Wikipedia talk:Bring me a rock

What does the experienced editor want?

Is it "He doesn't want that information in the article at all." Or is it "convince me personally that this information is both true and also important enough"? (In other words, is he stonewalling (and not persuadable) or lazy (persuadable as long as new editor carries all the water)?) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: I look forward to your answer to this question. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the second case would be more widely applicable (not speaking for her, obviously, just offering my view). DFlhb (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
• All of the above? None of the above? That's the wrong way to look at it. Try it this way:

GIVEN his current information/beliefs, "he doesn't want that information in the article at all", but IF you can "convince [him] personally that this information is both true and also important enough", THEN "he'll be as eager to include this information as you are" ELSE he will keep rejecting the material.

He may or may not be persuadable, but so far he hasn't been persuaded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So, what lesson should a new editor take from this story? "Keep bringing rocks" (a/k/a don't give up)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't expect a new editor to read this story. I expect experienced editors to read this story, specifically when I tell them that WP:BURDEN requires the new editor to supply exactly one (1) source that the new editor – not the experienced editor – believes is reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe the confusion is the use of "want" wrt whether the information should be in the article. It sort of suggests a prior active intention of keeping that particular information out, which may be leading Butwhatdoiknow to interpret the behaviour as stonewalling. That behaviour would certainly be true of some battleground topics where information unfavourable to one's side is held to a different standard than information that supports one's side. But then I don't think we tend to reach an "eager" state, more of a "grudgingly accept" state. To get to "eager" they would need to be both neutral and persuadable.

I don't quite understand your comment about the source only needing to be reliable in the new editors mind. While they have done what is asked of them, the reliability of a source is a consensus matter. Neither editors has any special status surely?

I think the scenario is amusingly polite. The experienced editor likely used terse edit summaries like "rv per WP:V", if they bothered at all, and the newbie may well have thought the "experienced editor" was a vandal going around deleting perfectly valid text. And nobody ever says "I'm going to report you for edit warring." More likely the newbie wakes up the next morning, after their last attempt, to find a notice from the experienced editor saying they have been reported at AN/I and a second notice from an admin saying they have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. -- Colin°^Talk 12:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Where in the text of this essay does it say that WP:BURDEN requires the new editor to supply exactly one (1) source? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Added "of this essay." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I just found a little link at WP:BURDEN note 3 saying "Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." To be honest, that's rather subtle. I was expecting the footnote to just be some backup info, rather than additional behavioural regulations.

Wrt "exactly one", the text says "a reliable source" which is singular. However, WP:EXCEPTIONAL says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"". So there's an exception for the exceptional, which I suppose is a reasonable situation to have an exception! -- Colin°^Talk 16:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my post was ambiguous and sent you on this wild goose chase. I'll fix the post now. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but in the end I answered my own question. -- Colin°^Talk 17:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for this essay to repeat BURDEN.

Again, I wrote this for a very specific scenario, which has manifested in multiple discussions at WT:V. The discussions that we've been having involve hundreds or thousands of words. The discussion that I want to be having, purely for my own convenience and efficiency, will look like this:

• Editor: Why does the footnote in BURDEN say the newbie only has to provide a source that he thinks is reliable? He should have to provide multiple sources that I think are reliable. An experienced editor like me should just be able to unilaterally reject any and all sources any newbie uses and still get to revert forever per BURDEN. I shouldn't be saddled with completely unfair, onerous requirements like typing WP:UNDUE in my edit summary the next time I revert him, instead of typing WP:BURDEN.
• Me: WP:FETCH.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this essay just for your personal use? If so, perhaps you should move it to your user space. If not, I think your point needs to be made more explicitly. I'll be in the real world for a bit but, when I come back, I'll try to work on highlighting your point if the essay is still in Wikipedia space. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Since you have been struggling with the purpose of the page, I encourage you not to edit it. Editing when you're unclear usually results in making pages worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Now, will you please answer my question: I read your 18:33 January 4 post as describing this page as something "purely for my own convenience and efficiency." Is that the case - is it just for your personal use? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote it for my own convenience and efficiency; this is my motivation for my decision to create the page. Others are also welcome to link to it if they find it convenient, useful, or interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Are others also welcome to edit it? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The established etiquette for editing a Wikipedia essay is that anyone may edit it, but no one should change it to a different meaning. If you want to have a page with a different meaning (e.g., one that focuses on stonewalling; one that says it's good for experienced editors to say "Bring me another reliable source" when they really mean "AIUI your proposed content violates NPOV"; one that explicitly limits this story to BURDEN), then you should write a separate essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A simple "yes" would have done the trick. I appreciate that your unsolicited advice that I not edit this article - following up on the advice you gave me some time ago to not edit in all of Wikipedia space - is well meaning and I take no offense that you have offered it. But, if you'll allow me to give you some unsolicited advice, others may misunderstand such recommendations and take them as patronizing or evidence of a claim of ownership. So you may want to be careful when telling other folks to do the same. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is generally useful, not just for WAID's personal use. It doesn't matter if the real case one cites it for isn't aligned perfectly (i.e. the experienced editor is unpersuadable). -- Colin°^Talk 23:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Like

I like this essay. My version is: sometimes, newcomers get given a runaround, rather than being spoken to in plain English.

