Proposal talk:A "be bold" campaign

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Promote a Be-Bold motto

I like this idea. As a new user myself, I still have hesitation I'm trying to overcome regarding making improvements to pages, however, perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone? Lets create a viral campaign, advertising Wikipedia with the 'Be Bold' motto. Of course, we should use 'free' methods, such as, say, a series of Youtube or Videobay videos, as I don't think we should be squandering donation money on purchasing ad-space.

While I realize that Wikipedia is a household name now, it can't hurt to just remind everyone that we're here and, more importantly, we like it when people contribute. 8bit 08:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

its not about being bold, its about trying to get rid of the egotistical editors who control articles as if they were their own.

I like the idea of YouTube videos. I think a "Be Bold" video would be a good thing. And a short message with a link to the BOLD page could be put at the top of every Wikipedia page for, say, a month. Perhaps an overlay with BE BOLD could be placed on the Wikipedia jigsaw globe graphic for the time that the campaign runs. --Bodnotbod 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a youtube video that shows you how to correct a mistake is a great idea! and the be bold slogon woudnt cost anything and we could see how the quality and number of new edits increases / decreases and can then keep the campaign going / abondon it. Great idea! --Hannes Röst 12:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "be bold" as a campaign, however this proposal needs to be developed a lot. The page is currently very messy. John Vandenberg 06:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  • In reality, when examining the actual user actions on English Wikipedia, people chant "Be Bold" when they decide to "Be Selfish" so it has been like advising, if they see rubbish "Start a Fire" and burn articles to the ground. See below: "#Be Cooperative or Be Considerate". -Wikid77 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I fear more people seeing "Be Bold" will just increase the disputes, such as the massive arguments, edit-wars and ANI topic-ban power-games in English Wikipedia. The impact would be like adding fuel to a fire: the specific impact depends on whose house was sprayed with more fuel. -Wikid77 09:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Go off the beaten track

Being bold is great. But the problem comes when a new editor arrives on an established page, for example Guinea pig and decides to add their paragraph which is completely removed [1]. Why would they bother to contribute again? New users should be encouraged to boldly go off the beaten track to pages that need some attention [2] or even better [3]. Give them a template to fill in, an editor to ask help from and a pointer to where and how to find more information and get them to fill in the blanks. We should encourage them to be bold by going off and finding out new things about subjects they may not know much about rather than re-write an established page. --Alchemist Jack 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What you say are serious problems. For example, on German Wikipedia a newcommer can ask for a "mentor" to help him/her start contributing. I think a mentor program on English Wikipedia would be great.--Kozuch 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
We have Adopt-a-User on English Wikipedia, but I'm sure it could be improved and/or advertised more prominently. -Peteforsyth 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with letting a "well-established" page go through some churn? Maybe it seems to you that the changes are counter-productive, but perhaps the person who made the change can see something you do not. Sometimes even a change that immediately makes a page worse has a long-term positive effect because the page becomes even better-organized when it is fixed again. I do not think it is good for any page to become static, even a well-established page. I think the problem is people who think a well-established page should remain static.--Headlessplatter 22:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm w/Kozuk on this one for the most part. Somehow incorporate mentors. Add cell phone #'s to a user's page to permit quick clarification & efficient & thorough communication as well? I'd be up for that. However, for beginners, I am under the impressoin that templates are not easy to use, as they are just learning wiki in the first place. Perhaps an area where they can grab an e-mail addy & then fire off an e-mail w/contact info for a mentor to address? --Adam

Alchemist Jack seems to be right ,after reading this proposal I decided to give a try At Marathi Language wikipedia by using a special template which meant be bold in language Marathi ( instead of a regular template,called 'fasthelp', that we used for first time anonymous users).I do not have any handy feed back from any of those anon users but some where I hvae a feeling that normal message was more effective in getting them registered than that of bebold template message , So I am in two minds whether to go ahead with be bold campaign , may be I am going some where wrong , may be some one suggest me more proper sentense for a be bold campaign Mahitgar 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be bold

Being bold got me community banned on the english Wikipedia by others being bold. The main page says the purpose of Wikipedia is "anybody can edit." Then, Wikipedia:Introduction says "Be bold" and "Go ahead and edit." These basic mission statements add up to "Wikipedia is a fake encyclopedia for you to edit," because it does not seem possible that a serious encyclopedia would allow the public to edit, since much of the public can't write or edit any good. Some in the public are very imature. After I started "improving" the Christianity article, insulting messages began to be placed on my talk page by "bold" Wikipedians, some of whom were somehow administrators. Some of them seemed to consider Wikipedia to be a serious encyclopedia rather than a recreational editing site, and some of them seemed to be looking for an excuse to pick on people. I'm not sure of the history of "Be bold" but I notice html for bold is the letter "b." I found I was less hounded against editing when I started an article than I was for editing someone else's writing. So, possibly the way to edit is to write a college-level term paper that would get an "A" and then donate it using a minimum of edits. What good is the history of the page if you can't (which is a contraction meaning "can not") find the history of the article? I think the slogan is a major cause of disruption of articles and of vandalism as well. Maybe there should be a "Be responsible" campaign in conjunction with a "Be civil" campaign. Nobody told me to donate a great term paper. The directions said "Be bold" and "edit" so I feel sort of betrayed. --Chuck Marean 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to edit a page on a topic as controversial as Christianity you need to be extremely circumspect (not to mention extremely well-read); otherwise you are just asking for trouble. - Brya 05:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Be Cooperative or Be Considerate

I must agree with "Don't Be Bold" before people learn the ropes, such as with English Wikipedia, or German Wikipedia. Perhaps "Be Cooperative" or "Be Considerate" would be, let's say, a MILLION times more valuable. Why? ...because it is good for people to be cautious, take time to learn the general rules, meet a few other editors early, and not "Be Boldly Self-righteous" because they were goaded into changing everything before they knew the basics, in each area (which differ). I think, by human nature, there are enough bold people in any massive group, and they need to "Be Cooperative" to learn to compromise for real consensus, not Boldy Bully other users. Instead of a Be-Bold campaign, just keep promoting quick introductions to the Wikipedia or Wikimedia basics. -Wikid77 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to take into consideration though, that if you're a new user, you're going to learn ten times faster by editing and collaborating with other people right from the get go. Now, I'm not saying they go out and make major changes to major articles, but even a small amount of experience is required in order for a new user, or any user for that matter, to go up in the ranks and edit greater things. And that experience is simply obtained faster and easier by being bold and editing. Jherbertz 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules put off new users

I've created a few pages, which I admit weren't very good. One user in particular pointed out that they were poor - fair enough - but Wikipedia's policies meant they got deleted - I didn't get much chance to improve them as they were gone.

