http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen%C2%B9%C2%B3 is a more or less totally unsourced article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cadmus is also a more or less totally unsourced article.
It is my sense, and I suspect that others who read the articles will agree, that [[Gen13]] is a toe-curling atrocity that should be hacked to ribbons, whereas [[Project Cadmus]] is an OK start.
There are many reasons for this - [[Gen13]] is a sputtering mess of subtle POV-pushing, making lots of claims about the social circumstance the comics were coming out in. [[Project Cadmus]] sticks basically to the question of what this thing is, where it's appeared, and what it was doing there. [[Gen13]] has the tone of a fan essay, [[Project Cadmus]] of something from a DC-Universe encyclopedia.
What's further interesting here is that [[Gen13]] is trying to be the better article - lots of sections on real-world stuff, less in- universe focus. [[Project Cadmus]] is much more in-universe. But it's also the better article in practice.
Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well- sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in any answer to "who cares?"
Moral of the story: differing quality and style of articles have different sourcing needs - not just in terms of what makes a good source, but in terms of what sources are needed. At some points in an article's development what it needs most are sources. At others what it needs are clean-ups, or additions of whole new sections and facets of the article, or other things. There is no one-size-fits all solution, and sometimes complaining about the wrong thing is just ridiculous - of the three articles, only [[Gen13]] really needs sourcing right now. Only [[Project Cadmus]] needs heavy refocusing on an out-of-universe perspective. And only [[The Juggernaut Bitch!!]] needs the tender, loving care offered to articles on AfD.
We need to stop trying to craft general solutions to all articles and start realizing that articles develop in different orders and on different paths. Solutions that fix a problem we're seeing in one area of the encyclopedia should not be crafted with the intention that they will expand to encompass other areas. With nearly two million articles, top-down editorial control just isn't plausible. We need to abandon - immediately - the quest for broadly reaching editorial mandates like "source everything" or "remove all X" and start figuring out what areas of the encyclopedia are having what problems and figuring out what solutions we can craft for those problems and those problems specifically. The questions we need to ask aren't "how do we fix BLPs" but "How do we fix the articles on actors from Star Trek up?" (Because those articles likely share a pool of editors, and thus also likely share a pool of strengths and weaknesses)
This is an ENTIRELY new dynamic for how to think about editorial problems on Wikipedia. It means something is going to have to happen that, previously, hasn't happened - the sorts of editors who subscribe to and post to the mailing list (editors who tend to be interested in the big picture of Wikipedia) are going to have to learn to talk to the sorts of editors who only do work on articles related to DC comics.
They're a very different bunch - full of local concerns that most of us don't care about, and generally mistrustful of the logic "Well, I can't let you do X because then some unknown group of people over here might do X and that would be bad." They're often ambivalent or hostile towards bits of policy - go ahead and try explaining in- universe perspective to a rabid editor of My Little Pony articles (to pick something I've never even looked at). But they're also well- meaning, dedicated, and write most of our articles.
We need, very badly, to start thinking about how to implement projects of repairing Wikipedia on local levels. This isn't going to be done by policy either - it's going to be done by figuring out ways of going into the various trenches and working well with people who, in some cases, seem to be on a different planet. A very well-meaning planet, mind you, but a different one.
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
-Phil
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
Work through the relevant WikiProjects more? There's a certain element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." -- that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide bureaucracy.
Kirill
On 09/04/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
Work through the relevant WikiProjects more? There's a certain element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." -- that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide bureaucracy.
A lot of the problem with AFD is that (a) it sees itself as the project's editorial control (b) it's insular. WikiProject AFD.
- d.
On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
Work through the relevant WikiProjects more? There's a certain element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." -- that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide bureaucracy.
I agree - the WikiProjects were always, at their best, intended to provide exactly this sort of vehicle. They've also long been tied down in a tricky way - on the one hand, we don't want to give them the leeway to create their own policy, or else we get something like, as David called it, WikiProject AfD. On the other hand, we need to empower them at least somewhat.
It occurs to me that this is, in practice, exactly what CZ's system of editors does. It empowers certain trusted individuals to have certain amounts of control in certain subject areas, thus functionally creating micropolicy in certain subject areas. Obviously we don't want to go CZ's route of credentialism, but there may be something we can use here.
