crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue ========= Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I mean "A LOT") of complaints.
Those range from: "there's a mistake in this article, please fix it", to: "You're defaming me, delete this article/those revisions, or I will sue you!" through "this page is an enormous copyvio from my site!"
with as Sam Korn already pointed out, various degrees of civility.
The problem is the following:
Only a few people have agreed to help on OTRS. It's one thing to spend hours editing wikipedia, it's another to want to spend hours alone on a boring screen answering (most of the time) crazy emails. We have appealed to the en population several times (why en? because it is the one most attacked, but actually, other wikipedias are suffering from the same problem, and as we grow, these will get bigger and more numerous) and have gotten only very few answers. Fine, I can understand that.
The people who *are* working on OTRS are for some "good editors", for others "better e-mail answerers" than "editors" (me, for example). In the end, I think anyway that we *will* have to pay someone to answer those emails. As I speak, there are 280 unanswered emails in the info-en queue. Probably most of these are spam, but even sorting spam takes an awful lot of time.
What happens is this: you get an email with a complaint, you go see the page, realize there's about 2 hours of work on the page, and get discouraged. Because on one hand, you can't really go "public" with the complaint (it's, after all, an email, gives personal information etc.) and on the other, you *know* that something needs to be done. Here you have two options: -either you take the two hours to fix the article, but then, there are still 279 emails to be answered in OTRS. -or you go to a person you know, who you think could be good at fixing the article. Here two options again: -the person you chose to tell does have two hours and can fix the article -they don't and it gets forgotten and maybe a third one: -They don't have the time, go to other people, the "issue" is somehow broadcasted, makes the front page of USA Today... and you know the rest.
So what's the solution?
I don't think that the solution is en-admin-only anything. I think the solution is something that would be more like: - The wikipedia community at large realizes that there *are* problems with some articles - The wikipedia community at large *knows* who is: "good at NPOV", good at "speedy deleting", good at "cleaning histories", good in "Famous people stuff", good at "sourcing an article". -The wikipedia community at large *does* agree that something needs to be done to clean up Wikipedia in a (sorry, but it's true) hidden kind of fashion. -The wikipedia community at large decides to "appoint", "elect", "designate" (whatever suits the wikipedia community at large) a few trusted users who are reknown for the things listed above and agrees that they should all get together on one list where the people working behind the scenes (in OTRS) can just forward the email and are *sure* that it is going to be taken care of in a timely and discreet fashion.
NB. This list should not be of 800, it should not either be of 20, I am thinking something along the lines of 50-70 people from all across the wikipedias (because there are problems that may be repercuted from one language to the other- see tron for example), admins and non-admins (I can cite at least 5 people on fr who are not admins whom I would trust to do that kind of stuff better than many admins).
I am not sure how we can do that without ever falling in the "clique" type thing. But how different is it from all the "associations" of every kind that I have come across on en? Not sure.
What I am sure of is this: either the wikipedia community at large acknowledges the problem and tries to find a solution *together*, or we'll end up (not tomorrow, but soon enough) by having to "pay" some "NPOVers", or "history-cleaners", or choose them in a cabal-fashion, to do the work. Because the work to be done is there and most of it has to stay a little private.
The idea is to have people who know how to do this stuff (NPOV, sourcing), who are recognized for doing it well, who can get together on an article and work together on it when the complaint comes in, who are ok with doing it as part of their "normal" participation on wikipedia. The only thing is that their "work" will be a little directed. ie. "Please look at these 20 articles, that are a copyvio of this site". They can be tasked with asking people outside the list to help them etc.
This is what it's all about.
Hope this long email helped a little, and that it will spark ideas... I am for my part, short on ideas about how to deal with this stuff, and afraid that some day it will backfire in a much nastier way than just the front page of USA Today.
Delphine -- ~notafish
I like your idea Notafish ....... I would certainly volunteer for this
Waerth/Walter
crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I mean "A LOT") of complaints.
Those range from: "there's a mistake in this article, please fix it", to: "You're defaming me, delete this article/those revisions, or I will sue you!" through "this page is an enormous copyvio from my site!"
with as Sam Korn already pointed out, various degrees of civility.