I now feel very retisent to spend more time writing articles that are going to be deleted. As part of this campaign, you need to be more forgiving to users. I appreciate that you don't want Wikipedia littered with poor articles - but it is anyway because there simply aren't enough moderators to deal with these things, resulting in short sharp action which can really take the wind out of people's sails!

Wikipedia has a lot of good tags to encourage improvement - and I fully support these measures. Instead of deleting things, which not create another state where a user - especially a new inexperienced user - can build up a page. Give users a more experienced "buddy" who can shepherd them in the right direction!

It's a complaint I see in quite a few places. I also like the way that moderators look at experience before deleting things - poorly experienced users are strongly prejudised against. 81.156.159.123 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Being bold is good, but...

How can you expect people to be bold with semi-protect and pending changes / flagged revisions / whatever you call it in the way? Surely this is likely to hinder editors wishing to take up the offer of this campaign, to "be bold"... There's no point in being bold if you realise that there is some stuff you aren't gonna be able to edit without going through the motions of setting up an account and / or waiting for someone to confirm that what you've posted is ok and fits in with the article. Can we really support a campaign like this without reducing barriers to editing? One doesn't seem to fit with the other, in my opinion. BarkingFish 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what you wrote. The "be bold" campaign seems to be in direct conflict with the other policies you mentioned. Wikipedia shouldn't send mixed messages like this because it will only confuse and frustrate new users and they are less likely to try editing in the future based on their experience.-Chinless Fish 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, the reality for many users has been "Be Bold and be sorry" where they imagined that a busy article could be edited by changing contentious parts of the article. Back in 2006, I inserted text: "Hurricane Katrina travelled up the entire U.S. state of Mississippi" and added 22 other major edits explaining the real impacts. I was informed to "focus on New Orleans" because "no one cares about the entire state of Mississippi" and I boldly thought to reject such stupidity, and soon got edit-blocked for 27 hours. Be Afraid of other users, and act cautiously. -Wikid77 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is unnaceptable, and it is ridiculous to say that no-one cares about Mississippi. However, I don't think it's appropriate to say that everyone should be "afraid of other users". For the most part Wikipedians have common sense, although some people, for example the user you encountered, unfortunatley do not. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that protected pages are a barrier to being bold, but unfortunatley some people don't understand what Wikipedia is about and choose to vandalise it and thus ruin it for the majority. Whilst, yes, there are people who revert such edits, but without simi-protected pages, Wikipedia would soon become a playground for people with nothing better to do, and would soon descend into chaos. Essentially, what I'm saying is that yes, people should be bold, but only if they are familiar with editing Wikipedia - which they should have become after four days before being autoconfirmed. Being bold is one thing, being recklessly bold is quite another. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the problem is NOT just the vandalism, but rather, bold users who try to edit-out (not revert) vandalism, and their botched fixes to articles are worse than the original vandalism. English article "Mobile phone" lost 7 major sections (for 22 days?) when someone tried to remove vandalism. Some busy articles must be semi-protected because fixing hacked-text is too hard for general users, during a flurry of other edits. Perhaps 90% of all enwiki vandalism comes from IP edits. -Wikid77 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am a supporter of being forced to have user account if someone wishes to edit Wikipedia. However, the problem is that some IPs have valuable contributions that would make a real difference to the quality of articles, but most simply would not be bothered to set up an account. WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How about a "suggest" link replacing the "edit" link for semi-protected articles? Click the suggest link and the Talk page opens, with the relevant section header automatically prepared, with some friendly exhortation to "boldly" suggest a change. Some I.P. users are already using the Talk page to do this, but that involves too many actions: click "discussion" tab; click "edit this page" (confusing the first-time user); be confronted with possibly large amounts of wikitext; scroll down to somewhere and type something. Better: one click, type something. I suspect that might get more feedback than any campaign. -84user 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Quality of WP articles content113:32, 1 November 2010
No214:24, 10 October 2010
someone else has said this:014:20, 10 October 2010
No.003:26, 31 August 2010
Good rules and procedures to protect "Bold-enough" editors522:53, 4 August 2010
Demagogy022:41, 4 August 2010
Risks section discussion1105:49, 10 July 2010
Suggestion204:23, 8 July 2010
Combine with an emphasis on "Don't be a d***" (or whatever it's called now)404:08, 8 July 2010
"Bold" may be an ill-chosen word120:55, 7 July 2010
Who we recruit120:31, 7 July 2010
I think something like this might address the concerns voiced above216:26, 7 July 2010
As a long-term Newbie118:59, 6 July 2010
Deletionism1120:13, 5 July 2010
So now were talking semantics of "being bold"?018:41, 2 July 2010
Summary section discussion600:29, 2 July 2010
Proposal section discussion221:55, 1 July 2010
Be Bold...and Learn113:33, 30 June 2010
Editing side004:02, 30 June 2010

Quality of WP articles content

Hi, based on the proposal for the editors, I decided to be bold enough, and offer to discuss the abusive content articles in Wikipedia irrespective of the language they are written, on condition that the general rules of Wikipedia are violated. What may a bold enough editor do, if one day he or she opens a link to other language article and sees an article with an insulting content? What I mean? The best example, we all are humans and we all "are created equal". But one day ome may fallow a link to other language article, translate it with the help of Google translator and find out that this article confirms that not all people are created equal, and there are super humans that have rights to supress and torture other, non-super humans, etc. The ideas may differ, as well as the content. So, if one day an editor will read such a nonsense, what may he/she do? Please, consider it with seriousness, it is not a joke, but a reality that I come across about a month ago,

Zara-arush‎21:30, 24 October 2010

You could be bold and blank the abusive text, and explain yourself in a language that some participants might understand (in the edit summary and talk page.)

You may be reverted, but as at all Wikikmedia wikis, don't revert or edit war.

If you don't have a language in common with the local editors, post a request for help at Meta:, IRC or a mailing list.

