Office of Advocate missing

I am speaking from en: wikipedia experience. A good deal of new user's frustration arises when them suddenly find themselves in a rejective environment, and quite often this is not entirely their fault. It is possible to compile a long list of scenarios how this can happen (or it already exists somewhere?). When the topic is rather active, them can quickly run into rather balanced numbers of "friends" and "foes", and their point of view may be quickly defended or at least reasonably discussed, so that there is no outright and complete alienation. However I strognly suspect that with the growth of wikipedia the ratio of "bubbling active" topics decreases, and the numbers of "walled gardens" and "owned" (or "abandoned") articles increase. It is increasingly often that nontrivial contributions of a new user (even not so new; just a "newcomer" to the subject) are reverted with edit summary of type "IDONTLIKEIT, discuss in talk page first". (Needless to say, if you are so smart and I am so freshman, then why don't you start the talkpage discussion yourself and thus show a good example?). I can go on with such scenarios. And in these situations the newbie more often than not finds themselves alone against the alphabet soup of rules they violated in the process of a dispute.

While "Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of terrible ideas", it increasingly becomes a cross-section/snapshot/mirror/etc. of the whole wide world. An important trait of a mature society is specialization of its members. In wikipedia, some are good at deletion of bad articles, while others are good at making bad articles into good ones. Some find fun in frequenting policy pages, while others prefer to write content nonstop and hate policymakers either for their alleged putting policy sticks into the wheels or for their alleged failure to write good policies to protect "good guys" (depending on the side of the fence :-).

Just the same, time has come to introduce a new specialization: an advocate for poor, wronged, and depraved (or not). Until now only punisment has been "swift and just". An advocate must be a "speaker for a defendant" He must be of calm and polite demeanor, well versed in policies. Quite often a newcomer, unaccustomed to slow pace of discussions, and other peculiarities of wikipedia, gets frustrated and quickly shoots themselves in the foot. Quite often he is skilfully goaded into this, by a rather large number of ways, ranging from logical blunders via ignoring of arguments to outright demagogy. Relegating the interaction with the opponents to an advocate would have prevented this.

Notice that this office is distinct from that of "mentor" or "mediator".

OK. I have written a lot, and possibly not very coherently. Does anyone else see some reason in my suggestion? Altenmann 23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point. At times I've tried to side with the new editors, but it is difficult to do so one on one. They can be very active, or very annoyed, or drop out of sight, and even when you side with them, it is still only an argument. I feel like it would be better to have a group of advocates who can take up a cause and agree on principles, facts, and outcomes (much as ArbCom does, but obviously ArbCom won't be involved if the advocate is even slightly successful) Wnt 00:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree with whatever point you see in my suggestion. However this is not what I meant. I am not suggesting "a lower circuit court" or "miniArbCom". I am suggesting an Advocate, who speaks for someone. Example: A newbie wants to say "Keep your islamic bullshit off this page" Advocate actions: (1) translate: "While the islamic viewpoint does exist, in this article it must be clearly described as such, rather than as an unambiguous fact". (2) explain to the newbie the translation, i.e., which wikipedia policies are involved and (3) Explain the newcomer what was wrong with his text. EXCERCISE: Can you? Are you fit for the bar? Altenmann 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Altenmann, the research we've done at the Wikimedia Foundation supports what you're saying here -- your description of new people's frustrations is accurate.

I like your Advocate idea, for a couple of reasons. First, lapsed editors have told us that one of the reasons they leave is because Wikipedia doesn't feel sufficiently welcoming or personal: as new editors, they felt isolated, alone, unnoticed. On the flip side, successful editors have often told me that one of the keys to their longevity may have been the fact that they were noticed and spoken with early by a more experienced editor -- someone who commented on their work, helped them do something they were struggling with, or praised them for something they did well. Even interactions that we might define as neutral rather than supportive ---like being taught a particular piece of wiki-syntax, or being nudged towards a helpful policy page--- people have experienced as encouraging and helpful, when they happened one-on-one rather than via a template. People like to be noticed by other people, they like to feel like their work matters, is wanted, and is taken seriously :-)

It's also obviously true that editing Wikipedia today requires much greater policy knowledge than it used to (the alphabet soup that you mentioned). Currently it's tough to edit Wikipedia in part because the editing interface is so complex. But usability improvements won't help with policy complexity. So yes, I agree that one-on-one coaching and hand-holding WRT policies is valuable to help new editors as they get acclimated, and it will continue to be valuable.