The problem is the following:
Only a few people have agreed to help on OTRS. It's one thing to spend hours editing wikipedia, it's another to want to spend hours alone on a boring screen answering (most of the time) crazy emails. We have appealed to the en population several times (why en? because it is the one most attacked, but actually, other wikipedias are suffering from the same problem, and as we grow, these will get bigger and more numerous) and have gotten only very few answers. Fine, I can understand that.
The people who *are* working on OTRS are for some "good editors", for others "better e-mail answerers" than "editors" (me, for example). In the end, I think anyway that we *will* have to pay someone to answer those emails. As I speak, there are 280 unanswered emails in the info-en queue. Probably most of these are spam, but even sorting spam takes an awful lot of time.
What happens is this: you get an email with a complaint, you go see the page, realize there's about 2 hours of work on the page, and get discouraged. Because on one hand, you can't really go "public" with the complaint (it's, after all, an email, gives personal information etc.) and on the other, you *know* that something needs to be done. Here you have two options: -either you take the two hours to fix the article, but then, there are still 279 emails to be answered in OTRS. -or you go to a person you know, who you think could be good at fixing the article. Here two options again: -the person you chose to tell does have two hours and can fix the article -they don't and it gets forgotten and maybe a third one: -They don't have the time, go to other people, the "issue" is somehow broadcasted, makes the front page of USA Today... and you know the rest.
So what's the solution?
I don't think that the solution is en-admin-only anything. I think the solution is something that would be more like:
- The wikipedia community at large realizes that there *are* problems
with some articles
- The wikipedia community at large *knows* who is: "good at NPOV",
good at "speedy deleting", good at "cleaning histories", good in "Famous people stuff", good at "sourcing an article". -The wikipedia community at large *does* agree that something needs to be done to clean up Wikipedia in a (sorry, but it's true) hidden kind of fashion. -The wikipedia community at large decides to "appoint", "elect", "designate" (whatever suits the wikipedia community at large) a few trusted users who are reknown for the things listed above and agrees that they should all get together on one list where the people working behind the scenes (in OTRS) can just forward the email and are *sure* that it is going to be taken care of in a timely and discreet fashion.
NB. This list should not be of 800, it should not either be of 20, I am thinking something along the lines of 50-70 people from all across the wikipedias (because there are problems that may be repercuted from one language to the other- see tron for example), admins and non-admins (I can cite at least 5 people on fr who are not admins whom I would trust to do that kind of stuff better than many admins).
I am not sure how we can do that without ever falling in the "clique" type thing. But how different is it from all the "associations" of every kind that I have come across on en? Not sure.
What I am sure of is this: either the wikipedia community at large acknowledges the problem and tries to find a solution *together*, or we'll end up (not tomorrow, but soon enough) by having to "pay" some "NPOVers", or "history-cleaners", or choose them in a cabal-fashion, to do the work. Because the work to be done is there and most of it has to stay a little private.
The idea is to have people who know how to do this stuff (NPOV, sourcing), who are recognized for doing it well, who can get together on an article and work together on it when the complaint comes in, who are ok with doing it as part of their "normal" participation on wikipedia. The only thing is that their "work" will be a little directed. ie. "Please look at these 20 articles, that are a copyvio of this site". They can be tasked with asking people outside the list to help them etc.
This is what it's all about.
Hope this long email helped a little, and that it will spark ideas... I am for my part, short on ideas about how to deal with this stuff, and afraid that some day it will backfire in a much nastier way than just the front page of USA Today.
Delphine
~notafish _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Delphine Ménard wrote:
crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I mean "A LOT") of complaints.
<snip>
I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it, and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If you are interested please visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.
Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I mean "A LOT") of complaints.
<snip>
I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it, and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If you are interested please visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.
Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
--sannse
sannse wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Delphine Ménard wrote:
crossposting to wikipedia-l as this is an international issue
Hi all,
as a totally non-en person, admin on other wikis and actually working "behind the scenes", I would like to give my view on what I believe is needed, and why an en-admin-only channel and list won't help to the extent that is needed. This is long, but please bear with me.
Let me try to make this more concrete.
OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS) receives a lot (and here I mean "A LOT") of complaints.
<snip>
I'd like to add that helpdesk-l (which is just a regular old mailing list) suffers from the same problem, except that we have no way of knowing who has answered what until someone else posts a reply to it, and there are a lot less people working on it. At present I have a backlog of over 2300 messages, some of them from December last year. If you are interested please visit http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l - we mostly use the OTRS messages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en), but Humblefool and Jareth have some other messages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Humblefool/Helpdesk_boilerplates and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jareth/Boiler respectively.
Maybe we should shut it down and all move to OTRS. I don't know.
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
sannse wrote:
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Yes, but with OTRS it is easy to switch email from one queue to another. If there were clear guidelines as to what goes in which queue, then it wouldn't be a problem that some mail initially got in the wrong queue.
Or we could have one big queue - with both addresses leading there (and /many/ more helpers on it!)
--sannse
On 1/26/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
sannse wrote:
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Yes, but with OTRS it is easy to switch email from one queue to another. If there were clear guidelines as to what goes in which queue, then it wouldn't be a problem that some mail initially got in the wrong queue.
Or we could have one big queue - with both addresses leading there (and /many/ more helpers on it!)
I like the idea of using the ticket system for both addresses: grant access liberally to the helpdesk queue (anyone interested and reasonably clued) while having a smaller crew of people to answer the mail that really must be handled carefully and discreetly (confidential concerns, potential media blowups, etc.), to be easily moved back and forth. I don't think helpdesk-l works as is, as it's difficult to keep track of messages, and the boilerplate responses are a *big* help answering mail in OTRS. (You can see these at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en - it's amazing how much of the mail we get is people applying to our university or wishing to email celebrities.)
The possible benefits of having the helpdesk as a list -- many experienced eyes all looking at one question, openness, easy signup, etc. -- are negated by the sheer volume of the list, dearth of regular volunteers, and the fact that many people are confused about the difference between sending to the private info address and to a public mailing list -- I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of it when it was created.
Oh, and in response to the initial post and others regarding confidentiality vs. transparency -- Delphine absolutely has it. Some issues need to be confined to a group of people who can be trusted to handle things discreetly. I don't think "admins" is the right group, as many trusted users are not admins, and many admins are not good with this sort of work. But a "volunteer fire department" of sorts is necessary. I know there are people I will beg and plead to go clean things up where I haven't the knowledge, resources, or time to do so, some of whom are admins and some of whom aren't (or weren't, at least).
Tagging for cleanup is not a feasible option. Things sit in cleanup for months, and most do not get acted on quickly because there is no urgency about them. They're not marked by priority, in general, and requests for grammar fixes are lumped in along with great unsourced info dumps. Where people are *actively complaining*, sometimes with legal teeth behind it, however, there is urgency, and it's not enough to wait until someone passing by has the inclination to take it on. It's good to have a crew of people who can do the "dirty work" -- sourcing, fact checking, NPOVing -- while the PR crew does the (often equally difficult) task of corresponding with the affected people, explaining how things work, calming them down. (Oh, yeah, and hopefully dissuading them from pursuing legal action.)
-Kat one of your friendly neighborhood OTRS crew
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast upward. For there you have been and there you will always be." - Leonardo da Vinci
On 26/01/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
The possible benefits of having the helpdesk as a list -- many experienced eyes all looking at one question, openness, easy signup, etc. -- are negated by the sheer volume of the list, dearth of regular volunteers, and the fact that many people are confused about the difference between sending to the private info address and to a public mailing list -- I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of it when it was created.
I signed up to assist helpdesk-l, some time back, and I got out a couple of emails before being overwhelmed. I do like the idea of merging the systems - even if a mail sits on OTRS for a while, it is at least clear that it's yet to be handled. It seems a better system for it, though the idea of having the seperate "sensitive" and "general" streams is smart. And it removes the number of people who think Wikipedia "ignores them" through not recieving a reply from helpdesk-l, which they think is an official contact...
(That said, I haven't signed up to OTRS yet - who do I email?)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 1/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(That said, I haven't signed up to OTRS yet - who do I email?)
See [[m:PR department]].