InfantGorilla‎13:30, 1 November 2010
 

No

Edited by author.
Last edit: 08:31, 8 October 2010

logical view It's hard to do all of these:

  • being bold
  • assuming good faith
  • avoiding vandals

emotional view we all were bold; but

the more admins don't assume good faith
the more we get reverted
the less we edit


thanks Philippe, this is edition 2

Saeed.Veradi‎16:44, 7 October 2010

What do you say we avoid speaking in broad generalizations and absolutes. "NEVER" is a strong word.

I'm an admin. I've been accused of assuming good faith TOO much.

~Philippe (WMF)‎18:35, 7 October 2010

Most admins are not like you. they do things that if I do to them they will ban me forever. they undo 3 hour summarizations, reclassifications, and careful use of templates, and start 4 day discussions with us in the talk pages. watchlists of awsome wikipedians are being filled with talk pages instead of articles.

Saeed.Veradi‎14:24, 10 October 2010
 
 

someone else has said this:

I agree with you, and I'll "be bold" and place this comment where it should be from the get go, on the same page as the proposal. The bottom line is that newbies are completely despised and crapped on, and editors in love with their articles are anxious to pounce on any change to their page. At this point the bureaucracy and QA talibans have taken control.

Through-out these Wiki discussions I see mostly tentative apologetic words to avoid incurring the wrath of the powers that be ... not exactly in line with Wiki's professed "be bold" exhortations.

Saeed.Veradi‎14:20, 10 October 2010

No.

We have a hard enough time dealing with boldness, aka tests.

Be careful. Be clueful.

Mono‎03:26, 31 August 2010

Good rules and procedures to protect "Bold-enough" editors

The last 1-2 months events demonstrated that our great and exciting Wikipedia grew out of its virtual reality frames. I even may name it now Live Wikipedia. I think that an editor acting in the virtual reality of Wikipedia may now be influenced easily in the real, actual life, and vice versa. Moreover, an editor induced by the benign intentions and good will that he/she applies them for the community's benefit may easily accused of malice. And, when I happened to find myself in this situation, I started to hesitate, if I shall stay here with my editing and writing new articles. I am still unsure, if I will go on as efficiently, as I did before. When I add the content I am welcomed, but when the time came and I wanted to discuss my understanding of the extraordinary problem, I was blocked and accused in trolling. I should write here that the talkativeness is not my trait. My contribution in Wikipedia at 75 and + % consists of article editing and writing. Thus, I am sure the rules shall be developed further to make Wikipedia safe place for article writers and editors. I enjoy the project and people that I meet in virtual here, and I use the articles and data in my research in real life. So, I am sure we may do it and protect our community and editors, and I will be glad to participate in the editing of the corresponding rules. Best wishes to all, --91.210.41.141 20:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

91.210.41.141‎20:33, 30 June 2010

It was written by me, --Zara-arush 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Zara-arush‎20:38, 30 June 2010

From poking the English wiki, i guess you jumped in one hot area of the Wiki which could not be helped because when history text books differ too much between countries, problems are bounds to happen.

Now what can the Strategic Planning can and can't do for you?

  • Can create a visible status for new editors so you won't be blamed for what you don't know.
  • Can create a visible status for senior editors so you can refer to them for guidance and avoid traps, pitfalls & cross-fires that abound in such editing area
  • Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects
  • Can't guaranty that what you think to be the accurate truth will be the Wikipedia's reality especially if others editors have their own different truth.
KrebMarkt‎22:12, 30 June 2010

Thanks. I was not precise in the description of the matter, because I was not the "main character" in the story. So, I like the third point in your list: "Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects". I would like to be helpful in working on the corresponding rules and procedures that may be used by the whole community as a guide irrespective of the language of editing and even the history texts, because I am sure a sound mind is able to comprehend and analyze any type of information, and the community shall fix rules and procedures for the users may react adequately in typical situations, even complicated. What I mean? If an editor announces that there are violations of the main principles of Wikipedia and the community shall stop these violations, any other non-apathetic user has the right to participate in discussion, and none has the right to persecute the editors, who did their best to explain what is going on and what is wrong with these violations. Moreover, the conflict may not be transferred in reality. Then, none has the right to ban an editor, who tried to ground his opinion on what was wrong with these violations and what shall be the attitude of the community, and what are the basic principles for the valuation of the violations. Because the activities in Wikipedia (as I imagine for myself) are joint and based on the intercommunication among those, who are interested in the matter, we have the right to exchange opinions, and explain one another, what is right and what is wrong. If I know something that I consider important and reliable, why should I stay silent and not inform about it the others, who are involved in the matter? It is a general description of what I worry about. So, I would like to join to the group, who work on the rules, relating to users' activities, and recommendations on how to make the atmosphere in Wikipedia more friendly and safe for editors and article writers.--Zara-arush 17:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Zara-arush‎17:34, 1 July 2010

In fact improving consensus-building processes is one of the Recommendations.

Task force/Recommendations/Community health 7

While proposed processes may be a bit excessive for your issue, it would help nevertheless to deescalate the tension. In some area editors are in sort of Trench warfare stance ready to jump at anyone that cross their imaginary line which can only hurt Wikipedia in the long term.

KrebMarkt‎17:53, 1 July 2010
 

Thanks for previous replies:

  1. Can create a visible status for senior editors so you can refer to them for guidance and avoid traps, pitfalls & cross-fires that abound in such editing area
  2. Can create a better system to reach comprise & consensus thus reducing tensions & clashes in problematic areas & subjects
I guess, I would like to have someone who may be helpful with explaining what is wrong in my statements that sometimes get the effect opposite to the expected by myself. And I think, we need more rules relating to the process of discussion. There are several repeating situations (discussion of a new article in the process of its writing, discussions of the article, nominated for deletion, for the status of features, for murging, etc). What the author is obliged, at what stage, what shall not demand of the author, when other editors may interfere, etc. I am sure the criticism is OK, but the pure criticism is bad, if the user only criticises and does not offer any solution or improvement.--Zara-arush 22:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Zara-arush‎22:53, 4 August 2010
 
 
 
 

Demagogy

In the last months I met so many cases of demagogy in its various forms that I would like to have something done to draw limits for the possible amount of demagogy permitted in the articles and discussions. We have good articles about the term, but do we have anywhere something written about it in the application to Wikipedia? Do we need some rules or the rules on demagogy in WP may activate more problems? Otherwise, why we do not have any? I think in some cases having some worked out principles on the limitations re demagogy is of vital importance,--Zara-arush 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Zara-arush‎22:41, 4 August 2010

Risks section discussion

This is where we discuss what the Proposal:A_"be_bold"_campaign#Risks should contain.

