Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

This weeks Editor of the week

...is User:PiCo. Sometimes it's the little things that retain editors. What Fluff says about admins is true (moreso) for editors. Everyone likes a pat on the back. Visiting the Editor of the Week's talk page the day after to offer congratulations is quick and simple. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not left

Just wanted to let you guys know I changed my name....no longer am I the mysterious Gtwfan52, but am now John from Idegon. I will try to be around more than I have been recently. Dennis's departure (which I hope is temporary) is depressing to say the least. I agree with the above about thanking admin's for their work, and also understand how a bad mindset can develop ( I was an auditor for years and when you look at other people's errors all day long, it is pretty easy to develop a mindset where you look at everything as an error). Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I am still who I used to be, but it will be much nicer to be known as John, which is actually my name, than Gtwfan. Happy editing all! John from Idegon (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that update, John. I see you around so much and I would have been very disappointed if I had thought you had simply gone AWOL. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh man...I am so glad I caught that.👍 Like--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I liked "the mysterious Gtwfan52". John from Idegon sounds like a potato salesman. |:~) ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we grow onions here, not taters. and lots and lots of hay. This county is the biggest beef raising county in the country that is not in Texas. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I grew up near an onion factory that was in the middle of almond orchards. Go figure.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How about some admin retention?

It appears to have gone unnoticed, but the creator of this very WER project has just retired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the hope and effort of many editors from this project and elsewhere to attempt to retain Dennis. He is semi retiring. We hope he'll come back soon.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
His edit summary reads "Not as fun as it used to be." "Fun" is not the first word I think of when editing Wikipedia (though it certainly can be at times), but I get that editing and interacting with folks on here should not be a draining and consistently tiresome experience. It's unfortunate Dennis made his leave, but I don't know enough about why he left to know what I might be able to do.
Here's something more general, though. If an admin has helped you improve Wikipedia in any meaningful way, like moved a page for you, made a particularly difficult discussion close, deleted an blatantly spammy article, page protected an article to keep it more stable, or kept you from getting blocked by giving you a fair warning, I think they'd really appreciate it if you sent a note of thanks to them for their help on their talk page or e-mail. It doesn't need to fancy, but I think a note in your own words means a lot to any editor. So if you've got the time, give it a try. It can go a long way, I swear. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Dennis is a very pragmatic person and I doubt that any attempts to bring him back to regular editing will be successful. What matters are the reasons why he left. Something for those who constantly disparage all admins and tar them with the same brush to ponder upon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Not knowing Dennis, but knowing plenty of pragmatic people, strongly disagree Dennis is gone forever. If we want to bring him back, we should change the system, so that wikipedia is once again just as fun as it was in the good old days(tm). Do you really think that Dennis left because of the folks in the anti-admin brigade? If so, please suggest a specific course of action that we can take to fix the root cause of the problem. Maybe it was because of the difficulty in fixing up AfC and SPI? I noticed Dennis had some frustration there, over on the DDG talkpage, but I don't know if it was contributory or not. We need an after-action-review, that gives us specific reasons that Dennis became too unhappy to stay, so that we can *correct* those deficiencies, system-wide. The only way to attract and hold people like Dennis, is to re-create wikiCulture in a way that they will like being here. But to do that, we need the answers to the key question: "I don't know enough about why he left", says Jethro. Who does know? Please speak. If you speak, focus on what we can change, STARTING NOW, that will make someone like Dennis -- and with luck perhaps Dennis themselves one day -- enjoy being a wikipedian? That is what WP:RETENTION is for, methinks. To work for changes that will make wikipedia fun, for the kind of people she needs, and not-fun, for the vandals/spammers/etc. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Kudpong, I don't think you can tar Dennis' departure with your perennial fuss about people who complain about admins. I don't pretend to know the exact reasons he left, but some simple digging shows he was upset about how some SPI things were handled by ArbCom and others in the higher structure. Dysfunction at the higher levels seems to have played a greater role (along with real life business concerns...as those who scan his talk page know) in his departure than anything else. Intothatdarkness 16:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know why Dennis is choosing to back away any more than anyone else does, but on the topic of admin issues, I wanted to point out something I recently added to my talk page about my burnout level. Obviously all admin experiences will differ (and a lot of this probably applies to heavily involved non-admins, as well), but for me, I have reached a point where it often feels like the community not only thrives on rage (and outrage), but enjoys it. It's easy, when doing admin tasks, to find yourself subjected to little other than rants, abuse, arbcom threats, and people playing chicken to see how far they can get before you put your foot down (and then they shout about how you stomped on them because you're Just Horrible). Especially if you deal in drama-prone areas like SPI, AN(I), DR, etc, it starts to feel like those things are all there is, and that no matter how much or what you do, you not only can't fix that, but you seem to be making it worse every time you try and other people are enjoying that.

    I do think this is related to the classist sort of anti-admin sentiment voiced by some users (admins aren't people, they're enforcement drones; admins get off on goading people and then blocking them; admins "don't write articles" and no matter how many articles they write, those ones don't count), but I don't think that's the only thing. I think the issue is probably just as much that (to use the janitorial analogy we often use for admins) when you plunge a messy, clogged toilet five times a day, you start to feel like you can't get that fresh-crap smell off you - even if you then go off and tend some beautiful flowerbeds. If, while you feel like you still stink like that toilet, you also have someone toss a bag of dog poop at you and shout "yah, shitlicker!", and the other janitor who was supposed to be working alongside you starts snickering at your doggie-doo-bedecked coiffure, well...you could be forgiven for having your week ruined.

