G'day Gabe,
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up
high> edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have
very little article-talk interaction.
But you do not use the admin tools to interact in article-talk. They *are* used for vandalism-fighting and protection. ~~~~
The most important job for an admin is to interact with people on talk pages. Rightly or wrongly, admins are perceived to have special status on Wikipedia, and their words and actions will often have more impact on editors than the words and actions of an ordinary editor might.
Admins[0] can mediate a dispute and prevent the need for blocks or protections. They can convince users to stop vandalising or spamming and become good contributors. They can calm users who have been improperly accused of vandalism or spamming. They can explain our policies and encourage users to become Clueful.
They can also drive users away from the project. They can convince a tester that Wikipedia is not really a very nice place, and cause him to become a vandal. They can offend a good faith user by calling him a "spammer". They can spread misinformation about our policies and encourage users to become Clueless.
Sooner or later, an administrator will interact with other users on their talkpages. We need to know: is this bloke an insensitive jerk? We do not know this if all that user has done is revert vandals, post to AIV, and use those silly {{testN}} templates.
And that's before you even look at the concern SlimVirgin raised. I had not considered it, but it is true: if we don't know what the "voice" of an admin candidate "sounds" like, it's much easier for a Trojan admin to slip through unrecognised.
[0] Any user, most of the time, but admins are more likely to be successful, because people pay more attention to us.
On 5/30/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Gabe,
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Not at all. My point in all this is the one I've made elsewhere in this thread, or maybe there are two threads going about this, namely that I feel uneasy about seeing people promoted who've racked up
high> edit counts by using automated or semi-automated scripts, but who have
very little article-talk interaction.
But you do not use the admin tools to interact in article-talk. They *are* used for vandalism-fighting and protection. ~~~~
The most important job for an admin is to interact with people on talk pages. Rightly or wrongly, admins are perceived to have special status on Wikipedia, and their words and actions will often have more impact on editors than the words and actions of an ordinary editor might.
Admins[0] can mediate a dispute and prevent the need for blocks or protections. They can convince users to stop vandalising or spamming and become good contributors. They can calm users who have been improperly accused of vandalism or spamming. They can explain our policies and encourage users to become Clueful.
They can also drive users away from the project. They can convince a tester that Wikipedia is not really a very nice place, and cause him to become a vandal. They can offend a good faith user by calling him a "spammer". They can spread misinformation about our policies and encourage users to become Clueless.
Sooner or later, an administrator will interact with other users on their talkpages. We need to know: is this bloke an insensitive jerk? We do not know this if all that user has done is revert vandals, post to AIV, and use those silly {{testN}} templates.
And that's before you even look at the concern SlimVirgin raised. I had not considered it, but it is true: if we don't know what the "voice" of an admin candidate "sounds" like, it's much easier for a Trojan admin to slip through unrecognised.
[0] Any user, most of the time, but admins are more likely to be successful, because people pay more attention to us.
-- [[User:MarkGallagher]]
Article talk is important for interaction, but what about user talk?
I'm not talking about warning templates here.
--Gracenotes
On 31/05/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Article talk is important for interaction, but what about user talk? I'm not talking about warning templates here.
Templates on user talk are IMO amongst the Worst Ideas Ever. Bot warnings about fair use images are one thing ... templated experimentation/vandal warnings are just obnoxious.
One should use one's own words. A template says "you have been bureaucratised".
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 31/05/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Article talk is important for interaction, but what about user talk? I'm not talking about warning templates here.
Templates on user talk are IMO amongst the Worst Ideas Ever. Bot warnings about fair use images are one thing ... templated experimentation/vandal warnings are just obnoxious.
One should use one's own words. A template says "you have been bureaucratised".
Well it is basically bureaucratized, which I don't see as that big a deal. The vast majority of such template messages are standard boilerplate aimed at newbies who might not realize what they're doing. If I had to custom-write text for each time I told somebody "it seems the edits you've made might not be helpful, but please don't get offended if you were editing in good faith", I would probalby never bother to do it at all.
I do generally avoid using such templates when dealing with non-new users.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Templates on user talk are IMO amongst the Worst Ideas Ever. Bot warnings about fair use images are one thing ... templated experimentation/vandal warnings are just obnoxious.
One should use one's own words. A template says "you have been bureaucratised".
Well it is basically bureaucratized, which I don't see as that big a deal. The vast majority of such template messages are standard boilerplate aimed at newbies who might not realize what they're doing. If I had to custom-write text for each time I told somebody "it seems the edits you've made might not be helpful, but please don't get offended if you were editing in good faith", I would probalby never bother to do it at all.
I do generally avoid using such templates when dealing with non-new users.
I'll second this. I avoid templates for most things, especially for welcome messages. (Nothing says community like, "Dear DAAVID GERRARD, welcome to Wikipedia!" followed by three paragraphs of impersonal blather.) But for RC patrol, WP:TWINKLE and its quick-access warnings have been a godsend for me.
To be fair, I only use them for edits where I think the editor knows exactly what the problem is. For people interested in dialog and especially people just going through typical newbie problems, I really prefer the personal note. But using the one-click templates for the 9 out of 10 reversions that are obvious idiocy gives me more time to concentrate on that one person who's trying to be a serious contributor.
William
Similarly, I do not use them for first mistakes by people who are naive or inexperienced, especially if they have made an embarrassingly overpersonal posting. I even remove the bot warnings sometimes. I do use them for routine vandalism by people who know they are deliberately doing harm. I do use them when I want to make an impact. By the time its got to the third level, it may be needed. Though it often is enough just to write calmly: I will block you if you ever do something like this again. and nothing more. (The firm old-fashioned teacher approach.) DGG Another sentence like that is "Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on people until they have done something really notable. "
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Templates on user talk are IMO amongst the Worst Ideas Ever. Bot warnings about fair use images are one thing ... templated experimentation/vandal warnings are just obnoxious.
One should use one's own words. A template says "you have been
bureaucratised".
Well it is basically bureaucratized, which I don't see as that big a deal. The vast majority of such template messages are standard boilerplate aimed at newbies who might not realize what they're doing. If I had to custom-write text for each time I told somebody "it seems the edits you've made might not be helpful, but please don't get offended if you were editing in good faith", I would probalby never bother to do it at all.
I do generally avoid using such templates when dealing with non-new users.
I'll second this. I avoid templates for most things, especially for welcome messages. (Nothing says community like, "Dear DAAVID GERRARD, welcome to Wikipedia!" followed by three paragraphs of impersonal blather.) But for RC patrol, WP:TWINKLE and its quick-access warnings have been a godsend for me.
To be fair, I only use them for edits where I think the editor knows exactly what the problem is. For people interested in dialog and especially people just going through typical newbie problems, I really prefer the personal note. But using the one-click templates for the 9 out of 10 reversions that are obvious idiocy gives me more time to concentrate on that one person who's trying to be a serious contributor.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l