Too often what happens is: I try to help a newbie by email; but before they make much progress another admin comes and blocks them for the damage they've already caused. Obviously the newbie gives up.
Suggested technical improvement: create notices like editnotice on the block screen saying "Admin xyz is mentoring this newbie - please consult him before you bite." On Oct 26, 2012 1:03 PM, "Magnus Manske" <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > As a biologist, I'd say it's the "I need to figure this out" > mentality, which leads to frustration if the system (which you had > believed you figured out!) apparently turns against you. > > My advice here is: That should not happen, but there is so much more > to do on Wikipedia; let this specific issue rest, for month or years > or forever, and contribute something else. The issue will get sorted, > with or without you, eventually. > > Magnus > > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Charles Andrès > <charles.and...@wikimedia.ch> wrote: > > Amir is right, without judging this specific case, the pattern describe > here is a problem. > > > > Especially the massive revert attitude , it's really a challenge for > retaining new specialist editor. > > > > Charles > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > Charles ANDRES, Chairman > > "Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – > > www.wikimedia.ch > > Skype: charles.andres.wmch > > IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch > > > > Le 26 oct. 2012 à 13:43, "Amir E. Aharoni" <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> > a écrit : > > > >> Shortened, and grossly over-simplified: > >> A biologist wrote some things about biology and they were not > challenged. > >> Then he wrote some things about dinosaurs, and they were reverted. If > >> I understood correctly, the reason for the reverts was that it > >> appeared to be original research (WP:NOR). > >> And now the biologist is pissed off, possibly for a good reason, and > >> wants his previous contributions removed, too. > >> > >> This is a story that repeats itself quite often, with surprisingly > >> similar details: an expert does some acceptable things, then doing > >> some things that turn out to rouse controversy, then wanting to retire > >> with a storm. I'm not implying that the expert is bad, absolutely not; > >> I'm just noting a pattern. > >> > >> Whatever the details of the story are, it's not good and it may > >> justify discussion. > >> > >> But as a meta-comment, it should be done on wikien-l or on > >> wikimedia-l, and not on this list, which is called "wikipedia-l", but > >> is not active in practice. > >> > >> -- > >> Amir > >> > >> 2012/10/26 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> TL;DR (Too long; didn't read.) > >>> > >>> Please provide a summary that makes clear what point you are trying to > make... > >>> > >>> On 26 October 2012 11:55, John Jackson <strangetrut...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> Greetings – > >>>> > >>>> I hope this is a good place to send a weighty message to Wikipedia. > >>>> You’ll want to read all through. > >>>> > >>>> I am a scientist who has always liked the Wikipedia idea, and I like > >>>> your implementation. Lately I’ve started making contributions. > >>>> Although I’m a cognitive scientist who taught biological psychology at > >>>> degree level for several years and have done AI research since the > >>>> ‘80’s, I’ve diverted for a decade or more to resolve a set of major > >>>> evolutionary puzzles. > >>>> > >>>> Fairly peripheral but within the overall project was an investigation > >>>> of bird breathing, and I decided to piece together the research into > >>>> it, and deliver it properly to the public. Trust me, the finer > >>>> details were obscure. On the way I discovered why penguins’ lungs > >>>> don’t collapse even at 500m when whales’ lungs collapse by 100m; I > >>>> found out what the neopulmo did (though not why) and why penguins > >>>> don’t have it, and I changed our understanding of flow within it; I > >>>> also resolved the old chestnut of whether birds had counter-current > >>>> exchange in their lungs. That is, completely discovered, not just for > >>>> myself. By careful editing and addition including the long overdue > >>>> diagram the subject needed, I converted the two Wikipedia pages > >>>> dealing with bird breathing from an incomplete mire to a place of > >>>> revelation (though the German version needs starting afresh, and > >>>> Duncker agrees). But it was an honour do so. > >>>> > >>>> More central to my overall project was cladogenesis, the heart of > >>>> palaeontology and just the thing that I, as an MSc in info. sys. > >>>> engineering would be expected to get into. I’ve written my own clad. > >>>> software, invented and implemented my own heuristic version, proved > >>>> the theorem in graph theory that resolves an issue in checking > >>>> evolutionary trees by time and rooting them, and highlighted a serious > >>>> statistical fallacy invalidating another major current of work in the > >>>> time-checking of trees. > >>>> > >>>> In these activities I was almost entirely alone as regards other > >>>> workers in the overall field, since that field, dinobird > >>>> palaeontology, is notorious for its abuse of the lack of scientific > >>>> and indeed academic constraint that all historical disciplines are > >>>> prey to. Applicants for research positions into that biological > >>>> science, which relies heavily on computer science and statistics, are > >>>> usually accepted with just a geology first degree. Put succinctly but > >>>> honestly, the standard of science amongst professional dinobird > >>>> palaeontologists is crap, so much so that I’ve never taken the idea of > >>>> publishing