    Or, to put it (somewhat) less figuratively, admin duties tend to make you work in dirty areas, and when you work in dirty areas, it's very easy to feel like everybody likes to make messes (why else would the dirt keep appearing when everyone knows they're supposed to keep things clean, after all?) and they really like to then point at the mess and shout at you about how you're clearly doing your job wrong. And you start to wonder why, if all there is is endless messes, you bother cleaning them, or even hanging around somewhere so filthy at all. For me, personally, I think I JethroBT makes a valuable suggestion about how to help admins avoid that mindset when he says that a kind word helps. It can neutralize a really, really surprising amount of feeling like there's nothing but crap and crap-makers and crap-flingers if, while you're feeling like that, someone comes along and gives you something positive to think about instead. Say "Hey, you know, I noticed the work you did on resolving that dispute. Good job", or click the "thank" button on an edit, or point out somewhere where a dispute completely failed to happen and instead things worked out. Even just dropping by and saying, "hey, just wanted to see how you're doing today" can have an effect. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. THANK YOU Fluff :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Who are these anti-admin editors who get constantly blamed for episodes such as Dennis's hopefully temporary withdrawal from WP? The reasons for Dennis's retirement have very little if anything to do with them whoever they are anyway, more to do with his real-life work load and the way ArbCom handled/is handling a recent SPI case. Eric Corbett 18:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Scratch under the surface of this article in the Signpost(..."the battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army"...) and I think, somewhere, you will find D. Brown's injured spirit. To be chastised for good intentions and above-and-beyond-the-norm time and effort is a deep cut that takes time to heal. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
But he wasn't chastised by these mythical anti-admin editors, quite the reverse. Eric Corbett 18:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Eric, maybe my wordiness interfered with my clarity: my point up there was that while I don't know what went into Dennis's decision, I wanted to share my recent thought processes that led me to feel burnt out, and reflect on some points that might have impact on "admin retention" if my experience is not unique. I don't, and wouldn't claim to, speak for Dennis on this topic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Fluff is talking "on the topic of admin issues" (emphasis mine). I very nearly retired once not too long ago due to persistent obtuse behaviour both on and off-Wiki (including emails) with one WMF staffer; nothing however that was of interest for the community, but part of the issue was ironically addressed by the community over unrelated incidents. What I have found however, is that going to meetups and Wikimanias, or perhaps a Skype chat, often helps shed light on some issues without them necessarily being reported through our online media; that said, shed light though not necessarily resolving. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think anyone who's been on here and persisted for a couple of years has thought about retiring. You can have bad days on here where nothing seems to go right for you and you wonder why you bother. The most vitally important thing is to have other things in your life. I've seen people wander into the same arguments I have before them and get blocked, where I just shrug my shoulders and wander off to do something else. You can't get blocked for saying "what an asshole" to your monitor and not hitting the "Save page" button. Most importantly, the world at large doesn't really care about the shenanigans that go on behind the scenes, they just want to read something. A friend of mine pulls up Wikipedia articles while DJing on local radio to read out some factoids about what he plays - he doesn't care who wrote it, who's edit warred on it, and the acronyms DYK, GA and FA are not in his vocabulary. If somebody really really really wants to win an argument, and nobody else prepared to argue on your behalf, I give them the satisfaction of winning while questioning if it's the most important thing in their life. That's really important to put into perspective. PS: I enjoy this essay - see if it applies to things like "All articles should have infoboxes" or "Any article without two inline cites is junk". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As a non-admin reading all of this, it seems to me that spreading out the load might be helpful. People who are admins should have time to do regular editing and take time off from always dealing with problems. If there are a thousand or so admins keeping order among hundreds of times that many active editors, no wonder they are getting burned out. Maybe as well as retaining and encouraging the admins we have, we should be looking for willing experienced editors to expand the cadre and spread out the joy of dealing with nastiness. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
@Anne. Other (exhaustive & interminable) discussions exist. [1] Leaky Caldron 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we could really do with some tool unbundling. Let people get the tools they need and can demonstrate competence of, but no more. RfA is just too much of an "everything but the kitchen sink" request, which is just too far out of most people's reach. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussion of tool unbundling, especially with the new Template editor permission. It seems to me though, that the whole idea of adminship is one of trust in judgement. It's not so much that new admins should know how to use every admin tool expertly right away (how could they, when they haven't been allowed to try them before), but more that they should act sensibly, according to policy, not use the tools for their own advantage, and ask advice from other admins in cases where they aren't sure of the correct procedure. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
And the way we determine suitability should be based on the material in evidence relating to the candidate's body of work - not IRC interactions, wikifriends or any other half-arsed theory about trust and doing no harm. Here for example, Kudpung sets out their criteria [2]. If candidate's really attempted to match even half of that and !voters attempted to actually judge half of that we would have better qualified candidates, less hostile RFAs and a higher success rate. Leaky Caldron 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I've read pretty negative opinions about the possibility of tool unbundling, just from a technical perspective, it's more administrative work to handle and I don't think it's easy to chop up the toolset. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be very easy, and one day will become a necessity. No will among the admins or the WMF to do it though. Eric Corbett 01:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait. Did that discussion just end? The answer is, oh nohz, since their is no political will amongst the wiki-admins, and since we cannot get mana from the WMF, thus nothing can be done? There are a ton of admins right here on the member-list. Any one of them, endowed with nigh-absolute power to do as they please, per pillar five, which includes deploying custom wiki-tools and bots and other such things, to act in their stead.

