Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Thoughts on editor retention and women
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reposting here a revised version of what came to mind in the course of another discussion, in response to an example of promoting a "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere.
- Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work.
- But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content and aggressive, sexualized interaction style is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder, or when you are seeking legitimate redress of grievances through the community's established dispute resolution processes. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Wikipedia! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out!
When I tell male editors in person about some of my experiences here, they wince uncomfortably, and say they're really sorry. Yet, no matter how nice people are in person, this uncivilized atmosphere keeps coming up again and again online. We might as well be honest about what it can be like to be a female volunteer on this website. Many women have had a much worse time of it here than I have; I'm not the only one who's gotten to the point where there are better things to do with my time than persist with this unpleasantness. The more I'm told to "just ignore it and go back to work", the less I feel like editing. -- Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Be stubborn & don't back down from anything, including 'bad' language. Never consider retirement an option. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the main problem with Wikipedia culture is necessarily one you can blame on gender. It's the toxic and confrontational atmosphere in general that's ruining this project for women, and it doesn't matter if the aggressive editor is male or female. This place can be overly contentious, and that's what drives most females away. The ones who stay either enjoy the drama or they find a way to avoid the drama; or perhaps they find a "healthy" balance of both, but make no mistake, until the vibe around here is more congenial, we won't see any significant improvement regarding the retention of female editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't understand the complaint that swearing is a problem for women but not for men. Which women? All women? Which men? All men? HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my many years here, I've interacted a number of times with editors who found the occasional coarse language here to be intolerable. Much of the time, their gender wasn't obvious, but the times it was, it was overwhelmingly men who complained, not unlike the ratios of men to women that the Foundation claims exist here. This leads me to believe that the minority of editors who find fault in the "rough and tumble" atmosphere here do so not because of their gender, but because of their individual sensitivity, which may be because of religious beliefs, upbringing, or just their unique nature. I think we should not be declaring that women in general are less capable of tolerating the occasional swear word, as it is a stereotype that is unproven, unflattering and portrays women as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity. Instead we must accept that some humans are more sensitive than others, just as some humans are more prone to use those words. Making it about gender only perpetuates the type of stereotypes that women have been fighting for generations. It also assumes that if you are a male, your tolerance should be higher, which is equally problematic. Dennis - 2¢ 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you and Dennis Brown keep misrepresenting the argument. Where has anyone said that "that swearing is a problem for women but not for men"? Dennis' response to your questions at first seems promising, but then crosses the line by suggesting that others are suggesting that you treat women editors "as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity." Did you read the last section, Research article: Emotions under Discussion? Or any of the other articles that have been presented here and in related discussions? It's not that all men behave or communicate this way or that all women behave or communicate that way. (This is where Dennis' response seemed promising.)
- It's simply that, generally speaking, women and men have different styles of behaving and communicating, and the style that is endorsed as the acceptable, "normal" one here is the generally male style. (Probably because the editorial body is mostly male.) But who said that style is the norm? Or that to behave differently is weak or inferior? (This, IMO, is what some can't seem to grasp.) 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you PLEASE sign in? GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. But if by not doing so I am breaking some rule, please tell me, and I will stop participating. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're obviously not here to build Wikipedia, according to your edit history & are displaying an SPA nature. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are 10 items under that banner. Which one are you accusing me of? I actually think I fall under WP:NOTNOTHERE (Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines, or just Expressing unpopular (?) opinions). 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're obviously not here to build Wikipedia, according to your edit history & are displaying an SPA nature. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. But if by not doing so I am breaking some rule, please tell me, and I will stop participating. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you PLEASE sign in? GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- (Further response to Djembayz) There's no such thing as a male editor or female editor. The sooner the community adopts that concept, the better. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not so sure. Talking about editor retention, more men than women seem to be in the group of actually leaving, some more than once. Some courageous men and women made me stay by their oppose, Eric first, - do you know a single women in the (much larger) support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if a site with somewhere between 85% and 92% males amongst the regulars didn't lose a lot more of the male editors than the female ones. The real question is whether gender has an influence on retention, especially after you take other factors such as age and marital status into account. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rampant incivility will, in the long-term, decrease retention amongst editors of both genders. I think the issue here is really more about which genders are more likely to excuse and defend the use of derogatory terminology, such as: "twat", "cunt", "dick", "fuck", "idiot", and "moron". My guess is, few females will support the use of these epithets, even if they, in principle, support the editors who use them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- My advantage is that, as not a native speaker of English, I knew only two of the terms ;) - I can't repeat enough that it's not words that constitute incivility but attitude, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gerda, I agree with you; context is everything. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not exactly what I meant. I spoke about the soil, meaning the basic attitude. How can someone request civility (or "enforce" it, - a contradiction in terms, imho) who thinks of other people as, - well let's not repeat it)? - Back to my little example: I can't speak for all of Wikipedia, just what I observe where I look. Math: in a certain minority group, we have 13% women. None of the four left the project. (I admit that I was tempted several times, never because of civility, always because of the loss of a user.) Of the 29 men, 10 left (some more than once), 2 of those are gone. We women have to do the work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- ps: look at the last linked longish thread for "Without a hard heart, you can't survive here." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- "It's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless." — L.R. Knost Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. What I found cruel was to loose people with whom I loved to work. I had to harden my heart (or grow a thicker skin) to still stay. - I don't know how I would react to coarse language because it has never been used to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have to be subject to cruel language to stand up for those who are, but from what I have seen you instead stand up for those who subject others to cruel language, which I do not understand. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. What I found cruel was to loose people with whom I loved to work. I had to harden my heart (or grow a thicker skin) to still stay. - I don't know how I would react to coarse language because it has never been used to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- "It's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless." — L.R. Knost Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gerda, I agree with you; context is everything. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- My advantage is that, as not a native speaker of English, I knew only two of the terms ;) - I can't repeat enough that it's not words that constitute incivility but attitude, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rampant incivility will, in the long-term, decrease retention amongst editors of both genders. I think the issue here is really more about which genders are more likely to excuse and defend the use of derogatory terminology, such as: "twat", "cunt", "dick", "fuck", "idiot", and "moron". My guess is, few females will support the use of these epithets, even if they, in principle, support the editors who use them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if a site with somewhere between 85% and 92% males amongst the regulars didn't lose a lot more of the male editors than the female ones. The real question is whether gender has an influence on retention, especially after you take other factors such as age and marital status into account. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not so sure. Talking about editor retention, more men than women seem to be in the group of actually leaving, some more than once. Some courageous men and women made me stay by their oppose, Eric first, - do you know a single women in the (much larger) support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that rampant incivility will run people off, just as intolerance or overzealous policing of civility will. The solution is not and never will be the use of admin tools, it will only be by the use of serious and calm discussion. What I have found is that if we are overzealous in policing civility, the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident. If someone drags another to ANI because they said "Fuck" one time, I can promise you that the word "fuck" will be said 50 times in that discussion. I've counted it, I'm not exaggerating. Even the best intentions can have absurd results. And I'm not so sure that women would be less tolerant of the seven dirty words. My mom cussed 10x more than my dad, who seldom did. Anecdotal, but applicable. Our culture in the US is still lacking in the US, and likely elsewhere, when it comes to equality and women. Personally, I find Wikipedia to be rather liberating. You can be a woman, or a man, or neither. Gender can be as irrelevant as you choose it to be when you choose an account. Female, male, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, we all look alike when we type. While it isn't perfect, it is a little island where (on average) people are generally judged by the merits of their editing, not their gender or race. Dennis - 2¢ 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident, only as long as the prevailing culture ignores WP:CIVILITY. We don't need a philosophical debate to enforce it; it's already a pillar. A warning followed by a short block followed by a longer block is not disruptive to the community. You do it all the time for other reasons. You also picked the least contentious of my examples, which is a self-serving cherry-pick. If I was a new editor who registered a few days ago, and I called you a cunt you would block me. If I came back several days later and called you a twat you would re-block me, and if I did it again you would indef me. I don't see why "popular" editors should get a pass, when loners do not. The current level of discourse regarding this subject is disappointingly low. Unless she is currently a Wikipedia editor, the anecdote about your Mom is irrelevant here, and it's also a logical fallacy. If you want to take up the anti-civility torch, you would do better to present sound arguments and compelling evidence, instead of personal anecdotes. E.g., my Mother never swore, but my father did when she wasn't around, so I guess we're even ... lol. