I agree with you Todd. I've noticed some things on top of that too (I
appologize if I double up on some).
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, but
it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the
book at a seasoned editor.
- Arrogance by some seasoned editors: I know some people will probably want
to lynch me, but there seems to be a lot of arrogance from some editors that
have a lot of edits under their belt, as if they are supreme masters of
Wikipedia, and what they say goes. Don't bother discussing or even arguing
with them. A newer, inexperienced editor eventually gets pissed that user:x
has declared themselves god, gets to do damn near what ever he/she wants,
with no recourse. The newer user follow similar action: shot on sight.
- Wiki-movements: such as kill buerocracy by whatever means possible, etc.
- Lack of accountability for Admins: Although most admins do a fine job,
there are times where issues arrise that if a complaintant has a legitimate
argument, they have a snowballs chance in hell of any discipline actually
occuring because Admin Joe makes X good actions. Just like any other
organization, sometimes all it takes is one.
- Damn near everything else Todd stated.
I think some of these issues can be resolved quickly:
- Todd covered Newbie biting vs. Vetreran killing.
- Arrogance: Just needs to stop. A reminder that this is a community and as
such, everyone has the right/ability to enter into any discussion. I doesn't
matter if you've been here 4 years, or 4 days, made 500,000 edis, or 500.
Cases of arrogance or "I am king" attitudes need to also have a clear
discipline schedule.
- Wiki-movements... not much can be done as far as I can see, but they are
annoying none the less.
- Simply set up a Admin Complaint and Discipline structure: An editor makes
a complaint against admin X to a specific location, uninvolved Admin Y
(preferibly not his buddy) reviews and determines if it is legit (diffs
would be needed). If it is legit, then it is added to the admin's "complaint
count", and an action is taken based off a predetermined complaint schedule.
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name
or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
Just my 2 cents.
-Cascadia.
"Todd Allen" <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote in
message news:2a34d5a90704202356l167243e9n27e0654ef5f4e4d9@mail.gmail.com...
I think you have a very good point there, and having
looked through a
lot of the flameouts, I believe that is in the majority of the cases
the reason that people leave. Ironically, in more than one case, I've
seen "good faith" get assumed on a troll's behalf while someone who's
been around for a long time and generally demonstrated good judgment
is interrogated for "biting" them by delivering the ultimatum they
should be getting in that case-either stop the problem behavior, go
away, or get helped to go away.
To that, I can actually see solutions.
-I've suggested that new users be disabled from creating mainspace
pages (mainspace only would be best if it were technically feasible,
this would still give them the ability to create their user pages,
start up discussion on a talk page if the page hasn't yet been
started, etc.) until they've been around for 4 days and made 50 edits
(or perhaps 20 mainspace edits.) If someone can manage to make 20
mainspace edits, stick around for 4 days, and not get indef blocked,
they're probably not an idiot or a vandal, and they've probably
started to gain at least a limited understanding of content policy by
working with existing articles. They probably also should be
restricted from uploading images during this time. If they want to
upload free-use ones, they should be doing that on Commons anyway. If
they want to upload fair-use, they shouldn't be doing that first thing
upon joining anyway.
Yes, this will deter a few good people from joining. It'll also deter
a lot of bad ones, and knock down the neverending CSD backlog. If
anything, it's more "bitey" to say "Well, that new page you made
about
your (best friend/grandfather/loved one that just died/favorite
obscure (band|website)) is going to get summarily nuked" rather than
"Hey, before you make a new article, we'd like to be sure you
understand a little about how things work here. If you're convinced
you've got it down already, wait a few days, or articles for creation
is right this way." The CSD backlogs and newpage patrol burn out a
-lot- of admins and patrollers, and are inordinate timesinks as well.
We don't just need to ask ourselves "But what if we miss out on one
good article that way?" We also need to ask ourselves "If the number
of articles we must speedy is reduced to a quarter its size, what
could those who are tagging and deleting them be doing with the time
instead? What if we're missing out on thirty good articles that way,
as well as a ton of improvements to existing ones, and burning out
great editors in the process?"
-There's no reason for vandals to be given 3 or 4 warnings before the
hammer comes down. They should get one, telling them their conduct is
unacceptable, period, and if they pull it again they get a nice block.
If they apologize nicely, and clearly understand why it happened and
show intent to quit it, there's always an unblock button. In my
experience, however, it's pretty rare that a vandal suddenly "comes
around", except in a few cases of test editing where they go to the
sandbox instead. Again, the question is "What if half the RC patrol
could be dispatched to the cleanup and wikification backlogs instead?"
-We need, as a community, to be a lot quicker to give the boot to
trolls, edit warriors, and POV pushers. This goes triple if they're
single-purpose. It's very rare that these people "come around", or do
anything but drive good people off the project.
-We also need to come down a hell of a lot harder on people trying to
own articles, or who are a little too liberal with reverting. Every
time you make an edit, you can look right down below, and it'll tell
you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or
redistributed by others, do not submit it." OWNership drives a -lot-
of people off, and prevents articles from ever being improved. If at
all possible, and there are no overriding concerns (such as BLP or
complete factual inaccuracy) which demand immediate reversion, poor
but relevant and good-faith edits should be sourced, improved, and
integrated, not reverted. And those who revert well-sourced material
relevant to an article because they don't like what it says should be
shown no mercy whatsoever.
-We need to make cutting easier, and quit calling people who trim
down, merge, and delete articles "vandals" or "deletionists".
Cutting
is a healthy, natural part of the editorial process. (Of course, this
presumes that such cuts are made with a clear rationale.) Once again,
people need to see that sentence in the edit window. If you don't want
your work edited, possibly beyond recognition, possibly even removed,
certainly without your approval, you're posting it in the wrong place.
-People who don't discuss a questionable action with the person who
took it before heading to ANI or RFC or wherever else need a good
troutslapping. Sometimes, the person may really have a good rationale
(or bring to your attention something you didn't know), and the matter
can be dropped. Other times, you may convince them (or bring to their
attention something they didn't even know), and they'll happily
reverse themselves. Of course, the same applies to those who refuse to
discuss issues with those who do raise civil questions about their
actions and explain the rationale behind them, therefore virtually
guaranteeing escalation.
My apologies for the length. I do believe if we can solve these
issues, we can significantly and realistically reduce burnout of good
editors and admins. If we lose a few trolls, vandals, and vanity bios
in the process, well, that's just an added bonus.
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l