    Can someone, please, step across the line in the sand, and say specifically how they think the tools ought to be split up, for the good of wikipedia, and to quadruple our active-admin-count from 625 now up to 2500 by 2015? Eric and myself seem to think it isn't all that difficult; not everybody and their dog has checkuser, for instance, right?

    Oh, well, but really, the WMF (no offense Heather :-)   will never do as we ask. Do as we ask? We have enough admins and programmers right here in this wikiproject, to do for ourselves. If you build it they will come. What needs be done, to retain admins? Editors should appreciate admins, okay, WP:NICE. Admins should not crap on each other, okay, WP:NICE again -- got it. Tools should be split up, so that admin-count can dramatically go up, okay... how? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to start courting experts, instead of repelling them?

I withdraw the question, because it devolved into IMHO blinding tl;dr, IMHO abusive and misleading sectioning, and whatever the hell else that was, which stopped discussion cold as of 27 October. It was intended to be about the Editor Retention core contributors' take on expertise. See the proposed WP:Paid editing policy proposal/2nd draft instead. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Entire discussion, closed.

I'm of the opinion that acknowledged experts should start generally being invited to help Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise, specifically by vetting and making suggestions on Talk pages. This would include published academics and working engineers and scientists; they would be acknowledged as WP:COI editors, and would be requested to participate per that guideline.

  • This worked reasonably well on Talk:Power factor, when volunteer editor Wtshymanski discovered an inconsistency in a source (triggering intense discussion with other editors including Guy Macon). One of the authors of the standards document in question, AMcEachern, was invited to participate in the discussion, and ended up clarifying the matter, acknowledging the published error, and instituting its future correction.
  • This could help considerably in science articles where interpretations of evidence change over time; individual experts could clarify their change in stance, as reflected in their published works.