Great idea! but why stop there. As a mature society specialization is indeed called for. Why not also reduce the power of anyone to delete or vote on deletions? Create a specialized group of deleters, a police force for wiki that is trained in helpful editing and allow only them to delete and propose for deletion, with special tools at their disposal. Advocacy and help is great, but restrict the power of deletion to specialists!

I'm inclined to agree with this. Many users are far too trigger-happy when it comes to deletions, and much that could be saved with work gets deleted. But that's just my opinion.

Dear Sue, imho it is high time to go slash-and-burn a lot of policy. Someone once joked the BBC is essentially HMRC (UK Tax Service) with a broadcast antenna. WP of 2011 feels equally ossified.

I also side with this, though I am not actually wedded to the details as yet. I am not sure that the advocate should be the most important office; maybe a sort of backstop though.

I dunno. What I am beginning to say here is not yet even a half-baked idea, but... Maybe most of what we want could be dealt with on a blogging basis. Blogs can be very constructive places, even if most of them are a waste of time. I wonder whether we could not encourage a format in which writing and discussion are encouraged on each topic, everyone interested contributing what he pleases and arguing as he pleases, until something emerges suitable for retention?

Have a look at the likes of http://www.physicsforums.com/ Some quite high-powered stuff appears there with little policing. I realise the the results don't look like WP, but they don't try to make it look like that. If we can achieve some of the merits of both systems...?

Your example of physicsforums seems to agree with the main point: specialization. You can get powerful stuff when you have specialized experts. In a wide ranging common sense database there are no experts on everything, and so you need a specialized constabulary and judiciary to keep order. This is particularly true when deletions are the main source of frustration and emigration. The rules need to be applied fairly and consistently, so that the rest of the public citizen editors can harmonize communally and enjoy each other's contributions without fear.

Well, I can largely go with that. Minor res... well, make that "substantial reservations...

Practically every article is a specialist article. (Same for threads. eg in physics forum I have contributed to threads in the biology sub-forum, as well as threads in other sub-forums, and never the twain did meet (weeeellll... haaardly ever...)). One of the strengths of WP is that specialists can write semi-literate articles that can be tidied up by literate non-specialists in the relevant disciplines, and be corrected and updated by the semi-literates in turn. (Not all specialists are semi-literate of course; it would be an ambitious English major who would fiddle with anything written by say, Medawar or the best of Dawkins! In other disciplines, I might mention say, Tyndall, Wells, Julian Huxley, Faraday... never mind -- let's just say that knowledgeable people can be good writers but some of them are not, but can be helped out in the WP environment.)

The mere fact that it can take specialists for meta-tasks like policing, means that they are likely not to be specialists in the content of the primary material being policed. This makes it very important that access to ombudsmen (specialists of course, if possible) should be at once easy, reasonable and obvious.

Bottom line is that "reasonability" is most important, far more so than consistency and perceptions of fairness. The latter can be patched up in due course if people are reasonable; the converse is less often true.

Well anyway, I reckon we are largely on the same wavelength.

An interesting slip of the tongue ("In a wide ranging common sense database"), which is quite revealing. Very many users would not know what an encyclopedia was even if they were hit over the head with it, but are working on a database (something else entirely). Also, the "common sense" has little enough to do with an encyclopedia: "common sense" is often a synonym for "misapprehension".

