention of the mountain's role in the pre Columbian religion of the area. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will note the absence of "all" from my informal suggestion, which certainly did not require mastering all enumerated tasks at one level to reach a higher level. In many education systems, one can show mastery of tasks at a higher level, and not need to establish lower level tasks. (This may be a problem in mathematical statistics, where many professors cannot define a blocked experiment or explain how randomization is used in surveys or experiments.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of guild systems is that they do involve a systematic learning of different levels of task as an apprentice becomes a journeyman and ultimately a master. If you are proposing a more modular system then I'm more interested. However I suspect that the quality of people's work will vary not just with the rating of an article but whether the subject relates to their profession, their hobby or their prejudice..... Ϣere SpielChequers 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did admin coaching work?

This proposal is basically a new form of admin coaching, but instead of reviving a moribund project it is inventing a new but indistinguishable one. My advice would be to consider reviving admin coaching, but first to review the now dormant admin coaching program. When it ran it did produce quite a few admins, now is probably a good time to start working out how good the program was. I became an admin in the era when admin coaching was going on, by now it should be possible to look at the admins from 2008/9/10 and compare the coached and uncoached ones. I'd be fascinated to know whether coached or uncoached admins have been more likely to be desysoped. It would also be interesting to know how we compare in terms of average admin actions, my prediction is that coached admins will generally have been less likely to be desysopped/leave under a cloud. If it turns out that coached admins have generally been more active and less contentious (or at least less contentious per thousand admin actions) than uncoached admins such as myself then I think we'd see the admin coaching project revive overnight. If I'm wrong and training people to be admins resulted in admins who were less well suited to the job then we can probably just mark the coaching project as historical. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination already exists, and I get a fair amount of requests from it. I have my own fairly complete reviewing system, and use the talk page for coaching, like this one. Working to improve the existing nom page may be worthwhile. As to whether coached admin do better, I have no idea. I'm not sure how we can centralize the actual coaching, or if that is even a good idea. I'm developing my own templates and methods, but not sure if they would even work for other coaches. My biggest concern has been getting a sufficient number of qualified people even interested in entering the process, rather than the process itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]