Summary section discussion
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:22.214.171.124
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.
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. ^_^
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.
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. ^.^
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.