KrebMarkt‎07:41, 1 July 2010

Move from the proposal page as discussion should happen here and not there


I think there is a good chance of this campaign backfiring and alienating a lot of people from Wikipedia so I think the risks outweigh the benefits. What I suspect will happen is that people who normally just read articles will mistakenly believe that it is o.k. to make changes to articles and that Wikipedia has a welcoming attitude towards new editors. When they actually do make changes, their edits will be quickly reverted and they will be labeled as vandals or some other typical antisocial reaction will take place towards them. This is a predictable response to new editors as some people on this page have already described. This will upset these novice editors and sour them towards Wikipedia and few will try editing again because of their negative experience. They will then spread the word about how awful Wikipedia is because of how they were treated and might stop using Wikipedia as an information source.
A possible solution to this problem is to conduct a parallel campaign directed at already established editors. It could be called "Teach, Don't Trash" or something similar and would encourage people to explain reverts and fixes of new editor edits on the new editors' talk pages so that they will learn how Wikipedia works and our principles and guideline etc. That way we turn a potentially negative experience into a learning experience for the new editors. This should be done with patience and understanding instead of the usual brusqueness and even hostility new editors all too often face. It might help if new editors were easily identifiable in some way on the revision history page of articles so people are aware that an edit was made by a newbie editor. Hopefully the established editors will be more understanding and patient if they know the editor is new to Wikipedia.-Chinless Fish 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
KrebMarkt‎07:43, 1 July 2010

I agree and think this is a huge risk. I work in RC patrol from time to time and frequently come across well-meaning, but unsuitable, edits from (generally anonymous) first-time editors. Certainly, I do my best to be polite and provide advice and assistance, especially to new users, but this is always balanced against time and the fact that I have a queue of other articles to address. Some editors are even more aggressive. It's easy to see how many editors would be strongly discouraged by their initial attempts. Here's a few possible steps we could take to mitigate this problem:

  • We've done a lot of study on the editing interface for new editors, but little on the social aspects. What are the most common non-vandalism errors made by new editors that cause reverts? What sorts of messages do they get back on their talk pages? Do they read their talk pages when they get messages? What messages encourage them to keep contributing and what cause them to give up and leave the project? Are the welcome messages helpful and how could they be more helpful? If their initial edits are rejected, do they try to make them again? Discuss with the editor involved? Give up? What happens when new editors are sent to lengthy policy documents? These are all important questions on which we have little data. Further usability research here would be quite useful.
  • Work with the Welcoming Committee to revise welcoming templates. Perhaps we could have something that basically says "Don't get discouraged. We value your contributions. Most Wikipedians are great, but like anywhere else in the world, we are all different kinds of people. If your first efforts don't work out, stick around and try again." Better incorporate the Five Pillars and simplified ruleset to address the most common sources of errors made by new editors.
  • Improve the messages received by new editors when their edits are reverted, especially the templates generated by tools such as Twinkle or AWB, to be as polite and encouraging as possible. In the case of non-malicious edits, encourage users to discuss (provide a link to the right place for this discussion) and not to give up on editing. The key point needs to be "Welcome and thanks for your contributions. Here's what happens now." Not "You've screwed up. Go read pages of rules."
  • As KrebMarkt suggests, make new editors more identifiable at a glance. This should probably be done by edit count, rather than by time, since someone may have had an account for a long time but still be unfamiliar with editing. However, we should still be helpful and civil to all editors.
  • Barnstars and other reward/encouragement mechanisms for those assisting new editors.
  • Only if proposals like the above are implemented can a "Teach, Don't Trash" campaign be successful. Most of us are going to go for what's quick and dirty, which especially includes the automated tools like TW. The templates need to be improved before individual editor behavior is addressed.
Zachlipton‎21:46, 1 July 2010

I think you've made some really good points. We should gather information on common types of mistakes new editors make and create "in a nutshell" templates (and modify existing templates as you suggested) that can quickly and easily be used when a new editor makes a mistake based on this data. We should also make it easy for new editors to ask questions when the template isn't adequate and they don't understand what they did wrong. This can be something like the Wikipedia Help Desk but specializing in new users. I know there are helpful people on Wikipedia and things like barnstars and other recognition for this work would be nice.

Chinless Fish‎03:59, 8 July 2010
 

I agree that this proposal has some serious risks and that the risks outweigh the benefits. This is based on my own experience in religion articles, where almost everyone on the planet has a different viewpoint. I suspect that religion and politics articles are the most likely to suffer from a blanket encouragement of everyone. §The situation is already bad enough in the articles I focus on. Awareness of Wikipedia rules about point of view, original research, and referencing is low to non-existent. These rules are continually being flouted. §People frequently insert their own personal philosophy or viewpoint, without references. Joker comments are frequent. §A “be bold” policy would encourage a great increase in the incidence of the above and of the work involved in keeping article well referenced and free of POV and OR. §Also, this proposal is to some extent in direct conflict with the “expert review” proposal. Experts are likely to be turned off if they find articles riddled with the above faults, and may retire from reviewing. The very next day after any changes resulting from their review, someone may come along and reverse any improvements made.

Naturalistic‎18:38, 8 July 2010

I think we are aware of potential the screw up.

This proposal will be probably the last one to be implemented from a set which would contains:

  • Make others aware of new editors
  • Make new editors aware of mentors, admin & "Senior Editors"
  • Define & Demarcate editing areas where new editors can contribute and blunder
  • Demarcate editing areas requiring more wiki-experience & culture
  • ...

So yea we are going to be cautious on that one while doing as much prep works to maximize adhesion of new editors & limiting negatives side effects.

KrebMarkt‎20:36, 8 July 2010

I'd be interested to hear some statistics on why this "be bold" proposal is even necessary - is there evidence of numbers of active editors declining?

Is there evidence of articles' quality being affected for lack of editors?
What exactly are the negative effects of not having enough editors?
I note on the proposal page that the hope is that there will be more people to correct errors.

Isn't it just as likely - or even more likely - that a flood of new editors who are not well acquainted with the rules will create a lot more new errors than they correct in old errors? We know the negative effects of an excess of editors in those pages that are plagued with POV, OR and zero referencing.

