Contributor training . . .

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:May 2011 Update

It's a good thought to be "OK to be bold" but the fact is that you will likely have your article deleted in ways that will confuse you utterly. The whole issue of NPOV is much too academic for most newcomers (even being called a "newbie" may be humiliating); and the first AfD (article for deletion) notice you get will undoubtedly make your heart sink and leave you floundering and unable to figure out what to do. So you will let it unfold and walk away in despair when it goes against you for no reason you can understand. You may not even know that you are supposed to argue in favor of your article on a special page. (what is a talk page anyway?). Deletions are at the heart of the issues as the survey points out repeatedly, and os it should be much harder to delete and more help given to new editors who try to create. Otherwise, silently editing and being a good citizen is th only alternative, and not a very satisfying one.

Imersion13:33, 6 May 2011

I appreciate your taking the time to respond. However, considering that Wiki is in the process of trying to attract and keep editors "frustration," "floundering," "humiliating," and "despair" not a good way to do that. Not judging just an opinion.

An example. I wanted to change one word in a sentence from "established" to "current" and someone called OrengeMarker man said "current" was derogatory. Like give me a break.

If that's how inflexible some are going to be then screw it.

TDurden52700:34, 10 May 2011

OrangeMarlin wrote "deprecated", not "derogatory". "Deprecated" means "not recommended to use". And both of you user funnier English than mine. (Like, OPrangeMarlin wrote "no scientific consensus doesn't change suddenly", so his sentence is quite flexible both ways. :-)

Max Longint01:26, 10 May 2011

Thanks Max - I stand corrected on the mistake of Deprecated vs. derogatory.

I'm not sure how certain words are determined to be deprecated. Can you tell me?

As far as how fast scientific consensus changes, it is a small matter to me.

Thanks.

BTW, after reading OrengeM mans talk page I consider him a disgrace to Wikipedia. I support a permanent ban on him.

TDurden52718:30, 22 May 2011