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't know me very well :) I've been called the same more than a few times, never blocked or asked for a block. I'm not a good example, it doesn't bother me if a stranger does a drive by and calls me a name. In mediation, a goodly portion of times when I have been called a nazi or jackass or whatever, I've continued the discussion as if they didn't call me a name, and it got hammered out. This is typically with new users. And at the end, I would tell them "btw, you don't want to do that. most admin would have blocked you". In the end, I try (I'm not perfect) but I try to focus on the merits first, and cover civility later. Telling someone who is pissed off "Don't call me a jackass" is, well, going to be fruitless. It is better to tolerate single instances and deal with the merits, then say something later. What is unhelpful is when the discussion is changed from being one about content of the article, to "is ok to say jackass?", then everyone jumps in with their opinions, and none of that improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean it is ok to call someone a jackass (and if you make a habit of it, yes, I will block you), it means there are too many people who get obsessed with civility and hold it up higher than content. They are both important, but content is still why were are here. There is the perception that civility has "gone off the rails!!! OMG!" by some here. That isn't exactly the whole story. Drama due to incivility has gone off the rails, but that is due in part to rampant intolerance of anyone who disagrees with anyone. To me, the intolerance poses a greater risk than civility, but we should be addressing both at the same time. Any attempt to fix one without the other will fail. I started here back in 2006. The place is more civil now if you are measuring the instances of being told to "fuck off" and such. It was under the radar for the most part then. Now we worry about even the smallest infraction with a debate, the pendulum has swung too far. We need balance. Dennis - 2¢ 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see that as your personal style, but I'm not at all sure why this should be the accepted and applied standard for all Wikipedians, especially when one of the five pillars directly contradicts your position numerous times and in several different ways (please don't ask me to futilely quote WP:CIVILITY to prove the assertion. It's there for all to see.). If you want to throw away all expectations of civility, you should work in a transparent way to amend the relevant policy so that you aren't in absolute contradiction with it, but in the meantime you shouldn't try to mold this project to your liking, which is coincidentally exactly as you would make it, but not as it is currently formulated (read the policy nutshell, and then justify occasionally calling people idiots or cunts). Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. My style just shows there is more than one way to view the problem, more than one solution. I'm not trying to change our view of civility. I'm trying to open people's minds about how to manage it, how to get the maximum amount of it. The block tool doesn't make people civil, it just makes them go away for a short time. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. Sometimes, it actually helps. But it is folly to think we can block our way to a more civil Wikipedia. WP:BIAS is also worth a read. What may be innocent enough to you, might be very offensive to someone from India, or Iraq, or Niger. The big words are easy to define, but the real incivility doesn't use swear words, and is often saccharine sweet. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. You actively champion an especially relaxed standard of civility at several venues, but none of which are Wikipedia talk:Civility, where this discussion should happen. Why are you the "go-to guy" when it comes to defending incivility but you've never made a single edit to the Civility policy or its corresponding talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I'm not interested in changing the wording of a policy, I'm interesting in making Wikipedia a more tolerant place and a more civil place. You seldom see me on policy pages, you often find me in the trenches. If you only notice my discussions on tolerance, then you aren't looking hard enough. If I'm championing anything, it is for us to take a balanced approach in enforcement. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, some of these terms constitute not just incivility, but legal harassment; e.g., from Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.: "A raft of case law ... establishes that the use of sexually degrading, gender-specific epithets, such as 'slut,' 'cunt,' 'whore' and 'bitch,' .... have been consistently held to constitute harassment based upon sex ... If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted the offending conduct and its results, just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making some kind of legal threat? Eric Corbett
- Nope. I'm merely pointing out that unchecked use of the c-word may put Wikipedia in jeopardy regarding discrimination against a protected group, namely women. In E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, "the 9th Circuit [court] ... [held] that Harvey's employees did not need to show that he was treating them so poorly because of their sex. Even though Harvey was arguably an 'equal opportunity harasser,' his conduct was still potentially illegal because it hurt women more than men, the court said." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- And if someone calls you a bitch or a cunt, I would block them in a skippy minute. If they say "You're bitching about the source, but you missing the larger point", I'm going to completely ignore it. You might notice that one of the themes that I bring up a lot is "context". While a lot of the "sexual harassment" issues at the job apply just as common sense, Wikipedia is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. If you and I worked at ABC, Inc. and I called you a bitch, I would expect our boss would take action. If you and I were at the food court of the local mall and I said "Bitch, that is my seat", then you have no claim. That is the difficulty here. We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. For starters, it isn't a job. Second, there is no way to prove gender. I might be a woman for all you know, pretending to be a man. What we CAN do and should do (and sometimes fail to do) is enforce WP:NPA. If you call anyone a "bitch", you get warned, then blocked, etc. Gender isn't an issue. And frankly, it is rude to call anyone that name, male or female. That is the ultimate in equality: we treat everyone equal. And to be clear, WER's mission isn't political. We DO treat everyone equal here, and singling out special rules just for men or women, or supporting them as a group, that is completely counter to our charter. 100% equality for all races, religions, genders, with no special treatment for or against anyone. Dennis - 2¢ 22:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. That's not true: "The Court has rejected the defense that compensation is required to bring a worker within the employment discrimination protections of the [Civil Rights] Act. (Volling v. Antioch Rescue Squad, N.D. IL, No. 11 C 04920, 12/4/12.)" Rationalobserver (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. Says who?"employers should be aware that Title VII may extend to cover volunteers in the workforce and provide volunteers the opportunity to bring suit alleging harassment and discrimination." Rationalobserver (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gender isn't an issue. Again, says who? "a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out." In terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the protected group is women, so gender is certainly a factor. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gender isn't an issue. "At issue was whether the use of offensive 'gender specific' words such as 'bitch', 'cunt' and 'whore' in the workplace could support a sexual harassment lawsuit. The court ruled that while not all profane or sexual language would be actionable, certain gender-specific words could be, even if they weren't used explicitly in reference to the plaintiff." Obviously, the courts resoundingly disagree with what you've stated above. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- And if someone calls you a bitch or a cunt, I would block them in a skippy minute. If they say "You're bitching about the source, but you missing the larger point", I'm going to completely ignore it. You might notice that one of the themes that I bring up a lot is "context". While a lot of the "sexual harassment" issues at the job apply just as common sense, Wikipedia is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. If you and I worked at ABC, Inc. and I called you a bitch, I would expect our boss would take action. If you and I were at the food court of the local mall and I said "Bitch, that is my seat", then you have no claim. That is the difficulty here. We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. For starters, it isn't a job. Second, there is no way to prove gender. I might be a woman for all you know, pretending to be a man. What we CAN do and should do (and sometimes fail to do) is enforce WP:NPA. If you call anyone a "bitch", you get warned, then blocked, etc. Gender isn't an issue. And frankly, it is rude to call anyone that name, male or female. That is the ultimate in equality: we treat everyone equal. And to be clear, WER's mission isn't political. We DO treat everyone equal here, and singling out special rules just for men or women, or supporting them as a group, that is completely counter to our charter. 100% equality for all races, religions, genders, with no special treatment for or against anyone. Dennis - 2¢ 22:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm merely pointing out that unchecked use of the c-word may put Wikipedia in jeopardy regarding discrimination against a protected group, namely women. In E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, "the 9th Circuit [court] ... [held] that Harvey's employees did not need to show that he was treating them so poorly because of their sex. Even though Harvey was arguably an 'equal opportunity harasser,' his conduct was still potentially illegal because it hurt women more than men, the court said." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you making some kind of legal threat? Eric Corbett
- Dennis, some of these terms constitute not just incivility, but legal harassment; e.g., from Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.: "A raft of case law ... establishes that the use of sexually degrading, gender-specific epithets, such as 'slut,' 'cunt,' 'whore' and 'bitch,' .... have been consistently held to constitute harassment based upon sex ... If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted the offending conduct and its results, just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said above, I'm not interested in changing the wording of a policy, I'm interesting in making Wikipedia a more tolerant place and a more civil place. You seldom see me on policy pages, you often find me in the trenches. If you only notice my discussions on tolerance, then you aren't looking hard enough. If I'm championing anything, it is for us to take a balanced approach in enforcement. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. You actively champion an especially relaxed standard of civility at several venues, but none of which are Wikipedia talk:Civility, where this discussion should happen. Why are you the "go-to guy" when it comes to defending incivility but you've never made a single edit to the Civility policy or its corresponding talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. My style just shows there is more than one way to view the problem, more than one solution. I'm not trying to change our view of civility. I'm trying to open people's minds about how to manage it, how to get the maximum amount of it. The block tool doesn't make people civil, it just makes them go away for a short time. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. Sometimes, it actually helps. But it is folly to think we can block our way to a more civil Wikipedia. WP:BIAS is also worth a read. What may be innocent enough to you, might be very offensive to someone from India, or Iraq, or Niger. The big words are easy to define, but the real incivility doesn't use swear words, and is often saccharine sweet. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I see that as your personal style, but I'm not at all sure why this should be the accepted and applied standard for all Wikipedians, especially when one of the five pillars directly contradicts your position numerous times and in several different ways (please don't ask me to futilely quote WP:CIVILITY to prove the assertion. It's there for all to see.). If you want to throw away all expectations of civility, you should work in a transparent way to amend the relevant policy so that you aren't in absolute contradiction with it, but in the meantime you shouldn't try to mold this project to your liking, which is coincidentally exactly as you would make it, but not as it is currently formulated (read the policy nutshell, and then justify occasionally calling people idiots or cunts). Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- You don't know me very well :) I've been called the same more than a few times, never blocked or asked for a block. I'm not a good example, it doesn't bother me if a stranger does a drive by and calls me a name. In mediation, a goodly portion of times when I have been called a nazi or jackass or whatever, I've continued the discussion as if they didn't call me a name, and it got hammered out. This is typically with new users. And at the end, I would tell them "btw, you don't want to do that. most admin would have blocked you". In the end, I try (I'm not perfect) but I try to focus on the merits first, and cover civility later. Telling someone who is pissed off "Don't call me a jackass" is, well, going to be fruitless. It is better to tolerate single instances and deal with the merits, then say something later. What is unhelpful is when the discussion is changed from being one about content of the article, to "is ok to say jackass?", then everyone jumps in with their opinions, and none of that improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean it is ok to call someone a jackass (and if you make a habit of it, yes, I will block you), it means there are too many people who get obsessed with civility and hold it up higher than content. They are both important, but content is still why were are here. There is the perception that civility has "gone off the rails!!! OMG!" by some here. That isn't exactly the whole story. Drama due to incivility has gone off the rails, but that is due in part to rampant intolerance of anyone who disagrees with anyone. To me, the intolerance poses a greater risk than civility, but we should be addressing both at the same time. Any attempt to fix one without the other will fail. I started here back in 2006. The place is more civil now if you are measuring the instances of being told to "fuck off" and such. It was under the radar for the most part then. Now we worry about even the smallest infraction with a debate, the pendulum has swung too far. We need balance. Dennis - 2¢ 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident, only as long as the prevailing culture ignores WP:CIVILITY. We don't need a philosophical debate to enforce it; it's already a pillar. A warning followed by a short block followed by a longer block is not disruptive to the community. You do it all the time for other reasons. You also picked the least contentious of my examples, which is a self-serving cherry-pick. If I was a new editor who registered a few days ago, and I called you a cunt you would block me. If I came back several days later and called you a twat you would re-block me, and if I did it again you would indef me. I don't see why "popular" editors should get a pass, when loners do not. The current level of discourse regarding this subject is disappointingly low. Unless she is currently a Wikipedia editor, the anecdote about your Mom is irrelevant here, and it's also a logical fallacy. If you want to take up the anti-civility torch, you would do better to present sound arguments and compelling evidence, instead of personal anecdotes. E.g., my Mother never swore, but my father did when she wasn't around, so I guess we're even ... lol. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that rampant incivility will run people off, just as intolerance or overzealous policing of civility will. The solution is not and never will be the use of admin tools, it will only be by the use of serious and calm discussion. What I have found is that if we are overzealous in policing civility, the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident. If someone drags another to ANI because they said "Fuck" one time, I can promise you that the word "fuck" will be said 50 times in that discussion. I've counted it, I'm not exaggerating. Even the best intentions can have absurd results. And I'm not so sure that women would be less tolerant of the seven dirty words. My mom cussed 10x more than my dad, who seldom did. Anecdotal, but applicable. Our culture in the US is still lacking in the US, and likely elsewhere, when it comes to equality and women. Personally, I find Wikipedia to be rather liberating. You can be a woman, or a man, or neither. Gender can be as irrelevant as you choose it to be when you choose an account. Female, male, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, we all look alike when we type. While it isn't perfect, it is a little island where (on average) people are generally judged by the merits of their editing, not their gender or race. Dennis - 2¢ 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
We should keep the legal beagle stuff out of this. It makes folks nervous. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a workplace, it's a website that anyone can join. There is no vetting process to join. If you want to debate if Wikipedia should be considered a "workplace" as a legal definition, you need to take that up with the legal department of the WMF, that is beyond the authority of the community. They own the place, we don't. No one want sexual harassment, but you haven't pointed to any. If your interest is to start yet another debate like the one that is wrapping up at Arb, you picked the wrong venue. You seem to be wanting to advance political ideas here, but WER is strictly non-political, without exception. If you know someone acting in a sexist way, WP:ANI is the place. If you want to change WP:CIVILITY, the talk page there is the place. But no, we aren't going to start debating "the C word" here at WP:WER. It is disruptive, leads to arguments over minutia, and is unrelated to the mission of WP:WER If you want to debate gender politics, I suggest going to a page or project whose focus is solely that. Our focus is on unity, finding under recognized editors who are productive, finding editors who are at risk of leaving, and informing members of upcoming discussions and polls that affect retention, but we don't have, nor will be ever have, a singular agenda or position on any policy. And again, we are not going to duplicate the mistakes made by those in the current Arb case and get into battles over gender politics. It isn't going to happen, it isn't an option. Dennis - 2¢ 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- unrelated to the mission of WP:WER I'll stop, but FTR, this thread is/was about retention as it pertains to women, and IMO the excessive use of profanity here, particularly the gender specific terms, is our biggest obstacle to retaining women, so I disagree that this does not pertain to WER. If you ban all topics that you deem political, you tie your hands regarding fixing any retention issues that relate to those topics, but I'll not waste my time here again, so your mission was accomplished, Dennis, well done once again! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome to talk about women and retention, we do it all the time. As for me, my record on equality for women, men, LGBT, race and religion is clear, I won't waste time proving it. What I can't allow is for discussion to degrade into political debates, whether it was about women or other topics that are known to cause disruption. Whether it is intentional or accidental doesn't matter. If the current Arb case has taught us anything, it has taught us that political activism has no place on Wikipedia, and certainly not in a Wikiproject on Editor Retention. And if you find an instance of sexual harassment or sexism, by all means, ping me on my talk page, or take it to ANI, or ping Bishonen, Drmies or any of the other admin who are known to be particularly intolerant of sexism. Regardless, WER isn't an admin board, not a project about political activism. Dennis - 2¢ 00:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I realise this is closed, but Dennis is away for a while so add my name to the list of Admins you can contact. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's not political activism to suggest that some abhorrent language might be negatively influencing editor retention in general, specifically regarding women. BTW, a virtual workplace is not exempt from the Civil Rights Act or any other employment law. For all practical purposes we are volunteers who telecommute to work, but as I said I won't go on about this here. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- With all this legal stuff being discussed I have to remind everyone that this is the encyclopaedia (note the spelling) that anyone can edit, even non-Americans. While American law may sometimes theoretically apply here, a lot of our editors will be quite unaware of such law. While American linguistic and other customs are the most common, editors from other parts of the world will have their own. They can be very different. Some absolute statements made here about what is never acceptable (in polite company, etc) are just plain wrong when one broadens one's view. If you cannot be sure how a particular piece of the English language is used and received in South Africa, or New Zealand, or Queensland, or Hong Kong, or Yorkshire, then don't make absolute statements about it. If everyone could move away from an absolute definitional position, we could all relax a lot more. As an Australian I sometimes feel part of a much smaller minority here than women. Let's all accept that we don't always know what everyone else thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, all absolute statements are wrong. NE Ent 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- all absolute statements are wrong is itself an absolute statement, but how about "all discrimination is wrong"? Is that absolute also false? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. In the US, we don't let 17 year olds buy beer, for example. You seem to be using the word in a way that dictionaries do not. "Discrimination" is simply recognizing a distinction. Using that distinction as an unfair means to disenfranchise a class of people, or an individual, is obviously wrong, but to say "Discrimination is wrong" as an absolute statement is completely absurd. Dennis - 2¢ 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Discrimination is loosely defined as, "an action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice". Can you name an example where discrimination is not wrong without redefining the term? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a discriminating shopper. Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You changed the word: discriminating and discrimination have entirely different definitions. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your central point was refuted, yet you just contradict, you are clearly aware of but unable to admit the word "discrimination" is used in multiple ways. The declaration lacks precision, it comes across sophomoric, like a Middle School paper on MLK. You've dug in here, your're not interested in discussion, but instead being perceived as "right". I'm not interested in this pointless exercise. Dennis - 2¢ 17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Dennis, you're the one who jumped in here to prove me wrong, asserting that "all absolute statements are wrong", which is a tautology, BTW. You're apparently the self-appointed retention guru, but you've called my ideas "absurd" and my approach "sophomoric". What have you done with this project page that tangibly improved retention, because all this looks like to me is a forum whereby you negate everyone else's ideas in an attempt to supplant them with your own? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- RE: All absolute statements are wrong, what about: The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.? Under what circumstances is this not absolute and correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your central point was refuted, yet you just contradict, you are clearly aware of but unable to admit the word "discrimination" is used in multiple ways. The declaration lacks precision, it comes across sophomoric, like a Middle School paper on MLK. You've dug in here, your're not interested in discussion, but instead being perceived as "right". I'm not interested in this pointless exercise. Dennis - 2¢ 17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- You changed the word: discriminating and discrimination have entirely different definitions. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a discriminating shopper. Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Discrimination is loosely defined as, "an action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice". Can you name an example where discrimination is not wrong without redefining the term? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. In the US, we don't let 17 year olds buy beer, for example. You seem to be using the word in a way that dictionaries do not. "Discrimination" is simply recognizing a distinction. Using that distinction as an unfair means to disenfranchise a class of people, or an individual, is obviously wrong, but to say "Discrimination is wrong" as an absolute statement is completely absurd. Dennis - 2¢ 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- all absolute statements are wrong is itself an absolute statement, but how about "all discrimination is wrong"? Is that absolute also false? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, all absolute statements are wrong. NE Ent 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- With all this legal stuff being discussed I have to remind everyone that this is the encyclopaedia (note the spelling) that anyone can edit, even non-Americans. While American law may sometimes theoretically apply here, a lot of our editors will be quite unaware of such law. While American linguistic and other customs are the most common, editors from other parts of the world will have their own. They can be very different. Some absolute statements made here about what is never acceptable (in polite company, etc) are just plain wrong when one broadens one's view. If you cannot be sure how a particular piece of the English language is used and received in South Africa, or New Zealand, or Queensland, or Hong Kong, or Yorkshire, then don't make absolute statements about it. If everyone could move away from an absolute definitional position, we could all relax a lot more. As an Australian I sometimes feel part of a much smaller minority here than women. Let's all accept that we don't always know what everyone else thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not political activism to suggest that some abhorrent language might be negatively influencing editor retention in general, specifically regarding women. BTW, a virtual workplace is not exempt from the Civil Rights Act or any other employment law. For all practical purposes we are volunteers who telecommute to work, but as I said I won't go on about this here. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- unrelated to the mission of WP:WER I'll stop, but FTR, this thread is/was about retention as it pertains to women, and IMO the excessive use of profanity here, particularly the gender specific terms, is our biggest obstacle to retaining women, so I disagree that this does not pertain to WER. If you ban all topics that you deem political, you tie your hands regarding fixing any retention issues that relate to those topics, but I'll not waste my time here again, so your mission was accomplished, Dennis, well done once again! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If administrators or arbitrators wish to ban usage of certain words & that ban strenghtens retention? Then I would accept such a censurship. PS: Note, that I practice such censurship on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think WP:CIVILITY already makes it clear that certain words, namely anything that constitutes name calling, are inappropriate if not outright banned. From the "nutshell": "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language ... at other users." From the policy: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect ... editors should behave politely ... Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments ... Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor ... Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians ... The following behaviours can all contribute to an uncivil environment: (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions ... (d) belittling a fellow editor", which is exactly what Dennis Brown has done to me here, BTW. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL, would need to make a banned words list, in order to clarify its stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea, but I think the stance against obviously offensive words is already quite explicit. Has anyone ever argued that "cunt" or "idiot" are not always offensive words when directed at someone in anger? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- AFAIK, there's no consensus in the community or among administrators, as to how to enforce WP:CIVIL & arbitrators are reluctant to push such enforcement without community/administrators backing. The only thing that would cause a big push towards censurship of usage of certain words, would be if evidence was provided that donations to Wikipedia was in decline & the reason for the decline was continued usage of 'bad' words. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Calling someone a "sniveling dog" is more offensive than "an idiot" in some cultures. We aren't "Wikipedia USA" and all this cultural biased towards American usage is offensive to me, and I'm an American. If someone said "don't be an ass, Dennis" that would be less offensive than "you are an incompetent editor who has the literary skills of a chimp" which has no cursing. Context is everything, plus it is all subjective. Again, the place to debate what is and isn't civil is really WP:CIVILITY. WP:WER is about finding and keeping good editors, so bad word lists are off topic. Dennis - 2¢ 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a lot of our civility problems more or less are in a sense secondary to problems regarding quality and reliability of sources and notability. Very few people around here are going to call me a mindless, drooling, incompetent hack for producing a directly relevant quotation from the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance. And the few that do will be quickly recognized as trying to engage in evasion. The best way to reduce this sort of civility problem is to make it easier for editors on all sides to find at least decent recent reliable sources on topics. I'm right now working on developing the Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles, and if and when I add everything from the various articles and books I've gathered together for those articles, I'm going to start developing some pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles for some of the topics which seem to have insufficient coverage relative to the leading reference books in the field. Several of the works in the American Library Association's online "Guide to Reference" directly relate to gender studies, including men's studies, women's studies, gender studies, homosexuality, and so on, and I think maybe one of the best ways to make it easier to develop good content in those fields without undue drama might be to get together lists like the one above from some of those reference sources and make them more quickly available to individuals looking to develop such content. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of the "civility problems" that have been hitting ANI and Arb aren't even about articles, they are about things said at boards, on projects like this, which is frustrating as the problems center around things that, at best, are ancillary to building an encyclopedia. They are about the politics rather than content. Glad to see you working on those kinds of titles, those are core to using Wikipedia, although a bit out of my league as an old redneck. The Bibliography of encyclopedias is particularly interesting, in an era that seems to be hosting a decline in the number of encyclopedias. That will also serve as a rich host of redlinks to fill. Dennis - 2¢ 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a lot of our civility problems more or less are in a sense secondary to problems regarding quality and reliability of sources and notability. Very few people around here are going to call me a mindless, drooling, incompetent hack for producing a directly relevant quotation from the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance. And the few that do will be quickly recognized as trying to engage in evasion. The best way to reduce this sort of civility problem is to make it easier for editors on all sides to find at least decent recent reliable sources on topics. I'm right now working on developing the Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles, and if and when I add everything from the various articles and books I've gathered together for those articles, I'm going to start developing some pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles for some of the topics which seem to have insufficient coverage relative to the leading reference books in the field. Several of the works in the American Library Association's online "Guide to Reference" directly relate to gender studies, including men's studies, women's studies, gender studies, homosexuality, and so on, and I think maybe one of the best ways to make it easier to develop good content in those fields without undue drama might be to get together lists like the one above from some of those reference sources and make them more quickly available to individuals looking to develop such content. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea, but I think the stance against obviously offensive words is already quite explicit. Has anyone ever argued that "cunt" or "idiot" are not always offensive words when directed at someone in anger? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL, would need to make a banned words list, in order to clarify its stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of absolutes, WP:NPA says, "some types of comments are never acceptable", including: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets." Well, "cunt" is an epithet, and is therefore "never acceptable". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Take it somewhere else WER doesn't exist to debate the civility of single words. You keep raising the issue, seemingly to pick a fight, and it has already been talked to death. I'm going to simply start reverting you if just want to do is argue and talk about the word "cunt". And that goes for everyone. Take it to the appropriate forum. WER isn't that forum. Dennis - 2¢ 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)
IP participation
Recommend we ignore IPs posts, until he/she signs in or discloses previous registered account. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Shouldn't quality of the contribution determine whether one responds or not? NE Ent 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's recommendation, based on the IP's contrib history. You're free to decide for yourself, of course :) GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Being that we aren't an admin board, we don't fret about IPs quite the same here. Sometimes there are good reasons to be an IP. If there isn't anything of value to to respnd to, it doesnt matter if they are old or new. That said, I expected some extra traffic due to the Arb case, so it isn't a shock to see "new" faces. I wouldn't let it worry you, or be quick to judge. Farmer Brown 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (Dennis)
- It's recommendation, based on the IP's contrib history. You're free to decide for yourself, of course :) GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep calm & carry on
I believe that any editor can have a pleasurable experience on Wikipedia, if that editor remembers that this is only a cyber world & not the real world. It's an approach that's much less stressful :) GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- What if it spills over into the real world? We have Commons admins stalking editors IRL and other admins defending their power to do it. We have the peanut gallery at Wikipediocracy who think it's OK to phone editor's place of work, and then WP admins who think that's OK because it's "off wiki" (in a WO thread full of active WP editors and even admins). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admin back-up regarding some issues of sexual harassment or sexism for the currently away Dennis
Just making sure everyone sees this clearly, in Dennis' temporary absence Dougweller has agreed to having his name added as admin to contact in any issues of sexual harassment or sexism here. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WER/Editors of the Week for 2015
Editor of the Week is a weekly recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed. Currently, we have enough nominees to finish out the year but none for next year. Is there someone in your circle of editors that has one or more of the following characteristics?