If the overall effect is to increase the workload of editors who are familiar with the rules, in correcting new errors rather than improving content, then the overall effect on quality will be negative.
I would suggest doing a carefully controlled experiment on specific Wikipedia entries, with a "be bold" invitation only on those selected entries and not generally. After a few months these pages can be monitored to see what the increase has been in editing, and how much reverting and correcting of the new edits has happened versus how many corrections of previous errors. Then you can see the benefits and also the costs of the proposed change.
Naturalistic‎20:57, 8 July 2010
Show 5 replies
 
 
 
 
 

Suggestion

After watching the efforts made to try and get people to be bold and write in the Northern Sámi wiki, I think this all might be better served by going around different places and giving "classes" in how to edit, what to do, what not to do, etc. Perhaps public libraries could be harnessed for this?

Yupik‎18:46, 30 June 2010

FWIW, I personally like the idea but imagine the logistics would be a nightmare?

Basiclife‎11:35, 2 July 2010
 

I think video tutorials on YouTube might be a good idea. Wikipedia should have a channel with tutorials on how to edit (with links to relevant pages) and related things like the Five Pillars. This idea is easily applied to the sister projects. Tutorials on uploading images to the Wikimedia Commons is an example of a potentially useful tutorial video. Some people might find it easier to learn how to make simple edits from watching videos than reading a long rules page (they can do that later if they continue editing). These videos could potentially reach more people than something just on Wikipedia since many YouTubers could potentially watch the videos and decide to make edits in the future. Another benefit is that these videos would cost nothing to make or host since they would be on YouTube. If we did make tutorial videos, they should ideally be less than five minutes long each and preferably only a couple minutes in length so more people will watch the whole video.

Chinless Fish‎04:23, 8 July 2010
 

Combine with an emphasis on "Don't be a d***" (or whatever it's called now)

We would need to be prepared for inevitable mistakes and warn users (and especially administrators) of the repercussion for rudeness. And, more importantly, have real consequences for violating this.

I left Wikipedia for nearly a year after I tried to be bold and get involved with the process on deleting pages. I voted on a few pages, and on one, I simply said "delete" or "keep", as I saw other users doing. An administrator on the English Wikipedia then wrote a long lecture, which included how I was "not being helpful". I was so crushed that I left, and later changed my name just to get a fresh start. Kansan 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kansan‎16:43, 30 June 2010

I completely agree that editors and admins who treat new users unkindly should be sanctioned.

Anthonyhcole‎17:07, 30 June 2010

Be Bold need to work in conjunction of others proposals & recommendations to be effective. Like this one:

Protect new users by demarcating them, and help them find assistance from experienced editors (such as mentors, administrators, and "senior editors")

  • Demarcate new users in their usernames/signatures, so there is no excuse for "accidentally" biting a newbie
  • Strengthen mentorship roles with clearer behavioral criteria and responsibilities
  • Demarcate mentors and administrators in their usernames/signatures, so that new users can recognize helpful volunteers
KrebMarkt‎19:13, 30 June 2010

Great idea.

Anthonyhcole‎16:37, 7 July 2010
 

Perhaps a specialized "newbie Help Desk" where new users can ask questions (such as why their edit was reverted) would also be a good idea. Mentors and other helpful people could talk about things with new users there. This help desk should be easily accessible and visible to new users, especially when their edit was reverted or some template was left on their talk page regarding their edit.

Chinless Fish‎04:08, 8 July 2010
 
 
 

"Bold" may be an ill-chosen word

Probably most of the people involved at this level of discussion understand the history of "Be bold", but I don't think that with the way our site culture has evolved it is the best advice to new participants. Some are too timid; some are too bold.

I'd rather see any campaign to get people more active built around words like "participate", "share", "learn" than around "be bold." - Jmabel 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

‎20:04, 7 July 2010

Maybe be brave is better. That is what new editors need to be. Both in making their first edit, as well as in interacting with other editors.

And actually, to me it feels better to be brave than to be bold.

Dafer45‎20:20, 7 July 2010
 

Who we recruit

I want to reiterate something I said 5-6 years ago: we don't advance Wikipedia nearly as much when we recruit more participants who are demographically similar to those we already have in abundance as we do when we recruit demographic outliers. We need to work out what will make Wikipedia more welcoming to precisely those people who are relatively unlike most Wikipedians (give or take that a reasonable level of literacy in at least one language probably remains a necessity).

We need more people who care as much about the history of textiles as so many do about the history of football. We need articles about First Nations that draw the same benefit of being written by "insiders" as an article about Serbs, Jews, or Catalans. We need people who can write knowledgably and in some detail about towns for which we now merely have stubs.

(I would add, speaking as an American, that I believe African Americans are terribly underrepresented among our contributors, and that those who come with a more Afro-centric perspective often face a hostile environment when they attempt to participate. I think our articles on the U.S. particularly suffer from the lack of a perspective from a group that have long made up roughly an eighth of our country's population.)

This means that we should be looking at what aspects of our internal culture discourage participation from these groups. Just saying "be bold" won't fix this. Jmabel 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

‎20:16, 7 July 2010

We had loooooonnnngggg debates here about that Big issue.

I hope you won't die reading those way too long threads.

KrebMarkt‎20:31, 7 July 2010
 

I think something like this might address the concerns voiced above

I propose this (click "here" in the green sentence at the top of the article). I would like to trial this at Pain. I am across the subject sufficiently and have the time to keep on top of any dramas, and if it is a disaster, I'll just delete the green sentence. Anthonyhcole 12:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole‎12:36, 30 June 2010

I think the premise of your concept is solid, but the execution could be punched up a bit. In keeping with a (very important) goal of the campaign, the very first words of the message should be 'Be bold.' There's a great deal of potential for making people think of wikipedia even if they know little about it in those two words (not unlike what comes to mind when one hears 'just do it').
Speaking of which, I hope someone at wikimedia has filed a trademark/copyright on the marketing slogan - the future of the campaign would depend on it. Also, the tutorial page could stand to be polished if it was going to be subjected to heavy traffic (particularly from newbies...), the more it could be condensed - the simpler we can make its appearance - the better the chances people will make the effort to understand what it's trying to say.