-- Sam
On 1/26/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(That said, I haven't signed up to OTRS yet - who do I email?)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Me. :-) (Or sannse.) Are you volunteering? If so I'll get you set up straight away...
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast upward. For there you have been and there you will always be." - Leonardo da Vinci
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 1/26/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
sannse wrote:
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Yes, but with OTRS it is easy to switch email from one queue to another. If there were clear guidelines as to what goes in which queue, then it wouldn't be a problem that some mail initially got in the wrong queue.
Or we could have one big queue - with both addresses leading there (and /many/ more helpers on it!)
I like the idea of using the ticket system for both addresses: grant access liberally to the helpdesk queue (anyone interested and reasonably clued) while having a smaller crew of people to answer the mail that really must be handled carefully and discreetly (confidential concerns, potential media blowups, etc.), to be easily moved back and forth. I don't think helpdesk-l works as is, as it's difficult to keep track of messages, and the boilerplate responses are a *big* help answering mail in OTRS. (You can see these at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en - it's amazing how much of the mail we get is people applying to our university or wishing to email celebrities.)
The possible benefits of having the helpdesk as a list -- many experienced eyes all looking at one question, openness, easy signup, etc. -- are negated by the sheer volume of the list, dearth of regular volunteers, and the fact that many people are confused about the difference between sending to the private info address and to a public mailing list -- I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of it when it was created.
I am totally with mindspillage here. Two queues and movement of emails between the two.
For those who do not know the system yet, our OTRS contains now possibly 15-20 (?) queues and emails just circulate from one queue to the other, as needed. Some queues are just to answer information requests, others are more specialised (board, legal, donations etc....).
If I had one thing to ask for OTRS improvement, it would be for it to be able to better clean up spam though...
ant
"Anthere" Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote in message news:drbnq9$34c$1@sea.gmane.org... [snip]
If I had one thing to ask for OTRS improvement, it would be for it to be able to better clean up spam though...
It's open source, same as Mediawiki...must be someone here who could chip in a few hours hacking :-)
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 1/26/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
sannse wrote:
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Yes, but with OTRS it is easy to switch email from one queue to another. If there were clear guidelines as to what goes in which queue, then it wouldn't be a problem that some mail initially got in the wrong queue.
Or we could have one big queue - with both addresses leading there (and /many/ more helpers on it!)
I like the idea of using the ticket system for both addresses: grant access liberally to the helpdesk queue (anyone interested and reasonably clued) while having a smaller crew of people to answer the mail that really must be handled carefully and discreetly (confidential concerns, potential media blowups, etc.), to be easily moved back and forth. I don't think helpdesk-l works as is, as it's difficult to keep track of messages, and the boilerplate responses are a *big* help answering mail in OTRS. (You can see these at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en - it's amazing how much of the mail we get is people applying to our university or wishing to email celebrities.)
The possible benefits of having the helpdesk as a list -- many experienced eyes all looking at one question, openness, easy signup, etc. -- are negated by the sheer volume of the list, dearth of regular volunteers, and the fact that many people are confused about the difference between sending to the private info address and to a public mailing list -- I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of it when it was created.
I support this idea. How soon before we can change helpdesk-l to an OTRS queue (oh, and maybe call it helpesk and have helpdesk-l forward there...)?
Completely burned out,
On 1/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote: ..
I support this idea. How soon before we can change helpdesk-l to an OTRS queue (oh, and maybe call it helpesk and have helpdesk-l forward there...)?
Completely burned out,
Darn! I had just joined helpdesk because I heard the current editors were almost burned out and I wanted to avert it. :(
~Maru
Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 1/26/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote: ..
I support this idea. How soon before we can change helpdesk-l to an OTRS queue (oh, and maybe call it helpesk and have helpdesk-l forward there...)?
Completely burned out,
Darn! I had just joined helpdesk because I heard the current editors were almost burned out and I wanted to avert it. :(
Don't worry, you're quite welcome to stay on...
On 1/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Maru Dubshinki wrote:
Darn! I had just joined helpdesk because I heard the current editors were almost burned out and I wanted to avert it. :(
Don't worry, you're quite welcome to stay on...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
...Did I just feel a chill wind blow by?
