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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l