Additionally, I see a potential problem with a universal statement being there when a page gets semi-protected or locked outright. Obviously we probably shouldn't be egging people on to 'be bold' under those circumstances.
And on that note, when a page is not locked or semi-protected, I think the padlock symbol for locked pages be replaced Be bold! logo of some sort (which would be a click through to a page explaining the campaign).

K10wnsta‎00:31, 4 July 2010

Thanks K10wnsta. I have rewritten the mini-tutorial, so hopefully it is clearer and simpler, and restarted this discussion at Village pump (proposals) as this is more tactical than strategic. I'll start a project page soon.

Anthonyhcole‎16:26, 7 July 2010
 
 

As a long-term Newbie

I've been using Wikipedia since 2003/4 and have done some [minor] editing over the years. The main reason for not contributing more is the attitude of some of the editors who get very precious about "their" articles - combined with a feeling of not being welcome if you're not "in the know".

There are also a LOT of guidelines for editing and you either need to accept that some users just aren't interested enough to learn about WP:OR, WP:NPOV [hope I got those right] and who-knows how many other acronyms -or- identify a subset that are critical for newcomers to know and educate them (and find a way to make existing editors more solicitous).

From my point of view, changing anything more than a typo here or there is far too much effort - Often days of haggling on a talk page (with obscure WP rules being thrown in for good measure) before someone just reverts everything - At which point I usually give up - I'm happy to help if it's easy but I've got a job and this isn't it.

So, if you want my help and that of others like me, please make it clear that newer members should be treated a little more gently. A number of suggestions would include:

  • A clear (omni-page?) link to "How to get started" or similar (aka Be Bold?)
  • Promote the concept that new users are a good thing - Existing editors should encourage them not shoot them down
  • When changes are reverted, a friendly message (if user is known) to say "Hi, I noticed you edited <blah> and whilst we appreciate the effort, we've had to change it due to <blah> - But please do contribute again in future" (or something to that effect) would go a long way
  • In short, stop making them [us] feel like unwelcome guests.

As an aside, I work in IT and am happy with the editor/markup/etc. but it wouldn't surprise me if many people (esp. those -er- rich in years) had issues with it. Probably the wrong place but I'd suggest a live preview similar to Stack Overflow Basiclife 11:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Basiclife‎11:18, 2 July 2010

I don't think that's particularly fair. Yes, I understand where you are coming from, but I haven't yet encountered any article ownership issues on Wikipedia. There's an article that I've been working on for a month now and have recently nominated for GA. I have made 137 edits to that article - yet if someone came along and edited it I would have no problem with that (unless, of course, it was blatant vandalism.)

I accept your points on the number of guidelines that there are on Wikipedia. There are a lot, and, yes, most people who want to edit Wikipedia don't want to learn them. Fact is, I'm familiar with the basic policy, and if I'm about to make what might be a contraversial edit, I will check policy regarding that edit. I think what it comes down to is that if someone can't be bothered to learn basic policy, for example the five pillars, they don't really want to edit Wikipedia. Making even the most minor edit, unfortunatley, is now a big thing - but if a user isn't passionate about what they are doing, they shouldn't really be doing it.

WaCkYwAcE MeSsAgE mE‎18:59, 6 July 2010
 

Deletionism

After years of frantic Wikipedia-activity, I have stopped editing Wikipedia (almost) definitely about a month ago. I was looking for info on a band, didn't find any, searched elsewhere and put that info in a new article. Which was almost instantly removed. I provided a source, the band exists, so why should there not be an article on it?
As long as deletionist admins rampage around Wikipedia anyone who is being bold is likely to get very pissed off by them and never return. So that issue has to be resolved first, before people are invited to be bold. DirkvdM 10:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Put differently, a choice has to be made. Should Wikipedia expand or be limited? 'Be bold' only makes sense if Wikipedia is meant to expand (considerably). And I'm a strong supporter of that. This is not a paper encyclopedia, which has physical limitations. There is room for even the most trivial bit of information. If someone bothers to add it, chances are that someday someone will want to read about it. The only rules should be that

  • it is true
  • it is easily found by those who want to find it
  • it doesn't get in the way of those who don't

That's where the challenge lies. Those deletionists had better put their effort into verifying info and structuring that info in such a (consistent) way that people can quickly find what they want to know.
If this be-bold initiative wins over the deletionists (the two can't live side-by-side) then I'll be back in the editing-saddle. DirkvdM 17:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

80.126.178.133‎10:43, 30 June 2010

Sorry you are off the mark.

For what it's worth this whole Strategic Planning encompass every single Wikis under the Wikimedia Foundation and not just the English wiki.

Then again you are not the first editor to make that mistake here.

KrebMarkt‎18:49, 30 June 2010

I wasn't talking just about the English language Wikipedia. I have had similar experiences at the Dutch and German language Wikipedias. But what difference does that make anyway? The argument goes for any Wikipedia (or wiki, for that matter). DirkvdM 04:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DirkvdM‎04:54, 1 July 2010

Can you expand it to Commons or Wikitionary or Wikibooks etc...

To reply you on the Inclusion/Deletion thing, i can only point you to Noraft Analogy.

One piece of advice, the more you insist that your side is the good side and the other side the evil one threatening the existence of Wikimedia, the more you insist that we must get rid of the other side editors to turn Wikimedia into a sort of paradise and the less you are credible.

KrebMarkt‎07:27, 1 July 2010

I don't get your point about other parts of the Wikiverse. If something is (possibly) not a problem in one place, that doesn't mean it isn't a problem anywhere. Or may it be that you are off the mark? This is a call to "Help build the future of Wikipedia and its sister projects". With a 'p'.
What evil side, what paradise? Those are your words.
But on to the real issue....

That Noraft analogy text states that deletionism is about maintaining quality. I agree it is if it deletes incorrect info. But I was talking about correct info that is being deleted because it is deemed unimportant. But what criteria should be used for that? Who is to determine if a certain bit of info would be of interest to someone? Easy answer: if someone finds something interesting enough to write about, then chances are that someone else will someday want to read it. And why keep that info from them? The cost of storing that info is most certainly not an issue. The text (not images) of the entire English language Wikipedia fits on a single dvd!

Inclusionism may have quantity as its main goal (with correctness as the only criterium), but quality should be sought in a better placement of that info, a better structuring of Wikipedia, not in deleting it.