To reiterate, by "help" I mean discuss in Talk, not edit articles. What do you think? Feel free to suggest a better area to bring this up? --Lexein (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Isn't this already policy? Even editors working as paid advocates are still encouraged to use the talk page to make suggestions for improvement, in my understanding. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would send a very mixed message. Do you really want to tell an expert that she's allowed to comment on a talk page but isn't "good enough" to edit the article? Intothatdarkness 14:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good question. For example, I am an expert on Mattel, having worked there as an engineer and having done consulting for them and for a couple of their competitors. Should I use my expertise to directly edit the Mattel page? I say no, other than perhaps reverting obvious vandalism or fixing typos. The chances are just too large that, no matter how hard I try, I won't be neutral. I really think that I should be told not to edit the article but instead post any suggestions I might have on the article talk page.
By the way, if anyone is interested, I know where you can get a great deal on 150 metric tons of Jar Jar Binks dolls... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed and heh - I have some tons of Atari 2600 Raiders carts for ya. --Lexein (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Intothatdarkness: no, we should be quite clear in our language that experts are certainly good enough to edit articles directly, but to avoid the appearance of bias (COISELF and PROMO), suggestions in Talk are greatly preferred and appreciated. This explanation, perhaps phrased in some better way, should be easily understood by all but the most, how to say, egotistical or immature experts; they would need kid gloves anyways. Look, here's the deal: good on-policy edits(V, RS, NOR, non-SYNTH, non-COI), suggested in Talk, will still make it into articles, so egos should be assuaged. --Lexein (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen, though, COI enforcement appears to be mainly applied to people who might be advocates (paid or otherwise) editing in science areas. I work mainly on humanities and history articles, and I've seen COI there that is pretty much blown off. I've also seen articles that desperately require expert attention, because the standard grammar-correcting lay-editor (which we need, of course) can't recognize slanted POV or bad cites from discredited sources in those articles. They simply don't have the background. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia editors are experts in their fields already. Wikipedia attracts all sorts of persons, including persons who are experts in a particular field. Bill Pollard (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm talking about deliberately and explicitly courting more experts, especially on articles tagged as needing {{expert}} help, and others where heated debates and revert wars between non-experts has dragged on. I bring this up because of the apparent bias against experts here, where volunteer editors see real and imagined lordliness, "trust me, I know", and other issues. My motivation is to bring male and female domain experts into the Talk suggestion process for domain-related articles, even as they are totally free to directly edit non-domain articles. --Lexein (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Uhm...perhaps "expert" is not enough of a distinction as many editors are experts on subjects, what we need are established academics.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
In the limited areas of WP I have dealt with, which is basically early Christianity /Biblical criticism and classical music, I have seen two real experts stop editing in recent months due to being hassled all the time by less knowledgeable users. Whether they were established academics or not I don't know but they were certainly highly expert. Any article about Jesus is constantly being challenged by users who have read a blog somewhere saying "there never was any such person" and try, often in a very juvenile and belligerent way, to insert that POV into the articles. Why would any real academic want to waste their time dealing with that all the time and the childish arguments and sockpuppets involved? The expert on classical music was hassled for years by aggressive pushers of infoboxes into articles he had written and did not want infoboxes in, in the recent arbcom case on that ridiculous "infobox war" he was criticised for not being polite all the time to the pro-infobox crowd and retired. If WP wants real experts and academics admins will have to protect them from that sort of thing, in both of these cases I completely disagree that admins were "bullies", they were much, much too lenient, the infobox thing should have been dealt with years ago and the only way to deal with editors who start putting "the Bible says Jesus was a flying spaghetti monster zombie" into five articles at once is to waste a lot of time collecting "evidence", going to AN/I or some noticeboard and begging admins to do something about it, and even then they are unlikely to act for days or weeks and you waste a lot of time arguing with them and supporters that turn up. Academics are not going to waste their time on such piffle, the process of getting rid of such POV pushers should be much quicker, I would say it ought to be more or less instant.Smeat75 (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Well, in highly contentious articles (Jesus), all editors are going to have a rough time. I see your point that academics won't put up with Wikipedia policy nightmares, but realistically nobody really wants to. The "Infobox war" is also an isolated, if awful example. I feel that these examples should stop being used as reasons not to court experts for the several million or other articles needing help. If you're saying that anyone who self-identifies as an academic is going to be pursued and harried by editors, then we can bring ANI and ARBCOM actions on those bad actors. Wikipedia can little afford to continue to be tarred with the label of "intolerant to expertise", including published academics and working engineers and scientists, acknowledged as WP:COI editors, and sticking to Talk pages, as I suggested above. --Lexein (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
