[Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness

[Dror Kamir]

I can give plenty of problematic behaviors of veteran users toward new 
users on the English Wikipedia. I don't know whether simplification of 
rules and guidelines are the way to deal with them (although I'm all in 
favor of simplification). Here are just a few of these behaviors as 
examples (and I might repeat things I wrote in my previous messages). I 
don't know if these issues have been addressed on the strategy project. 
There are so many subjects there, that we might have lost the forest for 
the trees.

1. A new user provides new information without adhering to the 
recommended style. Most chances that the edit be reverted by a veteran 
user rather than stylized to be in line with the rest of the article.

2. New user provides interesting new information without providing 
sources. Most chances that this edit be reverted and the user considered 
disruptor, rather than someone check the new contribution against 
sources. The new user might have read this information and lost access 
to the source, he might know something from personal experience, but 
don't know how to source it. The right move on behalf of a veteran user 
would be to find a source, or at least move the new information to the 
talk page with a request that anyone who has access to a relevant 
sources would provide them, but this seldom happens.

3. A veteran user does not like the contributions of a new user. S/he 
files a complaint about the new user being a sockpuppet. The new user is 
almost immediately blocked without knowing why (as s/he doesn't even 
know what sockpuppet it), without being able to defend himself, and 
without knowing to whom s/he can appeal.

4. A veteran user "hijacks" an article (either because s/he feel 
attached to it, seen many vandalism on this article before or even have 
a certain political opinion which s/he wants to promote). S/he prevents 
edits to this article from new users. Most chances are that the new 
users would be the ones blamed for disruptive behavior than the veteran 
user.

  Dror K

בתאריך 10/04/11 06:20, ציטוט Risker:

> Getting back on topic, the board's resolution says:
>
>
> We urge the Wikimedia community to promote openness and collaboration, by:
> * Treating new editors with patience, kindness, and respect; being aware
> of the challenges facing new editors, and reaching out to them; and
> encouraging others to do the same;
> * Improving communication on the projects; simplifying policy and
> instructions; and working with colleagues to improve and make friendlier
> policies and practices regarding templates, warnings, and deletion;
> * Supporting the development and rollout of features and tools that
> improve usability and accessibility;
> * Increasing community awareness of these issues and supporting outreach
> efforts of individuals, groups and Chapters;
> * Working with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier,
> more collaborative culture, including more thanking and affirmation; and
> encouraging best practices and community leaders; and
> * Working with colleagues to develop practices to discourage disruptive
> and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers.
>
>
>
> This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on things,
> and we can probably learn from each other's experience; however, what
> information there is seems to be housed on the strategy wiki, which many
> users avoid because it's not part of the WMF matrix (i.e., SUL doesn't
> apply).  With that in mind, I wonder if there can be a place where projects
> discuss what has helped and not helped, located somewhere on Meta.
>
> Coming from the behemoth English Wikipedia, where I make most of my
> contributions, I know that communication becomes increasingly difficult as
> size increases, and that there is a tendency to "standardize" messages and
> processes to the point that they begin to immobilize sensible action.
>
> I'm particularly interested in policy simplification; I know our project has
> far, far too many complex and even contradictory policies, guidelines, and
> miscellaneous pages that result in "alphabet soup" messages that even
> experienced users find almost impenetrable. I pity the newbie who gets a
> "welcome" message that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example.
> Featured article writers "discuss" what it really means on a regular basis,
> so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the
> contradictions in it.
>
> A few thoughts to bring us back where we started.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>