-Phil
On 4/9/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
Work through the relevant WikiProjects more? There's a certain element of disdain for them -- "I don't want to talk to WikiProject X because they're all fanboys/POV pushers/people violating OWN/etc." -- that needs to be done away with; but they're an existing infrastructure for interacting with editors that work primarily in a particular subject area without getting involved in the Wikipedia-wide bureaucracy.
WikiProjects have actually been pretty receptive (in my experience) to the guideline on in-universe perspective ([[WP:WAF]]). The only sustained opposition has been relatively tangential issues like plot summaries and succession boxes for fictional entities. Many of the articles I tag with {{in-universe}} get cleaned up, and most others just sit around for lack of active editing but don't incite fanboy opposition.
I think a more concerted effort to have policy wonks assess topic-specific problems and make suggestions to WikiProjects (or on the talk pages of central articles, for when there is no WikiProject) could be pretty successful. As long as it's done with wikilove (or at least a veneer of it), it shouldn't cause too much culture shock.
-Sage
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0400, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well- sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in any answer to "who cares?"
We know who cares: he ones who trolled for months about its deletion and eventually forced its undeletion :-)
Guy (JzG)
On Apr 9, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0400, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well- sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in any answer to "who cares?"
We know who cares: he ones who trolled for months about its deletion and eventually forced its undeletion :-)
It should be noted, I am capable of believing that the article should be kept. I just think it needs the sort of swift and dramatic revision typical of articles that get nominated for AfD. :)
-Phil
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:02:02 -0400, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well- sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in any answer to "who cares?"
We know who cares: he ones who trolled for months about its deletion and eventually forced its undeletion :-)
I'm rarely wrong. d:-)
-Jeff
On 4/9/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen%C2%B9%C2%B3 is a more or less totally unsourced article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cadmus is also a more or less totally unsourced article.
It is my sense, and I suspect that others who read the articles will agree, that [[Gen13]] is a toe-curling atrocity that should be hacked to ribbons, whereas [[Project Cadmus]] is an OK start.
There are many reasons for this - [[Gen13]] is a sputtering mess of subtle POV-pushing, making lots of claims about the social circumstance the comics were coming out in. [[Project Cadmus]] sticks basically to the question of what this thing is, where it's appeared, and what it was doing there. [[Gen13]] has the tone of a fan essay, [[Project Cadmus]] of something from a DC-Universe encyclopedia.
What's further interesting here is that [[Gen13]] is trying to be the better article - lots of sections on real-world stuff, less in- universe focus. [[Project Cadmus]] is much more in-universe. But it's also the better article in practice.
Curiously, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Juggernaut_Bitch%21%21 is sourced and worse than both of them - written in a totally inappropriate style, ridiculous captions, and, despite being well- sourced to things that might answer the question, totally lacking in any answer to "who cares?"
Moral of the story: differing quality and style of articles have different sourcing needs - not just in terms of what makes a good source, but in terms of what sources are needed. At some points in an article's development what it needs most are sources. At others what it needs are clean-ups, or additions of whole new sections and facets of the article, or other things. There is no one-size-fits all solution, and sometimes complaining about the wrong thing is just ridiculous - of the three articles, only [[Gen13]] really needs sourcing right now. Only [[Project Cadmus]] needs heavy refocusing on an out-of-universe perspective. And only [[The Juggernaut Bitch!!]] needs the tender, loving care offered to articles on AfD.
We need to stop trying to craft general solutions to all articles and start realizing that articles develop in different orders and on different paths. Solutions that fix a problem we're seeing in one area of the encyclopedia should not be crafted with the intention that they will expand to encompass other areas. With nearly two million articles, top-down editorial control just isn't plausible. We need to abandon - immediately - the quest for broadly reaching editorial mandates like "source everything" or "remove all X" and start figuring out what areas of the encyclopedia are having what problems and figuring out what solutions we can craft for those problems and those problems specifically. The questions we need to ask aren't "how do we fix BLPs" but "How do we fix the articles on actors from Star Trek up?" (Because those articles likely share a pool of editors, and thus also likely share a pool of strengths and weaknesses)
This is an ENTIRELY new dynamic for how to think about editorial problems on Wikipedia. It means something is going to have to happen that, previously, hasn't happened - the sorts of editors who subscribe to and post to the mailing list (editors who tend to be interested in the big picture of Wikipedia) are going to have to learn to talk to the sorts of editors who only do work on articles related to DC comics.