- Writes or significantly expands articles on a regular basis,
- cleans up articles by adding sources, expanding citations with the necessary information, aligning prose with the manual of style, or improving the quality of the prose through copy-editing,
- serves as notable voice of reason in discussions with other editors,
- performs behind-the-scenes work, not normally seen by the general community.
While there are many well-known editors who meet these criteria, the basic intent has been to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. WER has awarded over 100 editors. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins. To nominate an editor for Editor of the Week, add your nomination to the nominations page. Thank you, ```Buster Seven Talk 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48
HiLo48 is quitting and requested someone to post here. I am not involved and have no particular opinion, but I'm honoring his request out of common respect for a fellow editor. His user talk page message is here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I had seen it myself, actually, and was more or less planning to post this here myself before you beat me to it. My compliments on your speed in responding, by the way. Unfortunately, the nature of the situation is such that I'm myself, at least as an individual, not sure that there is anything that we here could do which might make similar retirements not recur in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I fully understand HiLo48's frustrations & have requested to him, that he not retire. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- He said, "Don't try to talk me out of it." I generally take such requests at face value and respect them, but that's just me. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
How well do we handle usernames?
Sometimes I think our conflict of interest policy is the second most misunderstood thing about Wikipedia from the outside world (the first being copyright). Take a look at User talk:British Bandsman. This account has one mainspace edit adding a link to a website, and a sandbox about a magazine with the same name as them. Sounds like "spam" doesn't it .... except the magazine has been going for over 120 years, appears all over the place in a Google Books search, and is in the Guinness World Records as the world's longest running weekly print publication. So why is our standard procedure to block the user and give them instructions that I'm not sure a newbie would understand? If I had the big orange blocked template as a new user, I'd probably be scared away. As for the sandbox, I think it meets WP:GNG and have moved it to mainspace as British Bandsman ... but if I hadn't got involved, a newbie would have got frustrated and we'd be missing an article. What can we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I sent him an e-mail indicating that to my eyes the block was not for anything he had done so much as his user name. I also indicated that he can still edit his user talk page and ask that the block be lifted, and that I am willing to offer any help that I might be able to. There is the possibility that this editor might have a COI regarding the topic, maybe being an employee, so there is a chance that maybe the block was a good one. Maybe. I dunno, and don't have enough information to make a decision.
- Having said all that, it might not be a bad idea to maybe propose the creation of a specific template for bad user names which doesn't have the big red x on it which really would come across as a very harsh and maybe judgmental to a newbie. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go right back to basics. Why do we block people? Because we believe all or most edits they're about to make will harm the project. A simple "oy, your username is not acceptable, change it here" message (as you describe) would do - then if they actually spam and require reverting or salting, then we can block them per WP:HEAR or WP:COMPETENCE. Isn't our mantra on blocking supposed to be "when in doubt, don't" anyway? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Define "doubt." It is very possible for someone who might not know some details about, for instance, how long National Geographic has been run and how clearly obvious its notability is to think that someone who starts a user name and article by that name to think that there is some form of promotion involved. Honestly, for a lot of smaller companies, having a user name which is the name of a company is grounds for the name being changed. If the edit history is, surprise surprise, related to the content on the topic after which the user is named, that could, not unreasonably, be seen as sufficient to identify an SPA.
- Yeah, I know that there could be productive editors who take names related to a specific topic for whatever reason. If User:Smithsonian were to put lots of images of items in the Smithsonian Institution on commons and work more or less exclusively on articles relating to the museums and their contents, that would raise questions too. Particularly if the edits seem to promote the Smithsonian in some way. For all I know, this person maybe was an employee or COI person. I'm not sure, but if a magazine were decades old and still didn't have an article after 10 years here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that, maybe, an employee wanted to change that.
- I do think that maybe the block is open to discussion based on what you said, and I regret that it was done in the way it was, but in a lot of similar cases it does seem that such action is more warranted perhaps than it might have been in this one. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just letting everyone know he's been unblocked. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unblocking is one thing, but getting them to come back is quite another. This is a real problem – it strongly discourages many of the new editors we should be working most to attract. Same thing at Rogiet Primary School / User:Rogiet Primary. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just letting everyone know he's been unblocked. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd go right back to basics. Why do we block people? Because we believe all or most edits they're about to make will harm the project. A simple "oy, your username is not acceptable, change it here" message (as you describe) would do - then if they actually spam and require reverting or salting, then we can block them per WP:HEAR or WP:COMPETENCE. Isn't our mantra on blocking supposed to be "when in doubt, don't" anyway? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Just the other day there were 4,567,890 articles On Wikipedia
- NOTICE THE SEQUENCE
- ```Buster Seven Talk 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Editor of the year?
