User talk:Dank/Copyediting/Archive 1

To-do list[edit]

Manu Sharma

Discarded idea about considering copyeditors to be "significant contributors"[edit]

Copied from WT:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree:

On a separate subject, I'm currently talking with people about how to make copyediting "sexier" so that we get more dedicated copyeditors, both before and after article reviews. Would you characterize my contributions as "significant", and would you mind if I up my edit count as a "significant contributor" to this FA? I won't mention this article specifically on my userpage or display a bronze star there; the bronze star is all yours, if it passes :) Does anyone object? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a great idea, though it's a matter of perspective. I can see how some editors (probably suffering from WP:OWN) may find that less appealing. ("A copy-editor? A significant contributor? Preposterous!") I would suggest that you could use wordings like "primary contributor" and "significant contributor" or high-light the change in role. We do need to make copyediting sexier, but not at the cost of discouraging the research-driven efforts. For example, it takes me two or three weeks of evenings to assemble all the notes for an article like this one, then I write it, then I work and do stub or Start-level research on red-linked topics so that we have few red-links, then I polish. That is a longer process than what you undertook and so that should be recognized in some way BUT that does not in any way suggest that copy editing is any less important to the end result. My focus is narrow, your focus is broad. It's a different animal. But, it does need some way to be recognized. JRP (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with all of that. I've brought up the subject on general talk pages recently and there was no response, so I think my next step is to have this conversation on 10 different FACs where (arguably, of course) my editing makes the difference between whether the FAC passes or fails, and then we'll dump all the input I get into a pile at User_talk:Dank55/Copyediting. Here's what was said at WT:FAC:

Question After reading the discussion above, I can't figure out whether "significant contributor" is supposed to mean, or be mostly about, co-nom-ship. I've been struggling with the idea of how to define what it means to do a "good job copyediting". There are a number of us who will jump in and do a strenuous copyedit either before or after an article arrives at FAC, but there would be a lot more if copyediting were "sexier" in some way. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link on their userpage to an acknowledgment by the nom(s) on the FAC page that their copyedit and other improvements contributed largely to the article passing? OTOH, I think we want to discourage people who are acting as copyeditors from trying for a nom credit, because that might make people wary about asking for help with copyediting. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion - Use The FA-Team or bring back The Awards Center if you think intrinsic rewards and personal satisfaction are not enough. Is it really all about "credit"? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that was replying to me, what I'm saying is that it would be a good thing if we didn't have so many articles arriving at FAC that give the appearance of not having been copyedited, and I'm trying to figure out how to fix that. I have never (before now) considered asking for any kind of credit for copyediting an article, because I thought that would make the problem worse: writers are less likely to ask for a copyedit if they think that means they'll have to share credit. But presumably, we'll get more people copyediting, and also trying to do a better job of it, if they think that will give them the appropriate amount of feedback and recognition. That's about it for my opinion; I'll let everyone else work out the details. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here was the relevant part of the conversation on this project page between Sandy and me:

...I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Considered by whom and in what context? Don't fall victim to this editcountitis discussion :-) I, at least, have always considered anyone who brings an article over the hump to featured status as significant...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please drop a note on my talk page regarding this. Scartol and I are going to be doing a series of podcasts about content creation/contribution on Wikipedia and several are going to be dedicated to writing in particular. One is going to be about copyediting specifically. You could come on and discuss your ideas for promoting copyediting - we could all brainstorm together beforehand, too. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on the right track[edit]

Copied from WT:FAC:

To be honest, I'm not sure I see the issue here. I've copyedited articles in the past where the real editors have suggested that I should be one of the nominators in return, but I've refused. Conceiving, writing, and developing the article is what counts. Us Johnny-come-lately copyeditors who come riding out the sun at the last minute, like the cavalry, ought not to be stealing anyone's glory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I mind stealing anyone's glory, but they might mind. I've struggled with this userbox idea, and I don't like that either. What I'm thinking now is that we encourage people who know something about professional style guides and Wikipedia guidelines to do roughly what they've always done (which should have been my first choice!): demonstrate their skills, and build trusting relationships with other editors so that they get invited to collaborate on GAs and FAs. Simple. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So: the strategy I'd like to recommend to copyeditors is: brush up on your professional style guides and WPs style guidelines and naming conventions, read a bunch of old WP:FACs and WP:GANs, then look for current FACs and GANs that seem to need copyediting, and copyedit them. (Make sure the the nom(s) have got the message that the article needs copyediting, so they'll know they need your help!) If it's in your power, do what it takes to help the article pass, and then ask in return for a chance to collaborate on future GAs and FAs after the writer(s) know that what you have to offer is useful to them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malleus. I have a problem with the way Dank55 "played" Tony the Tiger over Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), making the co-nom essentially contingent on Dank55 working on another FAC attempt. To read all the posts is an uncomfortable foray into emotional manipulation. Tony, who obviously has a deep investment in his article, grew desperate enough to finally agree to the co-nom. I will not copy edit as a quid pro quo for a co-nom. I have no interest in that sort of business deal. If it becomes that, I will opt out. It is against what I consider the "spirit" of Wikipedia which is that we all pitch in without the expectation of concrete reward. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]