My take is exactly the same as Smeat75's. What is the point in pretending we can court Famous Geniuses to come improve wikipedia? I can hear the advertising campaign now: here on wikipedia, no matter how famous and respected you are in real life, some deletionist who has never contributed anything to wikipedia beyond clicking the revert-button will be happy to repeatedly destroy your careful hours of work, some topic-fanatic who has little actual knowledge and no actual credentials but a huge chip on their shoulders will bait you and taunt you and screw up the article you worked on, and you'll be glad to know that unlike real life, wikipedia does not have five bazillion pages of inscrutable policies you have to memorize prior to contributing, plus an editing toolset reminiscent of the last century. Famous Geniuses unite!
   Apologies for the harsh sarcasm above, but there is a reason that such an advertising campaign would fail, and it is the same reason experts keep leaving, such as the biblical ones mentioned by Smeat75. Wikipedia culture is no longer WP:NICE. That was true back in the pre-2010 era, and certainly in the pre-2007 era. But it is no longer true. For every civil discussion like we're having now, there are hundreds of silent WP:NINJAs reverting, thousands of topic-fanatics turning pages into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory, and literally hundreds of millions of people that treat wikipedia as a read-only resource. Because editing is impossible, unless you have very thick skin, and a very high tolerance for poor tools, plus from time to time actual trolls. The rare troll is not the problem: the real problem is the wikiCulture which says WP:NICE on the tin, but reverts you in a heartbeat because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignores logical argument with WP:IDHT, and when cornered will wikilawyer to escape, or even WP:9STEPS.
   TLDR: advertising campaigns to attract famous experts are guaranteed to fail. Wikipedia is too abrasive. We must first fix the wikiCulture, and then we prolly won't have to *pay money* to advertise for experts, because they will *want* to come help, where their work and effort and time are respected, valued, appreciated. But advertising we want them, will not make it the truth. We have to first *want* to respect them, value them, appreciate them. Plenty of wikipedians are happy with the adversarial aristocratic wikiCulture now; those folks will drive away any experts advertising recruits. p.s. Although I'm against pretending we're ready to recruit famous-genius-experts, I'm very much in favor of trying to recruit industry-insider-experts by explaining WP:COI to them. See above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I never suggested famous geniuses, for pete's sake. That's just a provocative red herring. I've repeatedly explained what I mean by experts: published and cited authors from academia, engineering and science, who know how to and are willing to cite sources other than themselves, and to suggest prose changes, to support article improvement. (I've modified the arbitrary section break, rather than just deleting it.)
I never suggested advertising. I suggested courting. What I mean by courting is this: inviting by email, on a per-article basis, with a link to a page suggesting the process, and referring to WP:COI, esp WP:COISELF, and advocating discussing and making edit suggestions on Talk pages, with inclusion of cited sources from others.
Courting includes work, meaning involvement - WikiProject Editor Retention gets involved a little on article Talk, more on user Talk, where trouble erupts and tries to assert a calming influence. This would include explanation and linking to policy page#sections, in order to retain whatever experts show up, and keep them on point, and contributing helpfully, civilly, and politely.
This will work best on low-conflict articles, of course. I'm talking about improvement of the millions, not the few. Starting with articles tagged {{expert}}. I bluntly don't care about the articles which have broken out in war zones. Screw 'em. I mean it.
- thank you for pointing out WP:9STEPS - that's priceless, and horrifying.
--Lexein (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to have offended you; a shame, really, since we seem to be on the same side when it comes to archive.is , attracting experts as useful , and of course WP:RETENTION itself. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikiProject Editor Retention OP ED

I Propose a collaboration to begin a project to encourage editors to write periodic "Opinion Editorials" for the Editor Retention main page. The idea is simple. Stay within Wikipedia norms, MOS, policy, guidelines and protocols. Be responsible for your own words and expressions. I don't feel there needs to be too many limits on the subject matter, but I would say that since it is going to be something we link to our own page that the intent and purpose is to move discussion forward, to improve the retention of editors by expressing our views on ways we might be able to improve them and to allow some expression of what we feel or think at a given moment. This is not unleashing the dogs of war, but simple pulling back the drapes a little and letting a some sun shine through.

It is possible that some will attempt to use this as a platform for a particular point of view or original research. I would say that we should follow talk page procedures and allow this within that limit. However, as always, this is not a soapbox to vent, ramble or spew. This is a platform where you can be heard and seen. Think more Cicero on the Rostra speaking to the community, not "random guy on the street with a bullhorn".