But, yes, an Advocate might be a good idea, in theory. In practice I expect any Advocate to be inundated with the querulous and naive, while any genuine issues may well be very labour-intensive. - Brya 05:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your critique and observations, but would like to add, that EVERY admin SHOULD be an advocate

Quite right, but.....!!!

Sorry, but there is no SHOULD can be. Everybody has specific skills and inclinations. (Not to say wikipedians are volunteers) Some people just hate to babysit, but this does not make them bad admins. The position that wikipedians must have a reasonable "degree of adulthood" and be ready to answer for themselves is valid. But some are willing to help others to reach this "degree", while others have skills only to assess it.

On the other hand, your statement may be read as "EVERY admin SHOULD possess traits you listed for an advocate". Then I cannot help but agree. And even more: "EVERY wikipedian SHOULD possess traits you listed for an advocate". But this is but an unreachable ideal.

Oh my, I am becoming senile. w:Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates existed during 2003--2007, but failed. Is anyone willing to analyze the history?

Good ideas can be implemented badly; and it may take many tries to get an Advocate project right. There seems to be an unfounded dislike of lawyers for Wiki. How is it that there are so many lawyers in the US? They must be doing something right. Surely no one wants to return to the era of personal revenge ala Hatfield and McCoys, but it seems we have a little of that in Wiki; and I suggest it stems from an absence of the Rule of law or in our case, rule of regulations. WE need a way to make existing regs work, and lawyers and a judiciary and constabulary (or their Wiki versions) are really needed. Imersion 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point. Wikipedia prides itself on having central policies (NOR, NPoV, etc), but I have never seen anybody blocked for violating them, no matter how bad the transgression. On the other hand I have seen admins violating these central policies, more often than I like. There is no rule of law on Wikipedia, only interpersonal politics.

(Some things are acted against, such as overly flagrant copyright violations, but it is form which is being guarded, not content) - Brya 15:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of rigorous discussion Wiki relies on consensus, and most of the time it works fine. However, a consensus of fools is still foolish. A consensus of well - intentioned, studious novices can reach workmanlike conclusions. But really, it takes some expertise adn a consensus of experts to produce high quality work; and they have to work at it, not just throw it away. Just as academia and the world of work is specialized, so shoudl Wiki strive to create specialists as well. There should be training programs; self assessment tools; and a whole blackboard of materials to help those who want to reach greater expertise. If they do, they should be rewarded with certificates and access to power tools commensurate with their higher status. This is not a simple process, but Wiki has reached a state of excellence where it is needed if continued high quality is the consensus need. I disagree with those who say the low hanging fruit has been harvested: there is still lots more; but for those areas that need sustained improvement and maintenance, a new system is, in my opionion, now needed.

For some topics consensus does work, especially where there are many who are knowledgable on the topic. For other topics it works poorly or not at all ("We hold this Truth to be the Consensus").

It is disappointing to see this argument crop up again, of Wikipedia as a society on its own, with a better breed of man, closed off from the Bad World Out There. Not the best encyclopedia that could be built, but the best encyclopedia that Wikipedians can build. Knowledge on specialized topics is not so easily gained, and it is pure arrogance to claim that Wikipedians are an exception. Isolationism (the Cult of the Amateur, which proves to lead to a real horror show, in not so few places).

Of course, it would be nice if Wikipedia could have self-assesment tools, which would help users realize what is their proper level. However, I cannot think of something that lends itself more to being gamed. - Brya 05:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Imersion, "lawyers and a judiciary and constabulary" you mention are abound in wikipedia. I am of poor English, and I am worried why my term "Advocate" is confused for "a lawyer". Wikipedia does not need no more no wikilawyers. In fact, "Wikilawyering" has become an insult. My point is that there are way much more than enough people ready to punish a new newcomer, but there seems no office to defend a newcomer, to shield a newcomer from the jungle of wikilaws and from oldtimers. I am sure the latter ones mean no personal harm. It is only they are overstressed and underpaid (wait, not paid at all :-) and have no time to babysit and babytalk a newbie when their pet article is about to be vandalized by an old seasoned pov-pusher. Actual implementation of Wikipedia's "Do not bite" policy requires waste of time on non-productive efforts, not directly related to contributing. It takes a good deal of elevation in the goal recognition to understand that allowing more hands would increase the overall productivity, although your personal productivity (in your favorite subject) will be set back.

