Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Pact
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Please feel free to express your opinions freely. No offense will be taken. If members think this is a good start, even if it needs many changes, then in the spirit of the document itself, I would suggest that someone start a vote on the talk page of the project itself to adopt this as the official Pact of the project, and let it run for 7 days. If a consensus is against this, then it should be moved to the archive and another idea brought forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Restriction on considered input?
[edit]I'm a bit concerned that the proposed process of determining a consensus seems to be limiting consideration to the input from members only. (There's even a proposed process for declaring that someone's input is no longer desired, which boils down to a way for a WikiProject to declare the equivalent of a topic ban.) I'm not sure it is necessary to limit the building of consensus in this way. isaacl (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That might need to be clarified. If a discussion is about "rules" within this project, or to vote for a Primus, then it should be limited to members only, otherwise, it should be open to anyone, I agree with that point. Let me tweak that a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I feel that any WikiProject should be able to declare a topic ban from the project pages. I'm not sure what I think about the numbered !votes. I understand the purpose (to keep an influx of editors from wrecking a proposal they don't fully understand) but it just seems a bit iffy to me. (Dennis' clarification after the edit conflict seems enough to appease my concerns) Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I clarified that. Only voting on the Project itself, and Primus, etc. is restricted. Anyone, member or not, can vote on any other topic ie: "should WP:BLOCK be changed to say $x?" I want maximum participation, but internal affairs should be internal and not influenced by drive by voting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is a minor editorial point, but in the interest of being straightforward, particularly in a guiding document, I'd like to clear it up: when you wrote "!vote", is this just a way of saying, "this really shouldn't be a vote, but is a vote", or "this may look like a vote, but is really a discussion with a straw poll element?" I suggest that more precise terms should be used, as "!vote" assumes a certain subculture to understand, and is a bit of an affectation. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- While I understand the motivation to try to avoid derailment of discussion by disruptive editors, I'm not sure it is within the scope of a WikiProject to set a topic ban without a broader community discussion. If the only consequence of being barred from membership, however, is an inability to select a primus or set the (hopefully low number of) rules for running the project, then I think there shouldn't be an issue. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- That was the goal, to use the least amount of limits to protect the project. It probably can be worded better as well. I wrote this entire Pact before finishing my second cup of coffee this morning, after laying awake all night thinking about it. It is likely a little rough around the edges, but I think the overall spirit is in the right direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I clarified that. Only voting on the Project itself, and Primus, etc. is restricted. Anyone, member or not, can vote on any other topic ie: "should WP:BLOCK be changed to say $x?" I want maximum participation, but internal affairs should be internal and not influenced by drive by voting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Primus
[edit]This strikes me as being the only real sticking point. I think looking at the coordinator structure at WP:MILHIST, and maybe using its terminology, might be helpful, as that is the basic structure followed by the few other WikiProjects that have such officials and it might be the sort of name most easily recognized and understood here on that basis. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe "Facilitator" would be a good term? Pesky (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Change it then, I like that. The key is to make sure the title is one of equality, not of domain. Oh, and I'm one to always use something different for a name. What we are trying to do IS different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we should try to define the function a little more carefully. The actual title is of secondary importance. I would like to know, for example, on what basis "a neutral voice" will be assumed. And is it necessarily the case that there will be disputes? I would hope not. Let's see what others think about this. --Ipigott (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that is supposed to refer to the idea that these individuals are assumed to be neutral in terms of their relationships with individual editors who the group might be seeking to retain. Presumably, if there are elections, and that is one of the criteria for election, neutrality will be one of the considerations, and, on that basis, they will be assumed to be neutral by virtue of having been selected. They might be, effectively, the "go-to" people in general in a specific area. And, yeah, I do think that it is almost assured that there will be disputes. Some cases which come to mind might involve long-term civil POV pushers who may or may not have substantial support from others, like on religion, political, or pseudoscience content. We do have some editors around here who know how to game the system, and I think we've already had at least a few individuals who have "retired" in the hopes of making some sort of tactical advantage in some content. Such cases, honestly, are possibly/probably one of the biggest difficulties this sort of group might face. But maybe clarifying the language, saying something to the effect that while these individuals elected will make every effort to retain good, qualified, and competent editors, they shall not be so biased in the favor of those editors as to put the best interests of those editors before the best interests of the encyclopedia itself. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a facilitator or wossname or whatever as being really one who just keeps the gears greased up, applies oil and water as applicable, tightens up wheel nuts and so on within the project itself. More maintenance work than spokesperson work; no reason why the two functions couldn't be combined, though. But not me, please! I have enough to do already, and I'm a bit commitment-averse ;P Pesky (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- [insert bad joke about women being afraid of commitment here]. For the most part, I would agree with you, that the primary responsibility of such a job would be, basically, grunt-worker-in-chief. I guess I was thinking in what I said above that such a person might also perhaps be one of the most informed based on that grunt work, so, for instance, he might look at the talk page and see a comment which relates to something he knows a certain editor is interested in and knowledgable about, and contact that editor about the matter, asking if s/he might want to involve themselves. So, yeah, not so much "spokesperson," but maybe more of a informal referral service, in conjunction with the grunt work? John Carter (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- My first choice for title was actually "Grunt", so it seems you and I really are on the same page here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, at least in offices, the closest equivalent might be the "secretary". They tend to be on or near the bottom rung of the ladder sometimes, but if they're any good at their job they also can be the person whose work is such that the organization would fall apart without them. That also, in some ways, describes the grunt worker we've been talking about. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I always encourage others to be bold and fix the shortcomings in my work. Go for it, work it in, and feel free to modify any part that you think would draw a stronger consensus on the issue. I certainly don't have all the answers, I'm just usually the first to step up and start with something. I was hoping others would modify and fine tune (or clearly reject) my starting idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, at least in offices, the closest equivalent might be the "secretary". They tend to be on or near the bottom rung of the ladder sometimes, but if they're any good at their job they also can be the person whose work is such that the organization would fall apart without them. That also, in some ways, describes the grunt worker we've been talking about. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- My first choice for title was actually "Grunt", so it seems you and I really are on the same page here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- [insert bad joke about women being afraid of commitment here]. For the most part, I would agree with you, that the primary responsibility of such a job would be, basically, grunt-worker-in-chief. I guess I was thinking in what I said above that such a person might also perhaps be one of the most informed based on that grunt work, so, for instance, he might look at the talk page and see a comment which relates to something he knows a certain editor is interested in and knowledgable about, and contact that editor about the matter, asking if s/he might want to involve themselves. So, yeah, not so much "spokesperson," but maybe more of a informal referral service, in conjunction with the grunt work? John Carter (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a facilitator or wossname or whatever as being really one who just keeps the gears greased up, applies oil and water as applicable, tightens up wheel nuts and so on within the project itself. More maintenance work than spokesperson work; no reason why the two functions couldn't be combined, though. But not me, please! I have enough to do already, and I'm a bit commitment-averse ;P Pesky (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that is supposed to refer to the idea that these individuals are assumed to be neutral in terms of their relationships with individual editors who the group might be seeking to retain. Presumably, if there are elections, and that is one of the criteria for election, neutrality will be one of the considerations, and, on that basis, they will be assumed to be neutral by virtue of having been selected. They might be, effectively, the "go-to" people in general in a specific area. And, yeah, I do think that it is almost assured that there will be disputes. Some cases which come to mind might involve long-term civil POV pushers who may or may not have substantial support from others, like on religion, political, or pseudoscience content. We do have some editors around here who know how to game the system, and I think we've already had at least a few individuals who have "retired" in the hopes of making some sort of tactical advantage in some content. Such cases, honestly, are possibly/probably one of the biggest difficulties this sort of group might face. But maybe clarifying the language, saying something to the effect that while these individuals elected will make every effort to retain good, qualified, and competent editors, they shall not be so biased in the favor of those editors as to put the best interests of those editors before the best interests of the encyclopedia itself. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we should try to define the function a little more carefully. The actual title is of secondary importance. I would like to know, for example, on what basis "a neutral voice" will be assumed. And is it necessarily the case that there will be disputes? I would hope not. Let's see what others think about this. --Ipigott (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Change it then, I like that. The key is to make sure the title is one of equality, not of domain. Oh, and I'm one to always use something different for a name. What we are trying to do IS different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
hmm
[edit]I'm sorry Dennis but this seems a bit unnecessary to me. We're trying to avoid bureaucracy and the appearance of cliques right? Well this is the opposite.
The leadership, teams and primus are all very Esperana - and therefore likely to cause trouble (and put ppl off). The voting and participation while a good idea actually isn't that different from policy (except for this: "Members who join after polling has begun can offer opinions but are not granted a numerical vote" which aint gonna fly).
Project co-ordinators or I'd prefer your suggestion, "Janitors", is ok as long as we do it right (ie like John suggested the WP:MILHIST model)--Cailil talk 13:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a suggestion for the project front page here. I think we should follow 1 rule of thumb in everything we do - keep it simple - what we've got here is overly complex--Cailil talk 13:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Front page looks good to me. Having a few ideas/rough guidelines for general use would be a good idea, but yeah I think keeping it as simple as possible is probably easiest. And, nothing against the Pact here, some might consider it almost something like a Masonic oath or the Mayflower Compact. Yes, we should be serious about this, but maybe that level of seriousness might itself give some editors a wrong impression of the group taking itself too seriously and/or giving it an almost religious or political importance, which might well turn off some people. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it helps to have a few people who will step up to the plate, offer direction and assist others, but I don't want the "power" to control the direction of any group or subgroup. I don't jr. admins, I want people who others can say "ask $x, he will know". I had approached Dr. Blofeld for example, as I think he is the right kind of person for the job. This is why I want a few people, not just one. And I'm not interested in the job for myself, but for content creators who know the issues even better than I do. And I don't want it to be a situation with nothing but admins taking lead roles either. I don't have the answer, and the response has been luke warm, which is fine. It was just the first idea. But we need a little structure or it is just anarchy. Not rules per se, just structure. I think John has the right idea, which was my concept, the "first among equals" like many of the Lodges use as "leadership". But throw ideas out there. There is nothing I would love better than a better idea that excited everyone, and I never think mine are the best, I just throw them out to get the process moving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)