>> >> "What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was >> approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, >> or >> in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off >> from raising the issues." >> >> The "expertise" that is most valued at Wikipedia is expertise in >> Wikipedia >> itself - its policies, procedures, technology, etc - rather than >> expertise >> in the content. That's a fundamental cultural flaw if the project is to >> succeed. >> > > In a sense; though, as one academic pointed out to me, writing > an encyclopaedia is a skill in itself. And just because one is a topic > area > expert does not immediately make them the most capable of writing the > article (in some respects it makes them less capable than an interested > layman). > Of course, but that is not a reason to heap abuse on them rather than assisting them. > >> In reference to other comments here about the treatment of new editors, >> there has been a noticeable (to me at least) shift away from the role >> of >> administrators and "senior editors" from helping newcomers overcome the >> challenges to finding them a nuisance. > > > I don't think this is an issue of sysops or "senior editors" - it is > ingrained in the vast majority of the community. > > For example we know it is common in newer/younger editors to "bite" or > otherwise apply policy too strongly - because with regularity we have to > deal with the fall out (i.e. mentor them). > > I see the same issues with content editors as well; with resistance to > anyone trying to add content to articles they've invested in (I don't > just > mean subject matter experts).
That is what is going on at the Haymarket article. Editing that article successfully is harder than the D-Day Landing. > > Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the > problem is the entire ecosystem. Even stuff we think is polite and > sensible > might be incomprehensible to a newbie. Simple things like linking to, or > quoting, parts of policy instead of taking time to write a simple > explanation. The use of templates. The resistance to listen to arguments. > It all adds up into a confusing user experience. > > This is not a new problem; many online communities suffer, and have > suffered, from it. > > All of the things I mentioned are useful once your dealing with editors > aware of the workings - it's not "new and scary" at that point and acts > as > a useful shortcut to streamline our interaction. The key thing to work > on, > I think, is easing newbies into that process without bombarding them with > too much of it at once. > > Tom And we do have a problem with academics such as this one who are not patient enough or too busy to get up to speed. Note, however, that he is not too busy to write an article on the Academic Chronicle or appear on NPR. Now, in effect we have moved a Wikipedia policy discussion off our policy pages onto The Academic Chronicle and NPR which most of us have no access too. Our policy process is broken, and, in fact, effectively jammed. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