The concept will either be a request basis where the editors ask on this talk page to write an editorial, and after consensus may create a new Op Ed or opened for normal editing as a trial to see if there is interest and momentum.

Sign up

This is not a sign up to write an opinion piece but to join the collaboration and project.

  1. --Mark Miller (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. --John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC) The concept is a little too vague to be workable as of now, but that is not to say it is not a great idea.
  3. --I, JethroBT drop me a line I think this might be a helpful addition. We could consider have a small repository of opinion pieces that could randomly cycle for a given visit to the project page. 👍 LikeBuster Seven Talk
  4. -- ```Buster Seven Talk 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Kind of like a speakers' corner in Hyde Park. The WER project needs to expand beyond the current talk page. Further comment: OK. I admit it. Speakers Corner in Hyde Park is, more or less, the same as "random guy...street...bullhorn" but who the heck is Cicero? 00:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) ...and as a bonus, I promise to be one of the helpers, not an op-ed contributor.  :-)  I mean really, no bullhorn, where's the fun in that? Strongly suggest we do *not* advertise Op-Eds via automated talkpage messages, even though that seems like a common tactic.

Adding references to articles as a method of retaining editors

Lately when I have run into an article of a valid topic, but with no or inadequate references, I have added valid references at the bottom. I know from experience, as I wrote a few articles and did not document the material well, that these articles can be candidates for deletion, when inadequate references are used. When I finish finding and placing new references, I try to find the original author of the article and tell him or her I placed new references to prevent the article from being nominated for deletion. My theory is by letting an editor know someone is interested in one of his or her articles, the editor may feel more plugged in to Wikipedia. If we can find more ways to let editors know we want them and their work, it should be easier to retain them. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, Bill. A lot of Wikipedia article spaces feel like very empty places, and I think that silence can be as discouraging for some editors as criticism. Even as a more experienced editor, I know I'm always more motivated on projects where I feel like I have collaborators. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
@Khazar2: You struck one of my nerves. For years I have been lectured about the importance of starting discussions on talk-pages, but for years I rarely get any responses when I do. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
When I start up the talkpage discussion, and get no responses, then I make the edits to mainspace, which sometimes stands (WP:DB_), and other times gets insta-reverted (WP:DBR). Variation on WP:BRD. Under the bright-line-rule, anybody with WP:COI issues on some particular edit, ought to follow WP:DBDRD. Rolls off the tongue nicely, as a bonus. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. Additionally, I suggest that beginners -- especially those who still consider facebook and myspace to be reliable sources -- should be steered towards helping improve articles in the AfC queue, where we know that A) there is a chance somebody with more experience will glance over the refs before the article hits mainspace, and B) there are no ninjas hovering to insta-revert anybody with a misplaced comma in their reftags. Along the same lines, there are lots of low-hanging fruit in the wikiGnome dimension, for those same articles. Once the beginner has sharpened their skills a bit, under the watchful eye of the AfC reviewers, they can start applying their reference-adding and wikiGnome-skillz to neglected mainspace articles. This is an easy transition... many times, articles that they worked on in the AfC queue, will need additional wikiLove once they arrive in mainspace. The queue for AfC is about three weeks backlogged, so if the beginner starts at the bottom of the queue, by the time three weeks are up, they will have become a valuable contributor, or decided that wikipedia is not for them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been looking through the abandoned G13 eligible drafts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue) and about one in five is a notable topic that just needs a few references added. However, because these are so old, a lot of the editors are long gone. I have been adding the references anyway; that postpones deletion for six months in case anyone chooses to improve these articles. However, if someone had done this when the articles were fresh, they might not have been left abandoned. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an editor who works on AfC named Julie, who inspired this temporary-until-we-find-something-better-listing of AfI submissions that are either in the AfC queue, or the AfD queue, and look like they could use rescuing. Templist here -- User_talk:74.192.84.101#AfI. Additions to the list are useful... criticism of the format/datapoints being gathered most welcome... and of course, if you or someone you know *fixes* one of the entries in the list by finding references, please mark the list-entry as  Done. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Great idea. I know I mainly edit existing articles after, as a newly active Editor, I observed the NPP and CSD crews make quick work of new articles within an hour of their creation. Who wants to pour in the time to create an article that goes into the wastebin because the Editor doesn't think the person is notable?
I realize that deleting the subpar material is part of the process of keeping up the quality of the encyclopedia, eliminating spam and self-promotion, etc. etc. but it is demoralizing to the author who usually doesn't stay around to search out "feedback". Only the most persistent and those with a financial interest in having a WP article track down the person tagging an article for deletion to ask why. Most just quit editing or go back to fixing typos. I hear so much b!tching (yeah, I said it) about how there are not enough Editors focusing on "content creation" and I think this is one of the reasons why. I think those guides to writing your first article are a big help if newbies know that they exist and where to find them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Liz, you think that our horrid process for handling new articles is merely *one* of the reasons wikipedia drives away content-contributors? Officious template-spam as their first contact with another wikipedian, having their "just-a-little-rough-around-the-edges" article they slaved over killed because "rvt G666 WP:OMG", and when they try to stop the deletionists from screwing up their lives, being told to go memorize five bazillion rules which all have subtle exceptions, and btw don't let the door smack you on your way out?
  We are in trouble -- even worse, we're stuck in a vicious cycle. NPP is understaffed -- too busy-busy to be WP:NICE, let alone to help add cites. There are 2231 articles in the AfC queue right now, and Anne Delong and Davidwr and JSFarman and others are going through them, one by one. AfC is incredibly understaffed too -- and we're trying to make it harder to become an AfC reviewer, because we keep getting 'reviewers' that are meatpuppets only there to 'approve' articles written by their buddies.
  The *only* thing that can solve our personnel-shortage is WP:RETENTION of new beginning editors, who will one day -- within a few months if Anne Delong were the norm -- themselves turn into desperately-needed AfC and NPP reinforcements. Bill Pollard's idea of putting together cite-swat-teams combines the best of both worlds: we can train beginning editors on how to properly find cites (including for their own articles in the AfC or the AfD queues perhaps... giving us a willing pool of recruits), and simultaneously we can reduce the work-burden crushing our existing AfC/NPP wizards. WP:TIAD. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, contacting the editor that create the article you wish to help reference and collaborate with is an excellent retention method. I like to do this myself. Contacting the creator or the most involved contributor can be a bit tricky though and like "first contact" (to use a Star Trek reference) has to be done very carefully and with as much kindness and tack as possible. Sounds sickly sweet to some, but the point is to keep them on and help them out, not scare them off. Formal templates and other preformatted text should be avoided unless it is in the form of a Wiki love award like a barn star or other such gift. You can even start out by looking through the recent article history and sending a Wiki "Thank the editor" for a contribution you may like. Perhaps we should develop, at minimum, a Barn star that could be given to the editor for their current work that attracted you that suggests in a friendly manner that you wish to collaborate with them on the article. At any rate, this entire concept is a great conflict and dispute avoidance mechanism if done well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been to Manchester since two weeks before the IRA bombing, but I'll assume good faith it's got better since then, and it has got some lovely scenery down the road. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Eric, the reason the USA has paid greeters, and the UK does not, methinks is entirely due to the incredible security-camera-fetish in the UK, although it might be cultural differences (or min-wage difference) between the motherland and the (ooh! burn!) Colonies. But one of the advantages to having beginning editors try their hand at improving articles in the AfC queue, is that they can alert the WikiCops when something about an entry seems off-kilter... which is the real reason that walmart started using greeters. Their smiling faces make *actual* customers feel welcome... and their watchful eyes make *potential* shoplifters feel nervous. Wikipedia can take advantage of the same phenomenon, to make constructive editors feel comfy, and potential spammers feel like looking for an easier site to target. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
They have discontinued both greeters and receipt checkers in our location.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I've started picking out submissions at Articles for creation and improving them to Did you know. Isle of Man Pure Beer Act is one, Rainthorpe Hall is another. Hopefully the article authors get the intended satisfaction of seeing their work on the main page and a credit thanking them for their work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – I've worked quite a bit at AfC, and occasionally have improved submissions there knowing that particular topics clearly passed notability guidelines such as GNG, CORP, etc., and then published them after performing improvements (such as the addition of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, copy editing, etc). Oftentimes, Articles for creation submissions about obviously notable topics simply need polishing and refinement, particularly in the areas of denoting reliable sources, copy editing, layout and formatting. Conversely, I've also declined many submissions, oftentimes for topics that simply just haven't received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Unfortunately, articles at AfC are sometimes overt copyright violations, which I then nominate for speedy deletion accordingly. Regarding the former, it's obvious that when an AfC contributor receives a "submission accepted" template on their talk page, this will likely correspond with an increased likelihood of continued contributions to the encyclopedia. AfC contributors tend to be inexperienced editors, and even simple forms of helpfulness can nudge people to like Wikipedia more. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is too heavy handed

