This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
We pretty much can't avoid involved editors writing "helpful" pre-close summaries. I agree that they're a useless discussion-bloat that anyone who's qualified to close contentious discussion will utterly disregard, and I don't think they'll affect subsequent editors' !votes, but I also don't think an essay exhorting people not to do it will have any real effect because the temptation to write them is so strong.—S MarshallT/C 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I do not think that I have ever once seen a helpful pre-close summary. I can sort of imagine such a summary as a way to narrow discussion from a previously very abstract thread to something more concrete, but that's quite the exception, and I cannot imagine it being helpful in a structured !vote with clear outcomes (and certainly not when talking about something as simultaneously sensitive and straightforward as a topic ban proposal). There's a ton of research out there about the influence of summaries, framing of those summaries, etc. on subsequent participation in decision-making processes. To some extent, every participant cannot help but influence subsequent participants, but there's a difference between speaking for oneself and claiming to speak for everyone. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I put "helpful" in the scare quotes. I don't think they're helpful at all. I do think the editors who prepare them think they're helping.—S MarshallT/C 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Responding to don't think an essay exhorting people not to do it will have any real effect, I don't think the existence of the essay will, either, but people citing it frequently enough might help. Thinking more about social pressure and/or the communication of norms for such discussion than, say, writing it into policy. If there's a shortcut to an essay that people agree with, they're inclined to point to it as a way to summarize a particular set of arguments which they might not otherwise feel like putting forward. If we get people responding to these summaries with e.g. WP:NOSUMMARIES, that seems like it could only help, I figure. Whether people actually will cite it? Couldn't really say. I will, at least. But then I also frequently complain about such summaries anyway. :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the essay is at this point more a draft than a mature document, but that said I think it could benefit from some nuance. I agree with these points most strongly when the discussion is contentious and the author is involved in the dispute. I think it's at its weakest when the discussion is amicable and the author is facially uninvolved. Summarizing key points and their responses can be an effective way to move discussion forward by inviting further comment on the points that remain unresolved. As a closer I even find these helpful as it prompts participants to engage with the more nuanced weighing of arguments rather than the top-line outcome. This can make it easier to close as I can point to where participants explicitly considered particular arguments, weighed them, and on their own achieved rough consensus on how they should be weighed (rather than making up my own). That's not always the case, and arguably not even the majority. Making them their own sections (like "arbitrary" breaks), framing them as neutral observations when they're obviously partisan, using them to "poison the well" are all good examples of the worst features. I think of it as similar to canvasing where "pre-close summaries" fall on a broad spectrum from helpful to disruptive rather than on either side of a narrow band. — Wug·a·po·des 19:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: I know that a summary can help subsequent participants participate more easily, help the closer get a handle on the situation, etc. ... but there's a cost. That cost has to do with influence/bias, substituting one person's purportedly unbiased voice for everyone else's. Yes, people can (and some will) still read the discussion that was summarized, but many will not. It's impossible to put together a summary in a way that doesn't influence people. Unless the summarizer is providing a map as large as the territory, you're cutting out perspectives, divorcing opinions from their source, removing the role of time, condensing conversations, and substituting a singular perspective that highlights what that person found most salient. Even when trying really hard not to bias the discussion, it cannot help but have an affect on the outcome. Summarizing in general is fine, but it needs to be in the context of one person's opinion (e.g. as part of one's !vote), and not, say, a separate section or separate boldtext line. The difference is a big one: claiming to represent one's own perspective on a discussion or claiming to represent everyone's perspective. Yes, it's helpful, in the way Cliff's Notes or voting slate is helpful.
None of this is to say the essay couldn't use more nuance. I've spent less than 5 minutes on it thus far. :) As I said above, I could imagine discussions where it's useful to move from the abstract to concrete, or to otherwise narrow or focus discussion, and that's not the sort of thing I intended this to be about. I'm thinking more of structured discussions with !votes, whether deletion discussions, RfAs, tban proposals, source reliability RfCs, etc. If you can think of a good way to word that, you're of course welcome to edit. Perhaps it just needs a section about those rare cases when it's helpful. PS: If you have examples of where this was helpful, I'd be curious to see them, though I'm skeptical. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is a big one: claiming to represent one's own perspective on a discussion or claiming to represent everyone's perspective. I think you cut to the core of it here and just wanted to pull that out as something to chew on. You may want to consider Wikipedia:Not so arbitrary breaks. I'm pressed for time today, otherwise I would have directly edited instead of posting a talk comment, but it's on my watch list and I'll take a pass when I have some more time in the coming days. As for examples, the first one that came to mind was my comment on a request for edit filter helper. — Wug·a·po·des 22:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So by my count we've got three editors who think this essay is helpful, two that don't, and one who considers it more a draft than a mature document. Hope that helps. EEng 13:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