They're a very different bunch - full of local concerns that most of us don't care about, and generally mistrustful of the logic "Well, I can't let you do X because then some unknown group of people over here might do X and that would be bad." They're often ambivalent or hostile towards bits of policy - go ahead and try explaining in- universe perspective to a rabid editor of My Little Pony articles (to pick something I've never even looked at). But they're also well- meaning, dedicated, and write most of our articles.
We need, very badly, to start thinking about how to implement projects of repairing Wikipedia on local levels. This isn't going to be done by policy either - it's going to be done by figuring out ways of going into the various trenches and working well with people who, in some cases, seem to be on a different planet. A very well-meaning planet, mind you, but a different one.
So what can we do? What can we put into place that facilitates this sort of local engagement?
-Phil
I haven't read the articles in question, but agree with the general idea. We need to scale down and do things wikiproject-wide instead of Wikipedia-wide. Breaking jobs down in manageable chunks might actually get them done instead of forming into a backlog. (That's part of the reason I included WikiProjects in my [[WP:IRE]] proposal).
On 4/10/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
We need to stop trying to craft general solutions to all articles and start realizing that articles develop in different orders and on different paths. Solutions that fix a problem we're seeing in one
It's a hell of a lot easier to tell a newbie "every article must be sourced" than anything more nuanced. And easier for them to understand.
Which isn't to say that we couldn't operate different rules for newbies than for established users. But I don't see how we can suddenly start telling newbies that unsourced articles are ok, even if it's only "sometimes ok".
Steve
On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Which isn't to say that we couldn't operate different rules for newbies than for established users. But I don't see how we can suddenly start telling newbies that unsourced articles are ok, even if it's only "sometimes ok".
Because we shouldn't treat newbies like they're idiots who can't understand how we do things. How about "Sourcing articles is important. It's not always the first priority, but it's an issue."
Or, better yet, how about we don't treat "newbies" as a homogenous class. I read some policy pages and found myself on RFA discussing someone's nomination within a day or two of getting to Wikipedia. This was, admittedly, before the Great Process Explosion, and it may well be that it's impossible for a newbie to get up to speed on the basics now because we've eliminated basics. But that's neither here nor there - newbie is not a homogenous class any more than "article" is. How we deal with a given one and what we tell a given one should not be determined before we've looked at the specific situation.
-Phil
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Because we shouldn't treat newbies like they're idiots who can't understand how we do things. How about "Sourcing articles is important. It's not always the first priority, but it's an issue."
Most of them *are* idiots. See [[WP:AFC]].
Or, better yet, how about we don't treat "newbies" as a homogenous class. I read some policy pages and found myself on RFA discussing someone's nomination within a day or two of getting to Wikipedia.
You're unusual. :)
This was, admittedly, before the Great Process Explosion, and it may well be that it's impossible for a newbie to get up to speed on the basics now because we've eliminated basics. But that's neither here nor there - newbie is not a homogenous class any more than "article" is. How we deal with a given one and what we tell a given one should not be determined before we've looked at the specific situation.
There's just no telling at all whether a newbie will stick around at all, will read the policy documents etc. And since we do actually want sources, where is the harm in telling newbies that they have to source any article they create? Hell, I add at least *one* source for every article I make. Where's the harm?
Steve
On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/10/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Because we shouldn't treat newbies like they're idiots who can't understand how we do things. How about "Sourcing articles is important. It's not always the first priority, but it's an issue."
Most of them *are* idiots. See [[WP:AFC]].
Then we're screwed. Period.
Or, better yet, how about we don't treat "newbies" as a homogenous class. I read some policy pages and found myself on RFA discussing someone's nomination within a day or two of getting to Wikipedia.
You're unusual. :)
True. But most people are unusual for some definition of unusual.
There's just no telling at all whether a newbie will stick around at all, will read the policy documents etc. And since we do actually want sources, where is the harm in telling newbies that they have to source any article they create? Hell, I add at least *one* source for every article I make. Where's the harm?
I figure we can tell a newbie maybe (maybe) three things. Because, well, we don't want to overwhelm them or try to Taylorize them.
#1 has to be NPOV. Period. End of discussion. #2 should be to use talk pages, as they remain somewhat non-obvious. #3 could then be "cite sources," but I think verifiability is vastly more important for this.
-Phil
On 4/11/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Most of them *are* idiots. See [[WP:AFC]].
Then we're screwed. Period.