Just wondering if anyone thought that maybe we might do something like WP:MILHIST with their "editor of the year" and "newcomer of the year" awards, and, if we were, what criteria we would want to use for determination. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I would prefer not singling out a single editor, as there is a lot of potential for inadvertently upsetting worthy contributors in the process. A roll call of honour which recognized everyone who met a set of standards (they could be objective, such as X articles of a specified quality or higher, or subjective, such as three supporting nominations) could be a way to give some thanks to some of the highly appreciated contributors to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- If there are individuals with the greatest edit count overall this past year, greatest mainspace edit count this year, most GAs or FAs or both this past year, and similar individuals new this past year with either the greatest number of such edits, or most edits per day since first activity, and if there is a way to figure those, I would imagine they would be included. Maybe, beyond that, something like the current editor of the week system, with one person nominating and another seconding, might be sufficient to be included in what might be called the annual "roll of honor". John Carter (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame. Free Admission. Open 24 Hours, 7 days a week. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- So I've had better ideas. At least, I'm going to tell myself that. ;) Consider the proposal withdrawn. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- A roll of honour can be different than the Editor of Week Hall of Fame by setting up specific criteria, and it would serve to recognize many worthwhile editors, so if it's something you'd like to pursue, that's great. Time is a bit on the short side, though, as I assume many people will become busy with other tasks at this time. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- So I've had better ideas. At least, I'm going to tell myself that. ;) Consider the proposal withdrawn. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame. Free Admission. Open 24 Hours, 7 days a week. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- If there are individuals with the greatest edit count overall this past year, greatest mainspace edit count this year, most GAs or FAs or both this past year, and similar individuals new this past year with either the greatest number of such edits, or most edits per day since first activity, and if there is a way to figure those, I would imagine they would be included. Maybe, beyond that, something like the current editor of the week system, with one person nominating and another seconding, might be sufficient to be included in what might be called the annual "roll of honor". John Carter (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I would love to see a parralel program to etow that recognized any editor, not just new and underrecognized ones, that spent their time doing wonky stuff that doesn't attract much attention, such as infobox work, copyediting, vandalism patrol, AfC, AfD, etc. Except for my recent poor behavior, an editor that wonks around and neatens and cleans like myself. (expressly not me tho, for the reason stated above). People who do that kind of stuff are very needed, and generally underappreciated. Just a thought. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you draw up a list of criteria that you had in mind? Would it be based on number of edits of specific types? If so, would this be edits in total, or over a specific period of time? If over a period of time, this would imply regularly issuing the recognition X times a year. If in total, there could be an increasing scale of thresholds to recognize editors as they pass them. Or would it be nomination based? If so, how would the nominations be processed? (A strictly accomplishment-based system could be managed by a small number of people, which always makes it easier to keep an initiative going.) Just a few questions that came to mind; I'm sure you can think of more. isaacl (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Issac. Pretty much I'm thinking a nearly identical program to etow, however removing the new and underrecognized clause from the requirements (also the ban on admin types) and adding for work that is not content creation. Wonky stuff like I mentioned above. Also it could be a device to shine light on unseen work that admin types do (do you know what the 'crats do? I don't, but they do it and it must be needed). Also I would like to see nomination by a direct peer required. For example, I work mainly in three areas: school articles, place articles and mentoring (altho sadly I haven't been able to do much with the last lately). If I were to be nominated, it should be from someone else that either edits school articles, place articles or that mentors. I am clueless as to a name. Again just a thought to run up the flagpole to see who salutes it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Editor of the Week initiative has, unfortunately, not developed a community of participants discussing the nominations (typically one person simply says "Seconded"). Because it is a low-stakes recognition targeted towards a specific type of editor, the absence of a more explicit vetting process for the nominations isn't a big deal. For a more general award aimed at a broader audience, though, I think a more substantial screening process is needed to provide additional value above the low overhead of a personal thank you or barnstar from a direct peer. For better or worse, I suspect it would be difficult to keep a group of participants engaged to process nominations thoroughly and regularly. isaacl (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean to piss on any bodies parade. I like new ideas and this is a good one. But don't forget one very important thing...Someone has to be behind the scenes moving all the necessary parts to keep a thing like Editor of the Week going, week after week for two years. Things like this don't manage themselves. If someone is going to start a new award (which is a good thing and one I support) they had better be ready to stick to it for the long haul and keep their hands on the steering wheel. I have been that someone, behind the Editor of the Week curtain, making sure everything that needed to be done was getting done. GoPhightins has helped dispensing the award and Isaac1 has been very handy with advice and good counsel. Let's not get something going unless someone steps forward and commits to keeping it going. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but I do believe Buster is right. It would be fun and useful, but I haven't been able to even help you guys out at eotw as I wanted to, and I know I cannot commit any action to a new process. I was hoping there had been some growth here, but that is apparently not the case. My absense here saddens me. Hope no one takes it personal. I have been using my wikitime, limited as it is for some article content projects with school articles. Wish it could be different, but having no net access at home limits me a bunch. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's one of the reasons I asked if you were thinking of an accomplishment-based system, since this would not require as many people to maintain, and could be done in a more on-again, off-again fashion. One idea I had was to have a rotating "Barnstar of the (month/quarter/some period)", where the Editor Retention project would promote a barnstar and seek out recipients. It would allow editors to participate without requiring a long-term commitment. I'm uncertain of how effective it would be, but at least it would be very low overhead. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- It might be possible to broadly announce an effort, perhaps for a month or other preordained period, an effort to recognize individuals in particular fields that don't often get such recognition. So, for instance, maybe making February a month dedicated to recognizing article reviewers, March a month dedicated to recognizing people who work on missing references or similar, that sort of thing. In some cases, they might have clearcut quflifications, like doing a countable number of GA, FA, or peer reviews, but not in all. If it were to be done, I think maybe the best way to start would be to propose some month as a month for specific recognition of individuals in an easily quantifiable field and seeing how much input it might have. If there is enough, then maybe it could be extended to less easily quantifiable types of contributions. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's one of the reasons I asked if you were thinking of an accomplishment-based system, since this would not require as many people to maintain, and could be done in a more on-again, off-again fashion. One idea I had was to have a rotating "Barnstar of the (month/quarter/some period)", where the Editor Retention project would promote a barnstar and seek out recipients. It would allow editors to participate without requiring a long-term commitment. I'm uncertain of how effective it would be, but at least it would be very low overhead. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but I do believe Buster is right. It would be fun and useful, but I haven't been able to even help you guys out at eotw as I wanted to, and I know I cannot commit any action to a new process. I was hoping there had been some growth here, but that is apparently not the case. My absense here saddens me. Hope no one takes it personal. I have been using my wikitime, limited as it is for some article content projects with school articles. Wish it could be different, but having no net access at home limits me a bunch. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mean to piss on any bodies parade. I like new ideas and this is a good one. But don't forget one very important thing...Someone has to be behind the scenes moving all the necessary parts to keep a thing like Editor of the Week going, week after week for two years. Things like this don't manage themselves. If someone is going to start a new award (which is a good thing and one I support) they had better be ready to stick to it for the long haul and keep their hands on the steering wheel. I have been that someone, behind the Editor of the Week curtain, making sure everything that needed to be done was getting done. GoPhightins has helped dispensing the award and Isaac1 has been very handy with advice and good counsel. Let's not get something going unless someone steps forward and commits to keeping it going. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Editor of the Week initiative has, unfortunately, not developed a community of participants discussing the nominations (typically one person simply says "Seconded"). Because it is a low-stakes recognition targeted towards a specific type of editor, the absence of a more explicit vetting process for the nominations isn't a big deal. For a more general award aimed at a broader audience, though, I think a more substantial screening process is needed to provide additional value above the low overhead of a personal thank you or barnstar from a direct peer. For better or worse, I suspect it would be difficult to keep a group of participants engaged to process nominations thoroughly and regularly. isaacl (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Issac. Pretty much I'm thinking a nearly identical program to etow, however removing the new and underrecognized clause from the requirements (also the ban on admin types) and adding for work that is not content creation. Wonky stuff like I mentioned above. Also it could be a device to shine light on unseen work that admin types do (do you know what the 'crats do? I don't, but they do it and it must be needed). Also I would like to see nomination by a direct peer required. For example, I work mainly in three areas: school articles, place articles and mentoring (altho sadly I haven't been able to do much with the last lately). If I were to be nominated, it should be from someone else that either edits school articles, place articles or that mentors. I am clueless as to a name. Again just a thought to run up the flagpole to see who salutes it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind other people going in for EOTW, but it's personally something I've not warmed towards as I prefer to look at editor's contributions and judge them on their own merits. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- John from Idegon Hey John. Do you remember this? I found it in an old file....
|
|
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path | |
| Put your message here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
- Brainstorming. It doesn't quite fit your proposal but it can be adapted to better encompass the editor of the Year idea and be available during a given month, advertised, and dispensed by anyone that wants. Little or no overhead.```Buster Seven Talk 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It may not quite fit the proposal, but it works, and that's what matters. And, for maybe slightly older editors (post-stork variety) we can use the File:Exceptional newcomer.jpg with some form of text variation as well. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Turn the MoodBar back on?
After six months, 3.6% of editors who were able to use the MoodBar were still editing, compared to 3.3% of those who did not have the option, per Ciampaglia, Giovanni Luca; Dario Taraborelli (September 4, 2014). "MoodBar: Increasing new user retention in Wikipedia through lightweight socialization". arXiv:1409.1496.
Please voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Turn the MoodBar back on. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone speak Dutch?
