"What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was
approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight,
or
in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off
from raising the issues."
The "expertise" that is most valued at Wikipedia is expertise in
Wikipedia
itself - its policies, procedures, technology, etc - rather than
expertise
in the content. That's a fundamental cultural flaw if the project is to
succeed.
In a sense; though, as one academic pointed out to me, writing
an encyclopaedia is a skill in itself. And just because one is a topic
area
expert does not immediately make them the most capable of writing the
article (in some respects it makes them less capable than an interested
layman).
Of course, but that is not a reason to heap abuse on them rather than
assisting them.
In reference to other comments here about the
treatment of new editors,
there has been a noticeable (to me at least) shift away from the role
of
administrators and "senior editors" from helping newcomers overcome the
challenges to finding them a nuisance.
I don't think this is an issue of sysops or "senior editors" - it is
ingrained in the vast majority of the community.
For example we know it is common in newer/younger editors to "bite" or
otherwise apply policy too strongly - because with regularity we have to
deal with the fall out (i.e. mentor them).
I see the same issues with content editors as well; with resistance to
anyone trying to add content to articles they've invested in (I don't
just
mean subject matter experts).
That is what is going on at the Haymarket article. Editing that article
successfully is harder than the D-Day Landing.
Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the
problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and
sensible
might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like linking to, or
quoting, parts of policy instead of taking time to write a simple
explanation. The use of templates. The resistance to listen to arguments.
It all adds up into a confusing user experience.
This is not a new problem; many online communities suffer, and have
suffered, from it.
All of the things I mentioned are useful once your dealing with editors
aware of the workings - it's not "new and scary" at that point and acts
as
a useful shortcut to streamline our interaction. The key thing to work
on,
I think, is easing newbies into that process without bombarding them with
too much of it at once.
Tom
And we do have a problem with academics such as this one who are not
patient enough or too busy to get up to speed. Note, however, that he is
not too busy to write an article on the Academic Chronicle or appear on
NPR.
Now, in effect we have moved a Wikipedia policy discussion off our policy
pages onto The Academic Chronicle and NPR which most of us have no access
too. Our policy process is broken, and, in fact, effectively jammed.
Fred