But back to the issue at hand. If people are invited to add info to something that already covers just about everything (it's already about ten times bigger than a paper encyclopedia), then they are going to add details. If deletionists then start removing that info because they deem it unimportant then not only was the call for more input rather pointless, but also those people are going to get pissed off, they may never return and Wikipedia will get a bad rep. DirkvdM 08:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DirkvdM‎08:11, 1 July 2010

Cost isn't a matter.

Where the Quality cursor is set depends of each Wiki community through really heated discussions. If you end in the wrong side of the fence then too bad for you and the Foundation won't change that. The Foundation don't rule by Fiat and abides to each wiki community will. Complaining here won't change that.

Currently the It exists argument isn't sufficient to secure an article inside most Wikis.

KrebMarkt‎09:25, 1 July 2010
 

Just to add my 2c, this is what happened with Everything.com - ppl were arguing that as it was "everything" they could write pretty much anything they liked as long as it was true - including what they had for breakfast. I haven't been back in years but it was unmanageable last time I looked.

That said, I'm not defending the current system either (I don't know enough) - Just pointing out a possible flaw.

Basiclife‎11:32, 2 July 2010
Show 2 replies
 

Funny, I got to this wiki from a call to "Help build the future of Wiktionary and its sister projects!" :)

Yair rand‎14:51, 2 July 2010
Show 1 reply
 

Surely the best way is to not delete articles - but to set them as "poor quality" - not on public display, but the original author can improve them, and re-publish them if substantial changes are added (e.g. poor quality due to no references, references must be added).

I agree with the quality control aspect, but there are thousands of poorly written articles out there, and few quality controllers in comparison - with a hard job. I accept some articles need deleting (like "Hello, World") but quality controllers need to appreciate that the manufacturers of this world need time to improve the product as much as the quality controller needs to de-list things which are not up to the mark!

81.156.159.123 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

81.156.159.123‎20:13, 5 July 2010
 
 
 
 
 

So now were talking semantics of "being bold"?

Okay, fine, you're onto something, being "bold" CAN be misinterpreted. Now we've just got to figure out a way to prevent the facilitation of destruction yet promote refinement of a positive manner & in an easy fashion. Change the campaign name? "Be...______." Be what? "Take Charge"? Hm...

--Adam

64.134.230.34‎18:37, 2 July 2010

Summary section discussion

Edited by author.
Last edit: 07:30, 1 July 2010

Discuss the proposal summary here:

KrebMarkt‎07:30, 1 July 2010

Moved from the proposal page as discussion should happen here and not there


I HAVE to state something on this! I had that "shyness" but I tried and learned anyway. However, after several months of good contributions on Wikipedia something happened and I quit. A person headed towards becoming an administrator hit me hard and in my opinion, he was absolutely wrong in what he did. I eventually came back to Wikipedia because I like helping and I like the ideas behind Wikipedia -- ideas of "giving back -- people helping each other as if this world of Wikipedia is one of the best worlds people have ever concocted and created in all of history. I came back after a long time and I came back with an alias whereas before I had used my real name. My concern was that fellow, I do know his name on wikipedia and a woman that backed him, hitting on me again as opposed to any initial explanation as to what I supposedly had done wrong. I had started working on a stub to create an article on something I happened to know a good amount about. As I started, this fellow, whom I never had encountered and knew nothing of him at that time, added sources to what I was in the process of writing thereby altering my own course of thoughts. He should have done whatever he wanted after I had completed what I was working on. He had started working at the same time while I was typing online and on the same article! had taken from a stub and was working up to an article with my own sources. To make shorter of this I was condemed and he was backed up by another with power over me, so I explained after he stated he saw "red flags". They had the power right or wrong and I was deemed to be wrong whereas even todate I disagree with and I have now been on Wiki areas for a few years. THEREFORE, to remove FEAR, or injustice, for contributors those in power must be polite and ask for explanations instead of not asking and next condeming the contributors. Billinghurst is one of the most polite Administrators I have read on Wiki areas and it is because of the likes of him I am once again happy and delighted to help with whatever I can including money donations. He is the opposite of the persons (one was pulled to my talk page by the 1st man writing on the same article as I). This was a "stub" that I had been watching and it remained a "stub" until I started building on it and was in that process, online, as he started adding things and sources I never used at the same time I was typing! A good administrator can make all of the difference with contributors. Billingsworth is the only administrator I care to ask a question or any kind of help -- and he is there and knowledgable and mannerable as always. I admire that person! I don't know and don't need to know other administrators after my experience of long ago when he "saw red flags" as posted on his superior's talk page while having written nothing to me. Now I stay mostly on Wikisource and donate Books because of the kindness and intelligence and diplomacy and helpfullness named "Billinghurst" -- again, the administrator can make a HUGE difference on wiki areas. I'll not be an underling for any tyrant working towards more power over contributors.

Brother Officer 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


He should have asked you to move it to a sandbox (userspace), especially if you made it clear that it was a work in progress. I encountered a similar incident with a group of newbies; I asked the admin to move it and that solved everything. I'm glad you're back on Wikipedia, though. Perhaps the welcome templates should include something about "Don't be afraid of the admins". HereToHelp (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
WHATEVER HE SHOULD HAVE ASKED was not what he did ask. the rudeness of wiki-fascist-admins and the complicity of ALL admins. yes, i do mean ALL. i've seen it most in 3RR, non-admin editors are blocked for 1 revert, admins are given 4 or 5 or 6 reverts, usually because the admins are concerned about how they will far in some upcoming election etc. this hurts this project more than anything. as the years go on, i encounter more and more people that say they *tried* to edit wikipedia and were treated badly so stopped and now tell others that wikipedia is full of bad information. PIECES OF A SOLUTION: admins have limited terms, say 1 year. conduct disputes are handled ANONYMOUSLY so no one will come back to get you after you hold them accountable. admins go on forced wikibreak after blocking editors, like police on forced leave after discharging a weapon, etc etc etc User talk:202.111.2.186

I'm afraid the "modify" link near every title isn't enough: people might still think that they have to be totally sure of what they're doing, that doing a mistake can have serious consequences.

This "shyness" many readers can have is, I think, a loss of potential content for the encyclopedia.