User:Theobald Tiger, who has on his user page indicated that he was the wikipedian-in-residence for six GLAM institutions in the Netherlands, has recently blanked his user page and user talk page apparently due to unfounded aspersion on him from someone in a request for clarification and amendment of arbitration. Does anyone here speak Dutch well enough to contact him in the Dutch wikipedia? John Carter (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I speak a version of Flemish from the 1950's (when my parents emigrated to the U.S). It is often said that the Americans and the English are separated by a common language. The same is even more true of the Flemish and the Dutch. I'll give it a go but no promises. Buster Seven Talk 22:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, one of our most prolific editors and active admins, is a native Dutch speaker. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern, but since I left one limbo, just to step in the next, I have decided to leave. My command of English is such that I am able to communicate more or less effectively. Cheers! Upon the death of my enemies, for all my friends are gone! Please do not contact me on the Dutch Wikipedia. I am a nuisance to them, and I want to save them further embarrassment. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, one of our most prolific editors and active admins, is a native Dutch speaker. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Theobald, als ik iets voor je kan doen, laat het me weten ajb. Hola--dit heeft iets met Landmark te maken? Dat is gezellig! Als je iets te roddelen hebt kan je dat altijd via email doen. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, die Waaksnikkel, dat is inderdaad een lul. Die naam komt me bekend voor, maar ik ben vergeten waarvan. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ik spreek Vlaams mor ik kan et niet tu goed skreven. 'tis nie Algemeen Nederlands. 'tis gewoen wa dannik weit. Mesceen gebruik ik woorden verkeert. Ik vraag dada hij nan anders foutjes vergave.
Nou is't précis damme makoar een bietsen beter kennen. Ik vraag dada bleft. 'bedankt, Buster Seven Talk 02:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Of Possible Concern to this Project
An experienced editor is feeling some frustration and appears to be thinking of bowing out from the project. Please see this and the related talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- His request has been answered. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's reversible. His talk page is still open. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This project was mentioned...
at Questions for the candidate - Titodutta's answer to question #15. Buster Seven Talk 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done (added this page to list) Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thought this might interest you...
I've only just become aware of this project. Thought you might be interested in something I wrote a long time ago: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- See also User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia.
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar of the month
Previously, I raised the idea of having a "Barnstar of the month" (or some other fixed period). To anyone interested, what barnstars (see Wikipedia:Barnstars for a list) do you suggest as candidates to promote for recognition of worthy recipients? isaacl (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Ideas for addressing burnout
Regarding the question raised above with respect to burnout: Jeff Atwood had an interesting blog post where he explained some of the design of his Stack Exchange web site with an analysis of the life cycle of a forum participant. In order to more effectively integrate newcomers, you need experienced people to help them out. Over time, though, people get tired of answering the same questions over and over, and inevitably start becoming more brief in their answers, pointing more to frequently asked questions lists, and become less effective at helping some portion of incoming population. So to sustain the community, you need newcomers to graduate to helping the latest participants, freeing up the previous set of helpers to move onto other tasks.
Thus as numerous editors have discussed (including Kudpung, Jimbo Wales, and even me), recruiting more skilled contributors to Wikipedia to keep the pipeline flowing is important. (On a related note, encouraging a robust influx of administrators is healthy not because Wikipedia is short of administrators, but because it helps forestall burnout.)
Previously, Kudpung had suggested getting the Wikimedia Foundation to advertise for new editors; I had suggested personal recruitment (inviting persons who you know can be excellent contributors to participate). (Atwood's approach was to use badges, copying video game achievement systems; Wikipedia's barnstar system is similar.) What other ideas does anyone have for expanding the pool of new editors? isaacl (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. But it almost seems like the focus will then shift to replacing editors rather than retaining them. I know there's burnout and seven year itch and all but editors come here asking for something to be done to save the editor that's on his way out the door. Both replacing and retaining are important. Buster Seven Talk 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's just one way to specifically deal with the question of burnout, not by replacing editors, but giving them the option (should they desire) to take on different roles. Of course other initiatives can be launched (such as helping people find diversions, as John Carter suggests), and naturally there are many other relevant issues that need other approaches. To help avoid too many digressions within one thread, perhaps a separate discussion section can be opened regarding the scenario you raise, where the burnout has already occurred. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop
- A viewpoint from the archives by @Anne Delong:
Dear editors: Lately I've been working on the db-g13 eligible submissions, and so a lot of the comments I've been reading are six months old. I've been seeing a lot of helpful and constructive edits by Rybec. Today I wanted to leave a message about one of these, and I realized that he/she, after being very active, had suddenly stopped editing last March. I'm a little sad that I didn't notice sooner. There's been a lot of discussion about how to improve the behind-the-scenes part of Wikipedia so that editors will be happy to contribute, but some editors who seem happy and haven't been "driven away" stop anyway. There could be many reasons not related to Wikipedia, but one thing that could be happening is that some editors find Wikipedia editing too appealing. I have talked to two people who have stopped editing completely because they were doing so much of it that it was interfering with their real-life goals and obligations. (I'm sure you are all familiar with the essay Wikipedia:Wikipediholic). It could be possible to over-encourage some editors to the point where they have to quit, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Maybe some kind of reminder timer or organizer could be attached to the notifications with a customizable message, such as "Time to do your homework/laundry/piano practice" to help editors who get caught up in a particularly interesting article or discussion thread and forget that there is no deadline. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Searching on "web countdown timer" turns up a number of timers that editors can use, if they desire. I'd be a bit wary of suggesting to editors I don't know that they use a timer, but perhaps as part of a "break time" page, there could be links to some timers, along with pointers to interesting diversions. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd love to see such a "break time" page, particularly if at least some of the things it indicated might be useful later here. Like I said before, I know of many, many PD reference sources which contain a lot of material which could easily be included here later, particularly older smaller articles in biographical dictionaries. Such activities would both give people something to do in the short run while also providing a reason to possibly return to the encyclopedia at some point in the future, in that case to add or develop articles here relating to the sources they have reviewed elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Question at the Village Pump
There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:
Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia
--Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Creator of WER takes a break and hands in admin tools
Dennis Brown, creator of WikiProject Editor Retention and at times one of Wikipedia's most active admins and agitators for new, better policies, will be on a long Wikibreak and has asked for removal of his sysop rights. In his talk page statement Dennis describes the reasons for no longer being currently available for edting the encyclopedia or carrying out admin duties. His motives for taking a break are entirely personal which dispels the meme that many of our most active users stop editing due to harassement by admins and other users. I am sure that the Wikipedia community will join together in hoping that Dennis will soon overcome his domestic issues and will return to regular editing in the not too distant future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- We have few enough competent admins as is (presently company excluded, of course), and I agree that we all hope that these affairs, which have, as he's said, been seemingly snowballing over the past year, resolve themselves quickly and for the best. I also sincerely hope that, upon the final resolution of these affairs, that he finds that his life situation will allow him to return to editing, in any capacity. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Really? You're going to turn this into a non-sequitur political statement??? NE Ent 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since when has it been a topic that admins have quit due to harassment by other admins?? What a manufactured joke. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- DB's wikibreak & suspension of administratorship duties, noted. We await his return. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- With Dennis's situation in mind, we should have a talk about the direction and leadership at WER. Titodutta's heartfelt response to Q-15 in his RfA makes it embarrassingly clear that we really don't have any plan or course of action to take when it comes to our declared goal---retaining editors. WER is entering it's third year. We.ve talked a lot. WE need to talk more about what to do. I thought maybe we could go thru the list of WER members and invite those interested to have a "brainstorming session" or something, to address the issue. Maybe focus on Admins that have visited and participated at the WER:talk page. Maybe a dedicated IRC-channel conversation. Something. I told Tito I would get back to him in a week or two. I'm sure he is busy with his visit to the Wikipedia Official Administrator Tailor to be fitted for his new velvet robe. I always wondered----Is the mink collar optional? TRA! Buster Seven Talk 04:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- First of all we need to find a way of encouraging more friendly behaviour from some editors whose only comments outside their regular content work are almost always in totally unprovoked and extremely bad taste. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting an adult to admit that something in the way they behave is "wrong" is extremely difficult in RL. Here, it is impossible. I'm not sure which "some editors" you have in mind. Editor GoodDays comment about leading by example is valid, don't 'ya think? Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not fitting the velvet robe that's the hard part, at least it wasn't for me. It was getting enough material together to make a mitre that would actually cover my rather awesome head, brain the size of a planet and all that. In more direct response to Buster's points, it would be nice to figure out some tactical ways to proceed. WikiProject X has some ideas about making WikiProjects more effective, which might help retain editors who turn to them for help, and we've a got a well-enough developed dispute resolution process to hopefully prevent the loss of too many editors through those disputes who haven't earned their being lost, but I think we haven't really identified any specific tactical matters we could take which might help reduce burnout. Any ideas? One I could think of, maybe, even if it is a minor one, would be to try to maybe help make it easier for editors to engage in other WMF entities. Maybe an ERB nut like me might help avoid burnout by taking a break and proofreading a novel over at wikisource, or gathering relevant quotes, or writing past or current news articles for wikinews, or maybe something else. "A change is as good as a break," and, unfortunately, encyclopedia editing is all more or less of one nature, and doesn't allow any breaks from that one nature. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting an adult to admit that something in the way they behave is "wrong" is extremely difficult in RL. Here, it is impossible. I'm not sure which "some editors" you have in mind. Editor GoodDays comment about leading by example is valid, don't 'ya think? Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- First of all we need to find a way of encouraging more friendly behaviour from some editors whose only comments outside their regular content work are almost always in totally unprovoked and extremely bad taste. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, right, providing support in indirect hidden ways, much like the Editor of the Week Award does. We have almost 200 editors that have come forth as members of WER and said, "Yes. I'm In. Let's do something about retaining editors". BTW...your mitre is rather plain and needs some adorning with trinkets and such...a medallion might be nice. 