Of course, it would help if the newcomers would speak up in plain in English. I guess the Teahouse is good for this. I have long noticed that newcomers don’t seem to every respond to a welcome template.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I like this too. But I can also see how I myself can appear like that awful experienced editor in a number of situations. For example, I see a newbie making a big edit that's completely hopeless: it's awfully biased, it's incompetent (e.g. it's confused about basic notions, or it conflates unrelated topics that happen to have the same name), it's badly written, it messes up the wikiformatting, and it's unsourced. Now, I'm not going to spend my entire evening explaining all of those problems, likely to someone who's not willing to understand. Instead, I'll just hook on to the simplest thing and revert the edit as unsourced. Most of the time, the newbie will just go away. If they come back and also happen to have taken the explanation into account, they'll reinstate their edit with a citation to some rubbish source. Then I'll revert it citing WP:RS. Probably they'll go away by this stage. If they're still around and amenable to the advice given, then they'll likely go on Google Books and find something that seems to support what they want to add. Now the next stage: trying to explain to them why they're taking that source out of context, or trying to communicate the basic understanding that's needed to use the sources in this topic area. And then on and on. To this newbie, I'm sure it appears like they're being sent on pointless fetch quests. For me, it's an attempt to politely deflect edits from someone who has no realistic hope of being able to contribute constructively. – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I suspect that most newcomers assume the welcome template is part of an automated system. Why would you try to talk to a bot?

@Uanfala, the footnote in WP:BURDEN provides a handy list of reason other than "unsourced" that you might want to take a look at. If the edit is bad in multiple respects, and the newbie comes back to try a second time, I suggest an edit summary that indicates a completely different reason. An edit summary like "Removing [[WP:NOT|inappropriate and unencyclopedic content]]" should cover just about every scenario, and it would set the eager newcomer on the correct path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WAID, yes, I do think it is assumed to be true, even though it is signed. I think, if true as I suspect, it is mostly assumed to be a bot, or at least a mass-welcomer, that it may as well be a bot welcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be the general belief among editors. For one thing, they look like impersonal messages; for another, younger folks are accustomed to websites providing welcome messages, tips on what to do next, and otherwise leading you down the desired path. If we want people to respond to these templates as if they were personal messages, we should re-write them to look and feel like plain old messages (e.g., remove the that decorates the start of so many automated messages). I remember that when I saw someone post Template:Sofixit for the first time, I thought she had spent a lot of time and effort writing a very nice, personalized message. I was a bit disappointed when I discovered that it was a standard template that took her just two seconds to post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is something to think about, even if I can’t think what should be done differently. Maybe an autowelcome that says if you introduce yourself and talk like a person, you’ll be spoken back to as a person. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I also like the essay. I find it both useful and interesting, reminiscent of the great advice at WP:BITE. Experienced editors tend to become hardened over time, which often shows in our interactions with others. Repeated vandalism and disruption, not to mention running the gauntlet in heated discussions a few times too many, can have that effect. Sometimes we forget the need to soften our stance and communicate thoroughly, especially when dealing with newcomers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think we frequently prioritize the speed at which we defend the project against content that we believe is bad. It is faster and easier for me to type and edit summary that says "Rv WP:MEDRS" than to explain the complexities of due weight and why this distinctly non-mainstream minority POV isn't appropriate to mention at all in Cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

About this edit which was reverted, now the article reads:

“What they really mean is: convince me personally that this information is both true and also important enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Once you do that, they'll be as eager to include this information as you are.”

What I wanted to say is, even if they’ve been convinced that the information is both true and also important enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia, they won’t want to have the information included if they have COI.

For example, it’s very likely that a company’s owner won’t want to have information in the company’s article saying that the company is in debt and may go bankrupt at anytime, even though they know, or are convinced, that this information is both “true and also important enough to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia”. And obviously they won’t be “as eager to include this information as you are”. No matter how hard a user is trying to “bring the rocks”, in such situation it’s always going to be a waste of time (although that user probably won’t notice it).

As a side, I usually try to avoid starting a discussion on the article’s talk page because sometimes it seems stressful and time-consuming, not to mention how much I dislike my dictionary and grammar books ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, have I misunderstood what is “convince me personally”? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You missed out the preceding "What that editor really means is: They don't want that information in the article at all." which does reflect your COI example, among others. I don't think the "convince me" has to be a fair and honest one. Like when someone says "you're never going to convince Bob that..." and even though Bob might be an intelligent guy and your arguments reasonable, Bob isn't reasonable on this issue. Just because the text links to policy pages doesn't mean the actors in the story will be correctly following policy, just that these are the sort of policy pages they are supposed to be following. -- Colin°^Talk 12:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, having two different "really means" is a problem. See above. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's not the tightest of prose. Also I wonder if the nutshell at the top should say this is specifically a commentary on WP:BURDEN: the demand to meet WP:V with a reliable source. The very similar sounding WP:ONUS still allows our experienced editor to refuse, possibly unreasonably, but not by asking for a better rock. Mind you, if WP:WEIGHT is then their reason for refusal, dumping lots of rocks on the article talk page should do the trick. -- Colin°^Talk 17:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)