formally in the field very seriously. I do from time to > >>>> time in AI, but any scientist with something sensible to say in > >>>> dinobird palaeo will always be violating sacred errors and be blocked. > >>>> Although useless, the field is very proud and stubborn. > >>>> > >>>> But there is a layer of humanity too stupid even to become > >>>> professional palaeontologists – and guess what? They’ve established a > >>>> self-aggrandising population in the basement of Wikipedia, grooming > >>>> their egos by becoming gatekeepers. I’m sick of the sight of their > >>>> pathetic award stars. > >>>> > >>>> I wasn’t surprised; in fact I’d been surprised by the ease with which > >>>> my bird-lung editing had been accepted, which is why I’d turned my > >>>> attention to another problem page that was actually even more of a > >>>> mess. > >>>> > >>>> Most people, even those interested in the subject, have no idea why > >>>> dromaeosaurs had such strange claws, teeth and tails. Many even doubt > >>>> that the special foot claw was a weapon. And because they have no > >>>> understanding of the vital importance of backtracking in knowledge > >>>> engineering, they can’t escape the rut of believing dromaeosaurs were > >>>> “pre” flight (“pre” of course being a very dodgy evolutionary > >>>> concept). But solving this kind of thing was easy compared to related > >>>> subjects, and other visionaries such as Paul and Osmolska had made > >>>> their contributions and published some of the basics. The four-winged > >>>> flight of volant dromaeosaurs was harder but I found a solution to > >>>> that too (...though you’re not going to like it; even I didn’t). > >>>> > >>>> I know what you’re thinking – Original Work. But of course that was > >>>> taken account of: much of the problem with the Velociraptor page was > >>>> balance – some theories had been simply ignored, even though works > >>>> mentioning them were already in the citation list. Other problems > >>>> were solved by pointing out glaring illogicalities: ensuring the > >>>> explanation of a difference between two things must be based on some > >>>> other difference applying to them. Things like that don’t need > >>>> citations, things that needed them were given them, and when necessary > >>>> I cited my own book. That after all is very common in Wikipedia, and > >>>> there’s no point frowning on the basic principle (especially when it’s > >>>> a good book!). > >>>> > >>>> As you may have guessed or already knew, anyone bringing much-needed > >>>> but unfamiliar and unwelcome science (i.e. any science) to dinobird > >>>> palaeontology is automatically put on the hate list and from then on > >>>> it’s just sociology. Pointing out that modern science knows better > >>>> than to talk of “facts”, is the kind of thing that sets the idiots > >>>> off, but is one essential principle Wikipedia needs to take on board. > >>>> Luckily the pseudo-scientists usually give themselves away, as they > >>>> did on the Velociraptor page most bizarrely. First, they insisted the > >>>> tail couldn’t bend vertically, alongside a picture showing the last > >>>> two-thirds bending up through 60º. Then they insisted its prey only > >>>> had one leg whereas two could be seen even in the thumbnail. No > >>>> accusations of original work at risk there. Nonetheless they kept on > >>>> reversing EVERYTHING I’d written – the illogicality-busting, the > >>>> theory-balance restoration, and even corrections to their crap which > >>>> was contradicted by the images in front of their eyes. > >>>> > >>>> The result? Someone’s stopped the repeated reversals, and of course, > >>>> they chose to stop it on the lunatic side. Irrespective of the > >>>> “Protection is not an endorsement of the current text” message, this > >>>> “temporary” status is a massive insult to science, which is why it’s > >>>> important, and a massive insult to me which has ensured my action. > >>>> > >>>> I’m going to find the 100 most influential loud-mouthed Wiki-haters on > >>>> the net, show them the crucial photos, and the illogicalities, and I > >>>> hope I’m going to be able to say: “Look – some tiny-minded > >>>> pseudo-scientists started to infect Wikipedia filling even science > >>>> pages with blatant rubbish, but see how good it is? It put them in > >>>> their place!” > >>>> > >>>> I know an organisation of your size won’t bother with anything that > >>>> can’t affect it, and I haven’t time to dissolve you with charm. I’m > >>>> considering removing all the good work I’ve done in the bird breathing > >>>> pages, and their talk pages that explain it, as a token of what you’ll > >>>> lose if you reward my kind of work with insults. I was happy to give > >>>> it free but people can always buy the book. Put it back if you want, > >>>> but if you don’t, the pages will lose a lot and if you do you’ll > >>>> underline my value. And of course there’s the stuff above that could > >>>> go one way or another depending on you. Much will be done before the > >>>> election and as much as is necessary when it’s over. Don’t just hand > >>>> this over to another of the dinosaur Wiki-wankers, and don’t let them > >>>> keep spuriously using the word “source” to justify feeding the world > >>>> crap. > >>>> > >>>> John V. Jackson. > >>>> > http://sciencepolice2010.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/sciencepolice2010-launches/ > >>>> > http://sciencepolice2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/sciencepolice-14-latest.pdf > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Wikipedia-l mailing list > >>>> wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikipedia-l mailing list > >>> wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikipedia-l mailing list > >> wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