Have a look at User talk:Indigo Tourism.

This editor has been blocked indefinitely for conflict of interest. Although we cannot be certain, it was probably perfectly legitimate according to the letter of the law here, but the language used was brutal. It's obvious that this was a new user, editing in good faith, perhaps in the interests of an employer, but what was added was nowhere near as bad as a lot of the other tourism oriented nonsense that exists on the articles for hundreds of small communities all over Wikipedia. In their third edit ever, on their Talk page (see above), they even suggest that it was correcting errors.

This editor made two positive edits, and is now not going to feel all that good about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This editor has been poorly treated. His third edit was little more than a re-write of the text that he replaced. I think the block should be lifted. I spend time undoing vandalism from first time editors. Compared to these, this editor should receive an apology and encouragement to continue editing. Doesn't every editor have a personal agenda? Why do we choose to edit the articles we do? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you guys referring to the blocking template? That's a standard template for use with editors who have a organization-name username and edit spammishly. Irrespective of the quality of the user's edits, their username is a no-go for editing on Wikipedia, and that taken in conjunction with edits that add promotional-brochure-style language generally results in a block. It's entirely possible Indigo was and is editing in good faith, but they've gone about it in a manner that conflicts with our policies. The best thing to do if you want to help them is first, explain our username policies, and then, explain that Wikipedia does not accept advertising copy (or any other copy that has been published elsewhere under copyright, for that matter) and that the tone of his additions will need to be encyclopedic and neutral. Once he understands those things, a good unblock request discussing his understanding of them is fairly likely to be granted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
But in this context it's wrong to say that "Wikipedia does not accept advertising copy..." As I've already pointed out, what was "added was nowhere near as bad as a lot of the other tourism oriented nonsense that exists on the articles for hundreds of small communities all over Wikipedia". I am familiar with the area this user is from, and they would have seen lots of other similar content for other local towns. So, whether we officially allow such content, it exists, in vast quantities. And this editor pointed out that the intention was to correct content, not add advertising. And I don't think it's valid to blame a template. Editors have a choice of how to address these matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth: there appears to be no private company with the name 'Indigo Tourism', which might profit from this so-called advertisement. There is a local government entity called 'Indigo Shire' and it has a page on its website related to tourism. The editor in question claims to be removing erroneous information. Isn't that what we want on WP? They have local knowledge. All that is needed is some guidance so that their contribution is limited to facts without sounding like a tourist brochure. That is, without exhortations to visit places. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Absolutely too heavy handed for, as UserJack points out, what is basically a re-write. Indef is like using a sledge-hammer to insert a push-pin. I don't see the username as a no-go either. What recourse do we have? Can we convince the admin to "reduce the fine"? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
An indefinite block should be used only for persistent destructiveness on WP, such as vandalism or continual intemperate attacks on other editors. This editor was making their first attempt at editing! Whether or not there was WP:COI, all that was required was a standard warning. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, a fair bit of agreement here. Can we take this further, in two ways. Firstly, address this specific case with those who did not treat a new editor terribly kindly, and secondly, tackle the broader issue of how such new editors, making good faith edits in innocence, and in possible unintended ignorance of our rules, can be treated in a more welcoming manner? I'm happy to take this to appropriate Administrator board, but where? HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Technically, the admin was correct. However, this is a classic example of what happens because Wikipedia after all these years still doesn't have a proper landing page, although it should really be clear to anyone that an encyclopedia is not a platform for advertising. For those who don't, they probably don't even reaslise that we have people here who patrol new pages and edits, and that there are even others who can block users who don't comply with the rules. I would have used the COI+Username user warning first, and wait and see what happens. If they had continued, I would then have made a 'promosofterblock'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, technically correct, IF it was advertising. Unfortunately, even that's not 100% certain. I've seen, as I've no doubt you have, situations where a user with the name of a company arrives and starts promoting products. Those are obvious. This wasn't. It could have been handled a lot better. And we may well have scared off a good new editor, from my neighbourhood! Not good. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The article was about a small town, not a corporation or a product. So how was it advertising? Who benefits? I hope this is taken further, as HiLo48 has suggested, with those who contributed to the block. I hope we can agree that this editor was in no way a vandal. The philosophy that 'anyone can edit' guarantees that many first edits will be inappropriate. I would like to hear more about a 'landing page'. I guess every first edit would be sidetracked to a simple page of instructions? --Greenmaven (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any strong opinions about this myself, but have notified User:Toddst1, the blocking admin, of the ongoing conversation in case he wants to join. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Another heavy-handed block by this admin? I'm disappointed; when he and I last discussed things I was hopeful there would be more empathy with inexperienced users.  :-( Tony (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sad news about one of our best

User:Jackson Peebles is no longer with us, he passed away in late October. Jackson was a Western Michigan University Honors student studying behavioral science and biology. He worked as an ice hockey referreee and volunteered with the Red Cross. His Wikipedia efforts focused on counter-vandalism and adoption, "greeting new users, encouraging civility, and obsessively reviewing recent changes".

Jackson was a Teahouse host, an instructor in the Education Program, and the lead on a Video Tutorials Project through the WMF. User:Go Phightins! originaly adopted Jackson but he went on to run his own adoption school and facilitated a Western Michigan University course himself. Among his userboxes he said, "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday."

Jackson was born in 1992 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He graduated Mattawan High School and was Senior Class President there. At Western Michigan University, he was a 2011 Medallion Scholar. He worked at the Waldo Library at the reference desk and volunteered for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. He was one of three students in the nation invited to represent the US at the International Red Cross and Red Crescent’s Global Youth Conference in Vienna in 2012.[3]

Jackson had recently proposed a WMF Individual Engagment Grant called Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship. "I think this project is incredibly important and should be pursued," User:EpochFail wrote in an endorsement. The grant scored highly and looked likely to be funded. "A very interesting concept...may become a 'keystone piece' in the new editor onboarding process." wrote one IEG committee member. Another wrote, "Taking a 'Teahouse approach' in building sustained motivation and preventing editor dropouts is a wonderful opportunity to develop a true mentor-mentee support system that would increase the activity of new contributors." Finally, "Proposers are highly qualified and driven mentors with a useful background in teaching new editors and understanding the learning process."

He was excitedly planning a trip to Australia in the coming weeks.

On Wikipedia, Jackson earned barnstars in Mentorship, Random Acts of Kindness and Resilience. Friends and teachers glowingly recalled his sense of humor and his hard work ethic.

His last edit to our site was on October 21 2013, the day he died. Jackson welcomed an i.p. editor to Wikipedia: "Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Nikah mut‘ah. I hope you like the place and decide to stay."

It was an honor (truly) and a great pleasure to have had even a limited amount of interaction with such a great person. I hope he was able to spread a small amount of his joy and idealism with Wikipedia to everyone else who he was in contact with or worked with. May you soul find everlasting peace and may your edits remain as a memorial to all you tried to accomplish. RIP Jackson.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please leave remembrances and condolences at Jackson's talk page. We'll try and contact the family and share your thoughts with them. You can read more reflections on Jackson's amazing life here. Donations to the Kalamazoo NAMI chapter would have made Jackson very happy and are the family's wish. Ocaasi t | c 23:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"A lot of easy and obvious topics already have good articles"

Just to break out a digression from Anne Delong's comment under #Observations above.

