[WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting

[Emily Monroe]

> It is a balance between efficiently working through new page patrol  
> (NPP) and not scaring off new editors who may develop into good  
> editors, and who may be quite happy for others to take their edits  
> and improve them (but don't want them just thrown away).

I, on occasion, will improve an article while on NPP. Sometimes I do  
so before tagging it for deletion (often the page is tagged for  
deletion while I'm editing it, resulting in an edit conflict). I think  
this is a good idea. Sometimes I figure out, via edit conflict, that  
the person is still editing the article. I just put up an {{inuse}}  
tag and move on.

Maybe we can make up a rule that says "Unless the page was obvisouly  
written in bad faith, you have to improve upon it before tagging it  
for speedy or prod deletion. Otherwise, your nomination will be  
rejected."

Emily
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Carcharoth wrote:

> A good way to test friendliness is to edit logged out or from an
> alternative IP, or as a new account (but avoid breaching experiments),
> and see if your contributions get treated any differently. I've heard
> from numerous people that there is resistance to new editing and
> biting behaviour going on, rather than welcomes and encouragement for
> new editors learning the ropes. Rather than get defensive, working
> towards making the NPP culture more friendly and less bureaucratic for
> new editors, would be better.
>
> It is a balance between efficiently working through new page patrol
> (NPP) and not scaring off new editors who may develop into good
> editors, and who may be quite happy for others to take their edits and
> improve them (but don't want them just thrown away).
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Amory Meltzer  
> <amorymeltzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't exactly call that post "nice."  It reads to me like just
>> another person complaining.  The argument that an article about a
>> non-profit can't be an advertisement is absurd.  I recognize that  
>> NPPs
>> should on the whole be nicer to submissions from newer users, but the
>> overwhelming majority of speedily deleted articles deserve to be so.
>> I don't understand why anyone would feel so entitled about a
>> submission to what is essentially somebody else's website.
>>
>> ~A
>>
>> On Friday, September 18, 2009, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com 
>> > wrote:
>>> This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by  
>>> someone
>>> who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting
>>> "wikibullying" can be for newbies and other editors who aren't
>>> well-versed in the procedures and processes.
>>>
>>> http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/bullypedia-a-wikipedian-whos-tired-of-getting-beat-up/
>>>
>>> Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others
>>> who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly  
>>> at an
>>> individual level.
>>>
>>> -Sage
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ~A
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l