Proposal talk:Be nice/en

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Per en:w:wikipedia:be nice this proposal is an existing feature. However WP:NICE doesn't show any link to other languages. We'll have some translation work to do. Dedalus 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian

PS: Loui, I already told you I'm not nice. But since you given up on me for a long time ago, so here goes... :p (serenity)

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 00:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully people will want to stay around and be constructive. Some "unconstructive editors" may be persuaded to change their ways. Conflict resolution is a key skill on some pages.
I'm not too sure about the level of impact this would have. You can't change people overnight. I have a feeling that impolite negative critisism will continue anyway. Perhaps its effect on recent editors could be set off by increasing more positive feedback, possibly on the basis of an automated statistical approach.Ipigott 10:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging

The following 2 sections were merged into this talk page from Proposal talk:Don’t pick on people:

This is not really a proposal. It mirrors existing policies. If there is uncivil behavior, it should be dealt with in a specific and transparent way. If the person being victimized is not willing to stand up and make/defend a complaint, there is not much the rest of us can do…especially not at a policy level. -Peteforsyth 18:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

there's clearly a problem, pete. he went through the trouble to write a proposal here, after all. and if you think this is a rare occurance you are sadly mistaken. just exactly what could he do, someone is ruining his experience at wikipedia. should he spend hours and hours figuring out how to get justice? or more likely, he will just leave, maybe by getting himself blocked by putting an insult on the attackers page.
so something is wrong, lets think constructively -- how can we prevent the hazing he speaks of?
1) ban wikistalking. no following users around and reverting their edits on pages you aren't even interested in.
2) enforce some sort of "no ownership" rules, where users have to leave a page for a period of time after doing a lot of non-content adding edits. like, if you have edited a page for more than 7 days in a 2 week period, you are blocked from editing that page for a while. you can still edit wikipedia, just not that page (and maybe not pages in the same category?)
3) make it easy to report annoying users. if you are reverted, you get a message that says "is this user annoying you?" with a link to explain why. the reverter gets the message and can self-revert or defend himself if wanted, otherwise the complaint goes to some review board. your average editor has no idea how to do this on his own (including me!)
4) complaints against admins treated with much more scrutiny -- they are much more able to harrass because of their knowledge of wikipedia and other admins, as well as ability to block users.
thoughts? 202.111.2.186 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not rare

It is hard to say if this user is justified in his comments, but in practice Wikistalking certainly is not rare. - Brya 05:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding to both comments above -- if my initial comment seemed unsympathetic, I'm sorry. I don't deny that this sort of thing happens, far from it. My point -- and I should have spelled it out better to begin with -- is that a strategic proposal should suggest a solution. The author of this "proposal" may have been treated badly, and may want to report on that. That's OK. But in terms of a strategic planning process, I think something called a "proposal" should actually propose a course of action. The 4 items listed above, any of those maybe could be the kernel of a proposal; but as it stands, I don't think that the "Don't pick on people" document is a proposal. That's not to say it's untrue, or that what it describes isn't unfortunate; it just isn't a proposal, and there should be further work done on it, if there's a desire to have it considered seriously. -Peteforsyth 08:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, makes sense Pete, you are right, it is not detailed enough to be a real proposal. I'm guessing the original proposer may be long gone? 202.111.2.186 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Added suggestions, moved from proposal

Ideas on how to be nice

  1. Make clear to newcomers and everyone especially via Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial whether Wikipedia is a recreational editing site or a serious encyclopedia for people to look up information in. The fact is “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” means to the subconscious “the purpose of this site is editing. Thus, go ahead and edit for the sake of doing so.”
  2. Replace "patroling" with "teaching." Teaching rather than warning seems a better attitude for being nice.
  3. Don’t allow grading of someone's writing -- especially grading with talk page warnings. The use of warnings and threats shows you can’t explain your opinion and are probably wrong. It is also taking time away from your own writing. Grading someone’s writing to be uncivil is especially wrong. Grading is not writing. Delete warning templates made for the purpose of grading since the people who use them might be wrong.
  4. Encourage people via the site’s main directions to slow down and do their edits in their user spaces, and to then ask Administrators to review their edits to determine if they should bother moving their edits into the real articles involved.

20:43, 6 February 2010 by Chuck Marean

P.S. see also this proposal- Brya 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)