[WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>>
>> I think that goes too far. I would argue that, yes, we have had to 
>> find a replacement for the editorial processes applied by EB and (for 
>> example) Nupedia.
> But wasn't the wiki process supposed to be the editorial process?
If you mean the really-old-school pre-2001 wiki process, it was not so 
much a process as people raking a Zen garden, or water gently lapping at 
a sea-shore, or something. Anyway without any structure. Not what we 
would recognise, in fact.

If you mean the Wikipedia-before-beard-tugging process, I think this is 
one of those never-was-a-golden-age discussions. What we have had to 
find is some replacement for a ratchet in an inherently ratchet-free 
environment. Two steps forward and then one back is not really "serious" 
enough for a site with over 300 million readers. (Well, OK, not all 
reading enWP, but that's the ballpark.)
>>  What we have not done is to prescribe these in advance of launching 
>> the project: we have allowed matters to develop their own way
> But I think it is fair to say that there is resistance to changing the 
> current status quo such that it could be argued that further evolution 
> is unwelcome. 
There is always now frictional resistance to change, quite true.
> For way of example, a fairly recent discussion suggested [[WP:PLOT]] 
> lacked the consensus required to remain a policy.  However, a handful 
> of editors refused attempts to remove it. This doesn't support the 
> view that matters are allowed to develop, but rather supports the view 
> that there are gate keepers. Incidentally, I've been informed on three 
> policy pages recently that gate keepers are actually part of the wiki 
> process, and that our policies should have established gate keepers as 
> they will best understand which changes will be in keeping with the 
> general thrust of the policy they undertake to gate keep.
"We have already decided that" is no part of any wiki process. Aiming to 
be consistent over multifarious bits of Wikipedia is part of our way of 
doing things. Obviously there is a tension.
>> But the complaint that there is some sort of editorial process, and 
>> that submissions should still be on a "no one needs to read the 
>> instructions" basis (no drafting, in particular), is a basic 
>> misunderstanding.
>>   
> I don't think it is, I really do not. I think there is a basic 
> misunderstanding on both sides of the argument, because there are 
> people out there crafting policies or arguing that there should be 
> gate keepers and that there actually does exist some sort of editorial 
> process.  Many established editors have or have a belief that they 
> operate as a part of that process, and that their opinion is actually 
> definitive.
>
To go back, if you think this couldn't exist in old-style wikis, you 
would be wrong (in my experience). That kind of inflexibility is a 
people issue you would find anywhere (particularly in voluntary 
organisations, again in my experience).

To get back to the complainant, I'll say this. If I had a friend (and I 
have been asked exactly this) who has an idea for a Wikipedia article on 
a topic of immediate personal interest, what would I advise? I'd say 
"edit the site generally for three months, before trying to edit on 
anything you really care about". This is nothing new: I felt this five 
years ago. I think this is the right advice. Sure, the USP is "you can 
edit this site right now". I think the intelligent reaction is "it can't 
be that simple, surely" and that is also true: it is easy to edit and 
make changes, which can be edited right back.

Of course the "not-so-newbie" in question still complains of being 
bitten, but as I've said previously in the thread, the treatment in the 
form of requests to upgrade the article is not accurately described as 
"bullying".

Charles