.Buster Seven Talk 17:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, let's continue with this project's work. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Break noticeboard?
Thinking about it a little, I think that maybe one way we might help retain editors in at least a few cases might be to give them something useful and maybe, sort of, fun, to do while maybe taking a break from the dramah and conflict that drives a lot of editors away. I do think that most editors here are somewhat fond of reading in general, that being kind of required to write something on the basis of other works, and maybe, emphasis maybe, we could help them find a few things to do that involve just reading which might be both useful and productive, in a sense, while also implicitly providing a link back here. I know that there are a [word I will not use] of old PD reference sources of all kinds, from biographical dictionaries to local encyclopedias, sacred texts, and a lot of fairly good and well-written PD nonfiction and fiction which dedicated "readers" could read and proofread for wikisource. Wikinews has said in the past that "old" news stories, which could include almost day to day news stories about what President Roosevelt or PM Blair or whoever did, would also be, at least theoretically, acceptable there. And it might, maybe, even be possible to do something like Flashman novels or the various Larry Gonick books, although maybe without the pictures, for editors with experience in a given topic who want to write something "fun". Maybe we could provide some sort of noticeboard of current active or maybe theoretical efforts elsewhere, with individuals willing to offer assistance as needed or if the efforts actually get formally started? John Carter (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Advocacy and conflict of interest issues
Regarding the inquiry above from John Carter, I think the described role fits within the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Only partially. I think both Astynax and I can name active editors who we both think are rather clearly SPA POV pushers, although we might not necessarily think of the same names, which may or may not necessarily rise to the level of being "paid". And the Integrity project seems to be rather clearly focused on only the latter. And I think part of the "work" which might be done under my proposal is more "detective type" of the individual editors, rather than specifically of their edits, for the purposes of maybe a sort of "lesser court" review of their conduct and possible presentation to ANI for resolution if they see so fit. And also, on a perhaps separate matter, I do think that there will be several, newer, editors who go to ANI or ArbCom who might not be well prepared to defend themselves in those venues. Particularly ArbCom. Some sort of "public defenders" there might well be very useful in at least some cases, even if that particular topic is not necessarily identical to the "detective" role of the review of dubious editors type. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- By investigating editors outside of their edits, if you are referring to off-wiki investigation, then for better or for worse, it's unlikely to gain acceptance at present with the general English Wikipedia community. Personally, I'd feel uncomfortable for investigation of other editors to take place under the aegis of the editor retention project.
- Regarding editors not being prepared to efficiently present their points of view in an adversarial proceeding, I have in the past suggested that a spokesperson be designated to represent each side who would be responsible for coming up with a summarized, concise case. However, to date this suggestion has not gained much support. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Badly phrased by me, and my apologies. I meant not reviewing their edits to see specifically if they qualify as NPOV for possible direct changing. I meant reviewing their edits as a whole for the reason of determining if there exists a serious pattern, more or less as Astynax implied in his earlier comment. And I'm not necessarily seeing it necessarily as a part of this project, but as something that somewhat needs to be done to prevent the loss of some good editors as a result of problematic conduct from bad editors. And while I wouldn't necessarily think an advocate would be required in all cases presented before ArbCom, for instance, I was thinking more specifically thinking of creating a contact list which editors who think they might not be up to the situation, either through general inexperience or other reasons, might be able to find someone to help. That wouldn't necessarily guarantee they would find it, of course, because such volunteers would do whatever they do based on their own wishes, but it might make it easier for some newer editors who might be just ignorant or ill-informed to better prepare their cases. Also, there will be some ArbCom cases where a long-term problematic editor who has prepared evidence off-line against good editors drops a case on the good editor announced, and possibly at bad times, leaving the good editors ill-prepared and possibly unable to defend themselves reasonably. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- For all of its advantages, the assume good faith principle makes it tricky to deal with biased editing (and in fact, there can be editors contributing in good faith who just don't understand their biases and how they are contrary to Wikipedia principles).
- As I understand it, the new Wikipedia:Co-op space is intended to match up editors that have a specific need with editors that can help, so perhaps this aspect of mentorship—building a strong, effective, concise case—can be covered by the Co-op. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Badly phrased by me, and my apologies. I meant not reviewing their edits to see specifically if they qualify as NPOV for possible direct changing. I meant reviewing their edits as a whole for the reason of determining if there exists a serious pattern, more or less as Astynax implied in his earlier comment. And I'm not necessarily seeing it necessarily as a part of this project, but as something that somewhat needs to be done to prevent the loss of some good editors as a result of problematic conduct from bad editors. And while I wouldn't necessarily think an advocate would be required in all cases presented before ArbCom, for instance, I was thinking more specifically thinking of creating a contact list which editors who think they might not be up to the situation, either through general inexperience or other reasons, might be able to find someone to help. That wouldn't necessarily guarantee they would find it, of course, because such volunteers would do whatever they do based on their own wishes, but it might make it easier for some newer editors who might be just ignorant or ill-informed to better prepare their cases. Also, there will be some ArbCom cases where a long-term problematic editor who has prepared evidence off-line against good editors drops a case on the good editor announced, and possibly at bad times, leaving the good editors ill-prepared and possibly unable to defend themselves reasonably. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In the past, I tried to deal with (what I perceived as) Pov/Agenda pushers. My experiences from that attempt, weren't enjoyable. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that is a frequent reaction. As I noted in the section above, the focus is on behavior rather than content, and unless there is an outrageously obvious behavior pattern, there exists no enforcement options that are equipped to address content in any depth. You will get wide community input regarding content on widely watched articles, which does offer some balance, but the majority of articles are monitored by few (sometimes mainly/only those with a CoI) and offer an open field for advocacy. Want an unwatched article deleted for a biased reason? No problem, just propose it to see if anyone bothers to object, and if so, edit it so that it can later be deleted. Want to show your company makes the best widget in the universe, insert puffery (an article or just a claim) sourced to a company-funded "study" then gradually remove anything that might impugn that claim. If someone objects, wear them down by skewing sources that might cast doubt, endlessly argue your experience and the experiences of others with the widget, make unsupported remarks suggesting bad behavior by other editors, get another biased editor on-board to form a "consensus" to retain the advocacy, argue that article stability demands the claim be retained, invent an issue regarding balance or notability, revert, goad and generally argue down anyone who even looks like they might contribute something rooted in reliable sources that tends to oppose the claim. Get outvoted, just come back in 6 months and reedit when most have moved on to other projects. All of that distracts the focus from what should be the encyclopedia's primary aim: presenting all significant reliably sourced views. It is so easy to get thrown off that target, especially when content is a minor (or no) part of the resolution process. • Astynax talk 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)