I don't believe this is strictly true. Lots of easy and obvious topics have articles, but they're far from being good articles – let alone WP:GOOD ARTICLEs. This changes the game even further than how Anne describes it (which I would agree with) and makes the editor recruitment proposition yet more complex.

Our need now is not merely for editors to pop up and deal with the easy and obvious topics from scratch. Instead we have more and more need for editors with skill, commitment and outside knowledge to improve the articles we already have as starters and to turn them into good articles. We need better editors now than we have needed in the past. I believe this makes editor retention and development even more important. We need editors now who have learned the WP practices (both the useful ones and how to avoid the hinderances). We need editors with some mileage at the obscure art of writing good articles. Most of all though, we need competent editors with competence beyond editing – those who understand a subject and who can explain it for others.

"WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't go away as a statement on access, but we have to recognise that not everyone is capable of editing every article. The viewpoint that "A good editor can edit anything" just doesn't hold up on technical subjects, especially not if we're looking for an explanation, more than a mere collation of Google links. This is especially difficult on a started article, where making an article readable and giving it a pedagogic narrative often involves replacing major sections, or the lead at least. How many times have we done this, only to then have a well-structured section gradually eroded over time with snippets from, "my favourite web search result", or even a bulk revert from the original author of that lead?

We're also going to have to address the problem of biting experts – probably one of our top ten problems these days. A content expert pops up and we slap them straight down for breaching the rule about Semicolon Tuesdays, then we template them a few times over an improper image license, then an adminkiddie bans them for COI or a group username. Result! That's another one down. WP is saved from evil knowledge and preserved as a social club. We have to stop doing this! If we want to push our vast mass of started articles towards being some decently complete articles, then we have to start working with content experts and resource owners, rather than seeing them as "outsiders" to be resisted at all cost. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are excellent comments Andy. The view emanating from the WMF that Wikipedia is largely complete is absurd and eccentric; the job has barely begun. Every article in Wikipedia should aim to be the most definitive and reliable article on the web that can be understood by literate readers who are not specialists in the field. Many of the easy and obvious articles have a long way to go, and many of the more difficult and less obvious articles don't even have stubs. As Andy says, that means we "have to start working with content experts and resource owners, rather than seeing them as "outsiders" to be resisted at all cost". It also means radically renovating the admin system so it sets an example by facilitating content building, and behaves in a manner that commands respect rather than just lumping content builders together with vandals and treating them as disposable trash. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Relevant to this discussion is WP:ACADEME Fiddle Faddle 13:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WP has long had some degree of respect for academia. I'm thinking more of commercial and industrial contributors, where the first reaction at present is OMG COI!
There's a recent article at MAHLE Powertrain, on a well-established engineering company. Some expansion was done by an editor with obvious links to MAHLE, by the text and media they added. This is good content that wants copyediting, it's relevant and it's not over-promotional. MAHLE is a big company, they do interesting stuff, engineering geeks like me want to keep up with them. A very active WP editor has just discovered this article and, as is their only editing style, blanked all the images under NFCC, with an invalid rationale indicating they weren't aware of their subject. When the FURs were updated to indicate this (they're not replaceable for free by anyone outside the company), they simply repeated the blanking under a threat of topic bans and then deleted 2/3rd of the article text alleging an (unsourced) copyvio. Of course, no attempt at engagement with the author and uploader to try and resolve these issues, just a rush to speedy (their rights owner almost certainly helped to put them here!)
We should be engaging with MAHLE to make an article about MAHLE. We ought to have an article on MAHLE, they're a suitable topic. MAHLE wish to do this, they're uploading media to assist us. WP instead sees this as yet another round in the deletion game, where our young pioneers can win a new neckerchief by being the first to root out infringements.
For as long as we sustain a culture that rewards trivial bureaucracy over quality, we will be stuck with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

To address the issues raised by Andy Dingley (above) I think the options for protection need reviewing. Semi-protection only excludes complete novices from editing. From there we leap to full-protection, which excludes everyone but admins. For articles requiring specific knowledge to edit usefully, it is pretty irrational to assume the expertise lies with the admins. This level of protection seems to be intended more for the prevention of edit warring. I suggest we need a form of protection (probably several forms) intended to limit editing to people who can demonstrate that they have appropriate skills. Editors would have to request permission to edit this category of protected article. I will now be bold enough to add the next section. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, admins are not expected to edit fully protected articles, except for introducing changes suggested at the talk page, exactly for the same reason you outline. The only split is between not-autoconfirmed users and everybody else, which is semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The chemists here will be familiar with the idea of a dynamic equilibrium. The forces improving an article act more strongly on a poor article, but there is also erosion reducing the quality of articles. It's not a one-way progression to articles of perfection, eventually a balance is reached where change still happens, but the average quality of articles no longer does. The way to improve articles then becomes not just making improving edits, but to change the balance: more good edits, fewer bad edits, better edits.
Despite this, I still don't think protection is workable here. There are still good edits to be made to even the best of articles, and we don't know who is capable of or likely to make them beforehand. If we're trying to encourage knowledgeable external editors to begin, they're the ones most restricted by protections. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy's thoughts on dynamic equilibrium explain why the 'anyone can edit' principle limits the quality achievable by WP. The threshold when an article begins to be eroded needs to be detected. Then, achieving "fewer bad edits" seems to require quarantining the article from the less competent editors. Alternatively, can more editors be encouraged to 'watch' articles, and should invitations to watch be directed at some editors or to most editors? Do editors who have done more than 1000 edits deserve any enhanced status, for example? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_11&oldid=1142661369"