~Maru
On 1/24/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote: ...
What happens is this: you get an email with a complaint, you go see the page, realize there's about 2 hours of work on the page, and get discouraged. Because on one hand, you can't really go "public" with the complaint (it's, after all, an email, gives personal information etc.) and on the other, you *know* that something needs to be done. Here you have two options: -either you take the two hours to fix the article, but then, there are still 279 emails to be answered in OTRS. -or you go to a person you know, who you think could be good at fixing the article. Here two options again: -the person you chose to tell does have two hours and can fix the article -they don't and it gets forgotten and maybe a third one: -They don't have the time, go to other people, the "issue" is somehow broadcasted, makes the front page of USA Today... and you know the rest.
So what's the solution?
...
Delphine
~notafish
If the problem is really apparent, why can't you tag the page appropriately? I don't think adding a new layer of procedure will help anything; people who already have the time and such will already be working on the cleanup category.
~Maru
On 1/25/06, Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
If the problem is really apparent, why can't you tag the page appropriately? I don't think adding a new layer of procedure will help anything; people who already have the time and such will already be working on the cleanup category.
Sure. Let me just take a look... [[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged. [[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged [[Category:Accuracy disputes]] 1000 articles tagged [[Category:Pages needing attention]] 198 articles tagged [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged
Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
Cheers,
Delphine -- ~notafish
"Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com wrote in message news:453b6e50601250604k30a77fc0o4e32c185818f19e6@mail.gmail.com... On 1/25/06, Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
If the problem is really apparent, why can't you tag the page appropriately? I don't think adding a new layer of procedure will help anything; people who already have the time and such will already be working on the cleanup category.
Sure. Let me just take a look... [[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged. [[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged [[Category:Accuracy disputes]] 1000 articles tagged [[Category:Pages needing attention]] 198 articles tagged [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
So modify your reply to the complainer: instead of saying "oh yes, I've taken care of it personally; you don't need to do anything" try saying "as per normal Wikipedia procedure I've tagged it for urgent treatment. Please feel free to help out yourself."
Maybe you can recruit editors this way, and at least they'll start with some sort of motivation. Obviously someone would want to check that said motivation didn't carry them away :-)
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com wrote
Sure. Let me just take a look... [[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged. [[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged [[Category:Accuracy disputes]] 1000 articles tagged [[Category:Pages needing attention]] 198 articles tagged [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
So modify your reply to the complainer: instead of saying "oh yes, I've taken care of it personally; you don't need to do anything" try saying "as per normal Wikipedia procedure I've tagged it for urgent treatment. Please feel free to help out yourself."
Maybe you can recruit editors this way, and at least they'll start with some sort of motivation. Obviously someone would want to check that said motivation didn't carry them away :-)
This just isn't practical. If we have an irate politician writing to us and threatening to sue, "fix it yourself" just isn't going to wash. Especially if there are three regular POV-warriors sitting on the article day and night putting the problem text back.
We have to accept that not all people with a complaint are willing or able to edit. And I somehow doubt that "well he could have edited it every day for three months to keep it ok" will be a good defence in a libel case. Or worse - "he should have tried using the dispute resolution process"
We /do/ often encourage people writing to info-en to join the project. But it's simply not appropriate in all cases. And those where it isn't are generally the ones with the potential to blow up in our faces big-time.
--sannse
On 1/25/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Maru Dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
If the problem is really apparent, why can't you tag the page appropriately? I don't think adding a new layer of procedure will help anything; people who already have the time and such will already be working on the cleanup category.
Sure. Let me just take a look... [[Category:NPOV disputes]] 1800 articles tagged. [[Category:Articles which may be biased]] 196 articles tagged [[Category:Accuracy disputes]] 1000 articles tagged [[Category:Pages needing attention]] 198 articles tagged [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] 199 articles tagged
Of course, my "urgent request" will be taken care of within the hour.
Cheers,
Delphine
~notafish
Why is your urgent request more urgent than all those others?
If your point is that there is entirely too much work that needs to be done, and that we should start cloning our best editors to try to catch up on the backlog, I wholeheartedly agree! :)
~Maru
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org