KrebMarkt‎07:31, 1 July 2010
 

Yes, I very much agree with KrebMarkt. We really do have to spread the message that if you edit, you will not break Wiki (something I was absolutely terrified of doing as a newcomer). More of an effort needs to be made to welcome newcomers and make the rules/guidelines/policies of Wiki more available to them. For example, when an edit is reverted, then the person who reverted the edit needs to explain to the newcomer why it was reverted. Oftentimes, no explanation is given, which can make editing very confusing for a newcomer. And on the upside, encouraging more people to edit will hopefully decrease some of the vandalism around here. ^_^

Kaguya-chan‎15:25, 1 July 2010

Sorry i'm not the one who wrote all posts from above ;)

I'm just acting as a facilitator on this one as discussion related comment ended up into the proposal page and thus i moved all the started debate where it belongs.

I will repeat myself Be Bold initiative won't work in isolation of others proposals & recommendations.

What i think will work well with Be Bold:

  • A new Editor Status. So new editors won't be bite or blamed for what they don't know.
  • A Senior Editor Status. Differ from admin as it focus on content writing meaning Editors who know how to write something good from whom new editors can rely on to do it right.
  • Put forward selected areas where new editors can edit, blunder and not be whacked for screwing up.
  • Put a editing difficulty rating for each article to raise awareness that there are "hot spot" editing controversial areas that require more "reflexion" before making an edit.
KrebMarkt‎15:43, 1 July 2010

Oh. Okay. Sorry then. (Still trying to figure out how this works ^^).

  • Yes. Yes. Yes. Definitely agree with this one. Seriously needed.
  • That's interesting. But what exactly makes up a Senior Editor status? Years spent at Wiki? Edit count? Or a something like a RFA?
  • Hm. I think Wiki already has something like that. (The often mentioned but rarely used Sandbox?) Or do you mean something like a few practice articles?
  • The problem with that is that most of that should be common sense. An article like Adolf Hitler or abortion is going to be more hot-spot than say Mitsukazu Mihara (Goth-Loli mangaka). But then again, it may not be obvious to others. Hm. Maybe a little symbol at the top of the page to show that it is a potential hot-spot? What exactly do you mean by editing rating difficulty? For some reason I'm imagining the US terrorism alert ratings. ^.^
Kaguya-chan‎19:12, 1 July 2010

Not one but two "Task Forces" (Quality & Community Health) made recommendations concerning the "Senior Editor" status.

Community health also included a part concerning new editor the most interesting bit:

Demarcate new users in their usernames/signatures, so there is no excuse for "accidentally" biting a newbie

There were a lot of discussion around the "Senior Editors" we concluded that we need it but we had troubles to clearly define the requirements for that status. There are seniors editors who focus on few Featured Articles and those who focus on bringing more articles to B-Class yet both needed to be recognized for their competences & easily identifiable by new editors looking for guidance.

About editing difficulty rating that was discussed at Thread:Talk:Task force/Reader Conversion/Missing recommendations about how to increase participation in under-represented group.

KrebMarkt‎20:16, 1 July 2010

Goodness. I have quite a bit of reading to do. Thanks so much for the links. ^_^

Kaguya-chan‎00:29, 2 July 2010
 
 
 
 
 

Proposal section discussion

This where we discuss what should be in the Proposal:A_"be_bold"_campaign#Proposal section.

KrebMarkt‎07:35, 1 July 2010

Moved from the proposal page as discussion should happen here and not there

I dont know the connotations of 'be bold' in all kinds of English, but maybe some politeness could be included. JaapB 06:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt‎07:36, 1 July 2010
 

I think whatever form the actual text/banner takes, it needs to be tested greatly to find the most suitable language. Usability research on potential new editors could test the effectiveness of a particular campaign. One might easily find that users find "Be bold" confusing and are unsure of its meaning. Randomized A/B testing could also be used: serve up a couple of campaigns to different pools of users and compare the "conversion" rates of how many of these users become editors.

Zachlipton‎21:55, 1 July 2010
 

Be Bold...and Learn

It seems to me that perhaps a way of addressing the concerns so far mentioned (maintaining quality control, avoiding alienating and frightening newbie editors, yet still encouraging more contribution) would be linking a Be Bold campaign to an educational campaign that encourages new and anon editors not just to edit, but to learn how to edit. At the moment, although the edit links are very prominent, and anon editors are encouraged to register, they are not similarly directed to material that would help them grasp the basic tenets of Wikipedia style, etiquette, and philosophy. And although that information is certainly available through the various Community pages, finding it can be quite a daunting and bewildering search through the forest of links and titles.

I've experienced this myself firsthand, because I'm one of those people who wants to know as much as possible about something before touching it, for fear of making a mistake. When I first came to Wikipedia, I spent at least a day and a half wading and wending my way through the dozens, if not hundreds, of various help and community pages, studying how to contribute before I'd so much as edit a typo. I'm almost certainly in the minority in degree of fastidiousness, and I imagine plenty of people get bewildered and frustrated trying to find some good, sensible help on editing in an "approved" fashion. Then they either go away, intimidated...or jump in, flounder, and get bitten. Neither seems very fair.

In my opinion, most people who try to edit, rather than vandalize, are in good faith and probably would not mind putting in a few minutes of reading if the basic need-to-know list was determined, streamlined and made very available to them. (Perhaps a prominent infobox directing them to such a page in the same area anon editors are invited to register or login?) Once they had that information, then they could be encouraged heartily to be bold and try some editing, or try finding projects and groups they're suited to for more guidance.

I have some further thoughts on how newbie education could be touched up, but how does this strike others so far? —PaperTruths(talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

‎03:48, 30 June 2010

I like your thinking PT. I have made a suggestion "I think something..." Do you think it might be a way of easing readers into good editorship?

Anthonyhcole‎13:33, 30 June 2010
 

Editing side

A successful 'Be Bold' campaign would start with efforts to meter the response of Wikipedians to contributions by said 'Be Bold'ers. Some steps might be, to institute a warning system to those that reverted constructive, good faith edits, even to established pages. The warning would stress the importance of explaining a reversion and/or attempting a discussion before reverting. New pages should be allowed to stand for a much longer time before being ripped apart with template messages and or nominated for deletion. Perhaps flagged revisions helps some in this regard. Of course, this proposal is counter to a number of efforts to improve wikipedia, but perhaps a 'cabinet of rival [proposals]' a la Lincoln is a good thing for Wikipedia.71.137.193.188 04:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

71.137.193.188‎04:02, 30 June 2010
Retrieved from "http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_talk:A_%22be_bold%22_campaign&oldid=72343#Editing_side_5900"