Therefore my call was for looking for people who are good at helping others. Not just good at this, but feel good when doing this. (Just like most of wikipedians feel good when editing.) This is goal of my suggested Office of Advocate is: not for enforcing the rules nor training people to follow or circumnavigate the rules, but to help people.

I don't know (and lazy to learn) what went bad with the AMA I mentioned at the top, but I see what's wrong with the current "Mediation Cabal" in en: wikipedia. Many times I saw that a completely clueless person undertakes the role of a mediator. What is worse, recently I noticed a really disturbing case. One guy (call him 'client') requested a mediation. It sat in the queue for some time, and finally was accepted. Suddenly the 'client' notices that mediator's account was created 2 days ago! What do you think the 'client' was thinking? The same stumbling block is for Advocates.

An editor has an immediate and everlasting gratification (unless his contributions are deleted :-) The one who patrols newpages and stuff has a price of a police sorry, peace officer: Keep this garbage and vandal scum at bay. And this feeling of the power... But the work of an Advocate or Mediator, etc., seems to lack these sources of "goodfeel". In search of one, I may put forth the following suggestion:

In applications for the admin rights, the successful work of an Advocate must count favorably and highly. This work would readily demonstrate both hands-on experience with policies and human skills expected from an admin.

OK I think your suggestion for including helping advocacy as an important criterion for admin rights seesm like a just and good step. But I think you should not disdain training and self assessment as vehicles fro getting there either. Wikilawyering is such a pejorative term in wikipedia,that creating a judiciary and constabulary probably is impractical and beyond the bounds; but that itself seems a basic problem in wiki culture: it avoids thoughtful and human solutions in favor of hip, flippant kluges that are fundamentally flawed --- and so o o o (for instance) POV deletions trump incremental aggregations and improvements.

re: "a basic problem in wiki culture": deficiency of "thoughtful and human solutions" is a basic problem of anonymous online communication culture, observed way before the advent of 'internets', not to say wiki. the problem is lies in an inherent contradiction: "human solutions" cannot be implemented in a mechanical way: humans quickly screw them up or circumvent. The only solution is to change the humans themselves. And history show this is a long, gradual evolution, over generations. This evolution can only be guided, not prescribed.

Some complain here to the end that this wikimedia statement is but waving hands and preaching. Well, wikipedia has plenty of rules and processes already. That they not always work is because they are underused, misused and abused. Do we need the policies on how to use the policies? Do we need to have a rule on how to "discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls"? Well, I have a good one: block for failure to "repel trolls".

I guess I have too little experience with Wiki. I have encountered no trolls yet and have no idea what to do If I did; so I guess I do not know what you mean by failure to repel trolls. Please expalin, and is this a new thread or is t related to building advocates?

It was a joke. My point was that some commenters seem to expect from the 'Resolution:Openness' too much: they seem to have expected to see a ready-to-use recipe how to make everything OK, and make it right now. Well, the document must be read for what it is: a mission statement, a "new-year resolution". It must be taken on a personal level, not on bureaucratic level. Making rules less complicates or more complicated and then enforcing them is useless for advancement of this mission. An extreme case was communism. The ultimate goal was noble: to make all people equal, good, and happy. But to make it "fast and now" the solution was to kill all who was not equal, good, or happy, rather than to wait for people to gradually become good, equal and happy. While capitalism does not look ideal society, there is a vast difference between 19th century, with teenagers working 12 hours a day, and today. Just the same, I say, en: wikipedia has changed a lot in 10 years. And it will continue to change. And the goal of any mission statement is to nudge the course of change in right direction, rather to prescribe some rules and laws. Altenmann 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)