I think 'idiots' was a harsher term than I meant. They're a combination of clueless and not that smart. Fortunately, only the smarter ones tend to actually stick around and work on the project. I mean, it is an encyclopaedia after all...
I figure we can tell a newbie maybe (maybe) three things. Because, well, we don't want to overwhelm them or try to Taylorize them.
#1 has to be NPOV. Period. End of discussion. #2 should be to use talk pages, as they remain somewhat non-obvious. #3 could then be "cite sources," but I think verifiability is vastly more important for this.
What does "cite sources" mean? Is it "cite all the sources you used"? People do that anyway. What we should tell them would be something like: 1) If it hasn't been published, don't say it 2) If you don't tell us where it has been published, we probably won't believe you.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/11/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I figure we can tell a newbie maybe (maybe) three things. Because, well, we don't want to overwhelm them or try to Taylorize them.
#1 has to be NPOV. Period. End of discussion. #2 should be to use talk pages, as they remain somewhat non-obvious. #3 could then be "cite sources," but I think verifiability is vastly more important for this.
What does "cite sources" mean? Is it "cite all the sources you used"? People do that anyway. What we should tell them would be something like:
- If it hasn't been published, don't say it
- If you don't tell us where it has been published, we probably won't
believe you.
I don't think so. Establishing a constructive mindset is more important than going into a lot of detail about what sources are. We want to see that they are making a reasonable effort before we start putting things in a "Don't do that," format. Your two points are best made in a friendly dialogue.
Ec
On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't think so. Establishing a constructive mindset is more important than going into a lot of detail about what sources are. We want to see that they are making a reasonable effort before we start putting things in a "Don't do that," format. Your two points are best made in a friendly dialogue.
Exactly. We should attempt to communicate principles, not rules.
-Phil
Really, I think a -lot- of policy could be consolidated in a lot of ways, or at the very least we could offer a very short synopsis that's easy to take in for newer users. During the ATT poll, I didn't find it hard at all to think of a way to combine those three policies (V/NOR/RS) into one sentence-"Do not use your personal knowledge or original research to write articles, instead use only verifiable information from reliable sources, and attribute those sources." Easy enough to add "All articles must be written using a neutral tone and viewpoint." There we go, the core policies in two sentences. Clueful people could mainly get it from those two. Those with less clue, but genuinely wishing to develop it, could go read the more detailed versions to get an idea of what we're talking about. And for the clueless who don't care to get a clue, no amount of policy is going to get it through their heads anyway. They're the ones who will someday wind up at the community sanction noticeboard or ArbCom, and wondering why they're being so horribly persecuted, after failing to notice that 20 different people were asking them to stop whatever it was they were doing.
Seraphimblade
On 4/11/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I don't think so. Establishing a constructive mindset is more important than going into a lot of detail about what sources are. We want to see that they are making a reasonable effort before we start putting things in a "Don't do that," format. Your two points are best made in a friendly dialogue.
Exactly. We should attempt to communicate principles, not rules.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. We should attempt to communicate principles, not rules.
To a newbie? Wikipedia is a minefield of policy. They're less likely to get wp:bitten if they have rules to go by.
Steve
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I figure we can tell a newbie maybe (maybe) three things. Because,
well, we don't want to overwhelm them or try to Taylorize them.
#1 has to be NPOV. Period. End of discussion. #2 should be to use talk pages, as they remain somewhat non-obvious. #3 could then be "cite sources," but I think verifiability is vastly more important for this.
Three principles to cluefullness shouldn't be too tough for them. Most of them will gladly comply unless someone overly zealous gets on their case through choosing to be too litral.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 4/10/07, Philip Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu wrote:
We need to stop trying to craft general solutions to all articles and start realizing that articles develop in different orders and on different paths. Solutions that fix a problem we're seeing in one
It's a hell of a lot easier to tell a newbie "every article must be sourced" than anything more nuanced. And easier for them to understand.
IOW: The easy way out.
Which isn't to say that we couldn't operate different rules for newbies than for established users. But I don't see how we can suddenly start telling newbies that unsourced articles are ok, even if it's only "sometimes ok".
We just need to find a more subtle way of saying it.
Ec
On 4/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's a hell of a lot easier to tell a newbie "every article must be sourced" than anything more nuanced. And easier for them to understand.
IOW: The easy way out.
I raise my eyebrow at you.
Steve