Quality and talk pages

Quality and talk pages

The Talk page can lead to improved quality of articles on WP. Although this mechanism is working already after a fashion, its benefits would become more apparent with better discipline.

My observations are based upon technical articles, and not articles of a more general nature.

Discussion of technical articles requires some expertise. Generally speaking Administrators lack sufficient expertise to intervene as Administrators so as to regulate the technical content of such discussion. However, they could be of great help in regulating the conduct of such discussion, particularly by enforcement of guidelines governing behavior such as WP:NPA, WP:Civil and so forth. Unfortunately, they often consider themselves capable of administrating content-related guidelines like WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:Soap; WP:Fringe and so on. The uninformed actions of an armed belligerent destroy Talk page discussion, and lead to adversaries trying to cultivate bureaucracy instead of discussion.

It is my view that creating a cadre of "senior editors" will exacerbate such abuses of Talk pages, because such "senior editors" will be hard to identify, and will tend to stray beyond their true expertise. Instead, the already existing Administrators should be encouraged to focus upon maintenance of interchange on Talk pages, and regulate conduct to facilitate useful exchange.

Guidelines may need to be improved to guide this intervention. For example, the use of content related guidelines like WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:Soap; WP:Fringe and so on, by Talk page participants should be required to provide explicit backup using WP:Diffs (and not be used as unsupported pejoratives to stifle talk). Catcalls, sneers, cheer leading, me too's, and other crowd psychology behavior should be clamped down. That is, a regulation of conduct is needed, not a judgment by Administrators as to the validity of assertions.

It is my view that Talk page discussion can lead to better articles, and will be more able to do so if a focus upon guidelines that catalyze discussion, rather than regulating its content, are enforced strictly, universally upon all participants, and at an early stage. Authority must be directed at conduct, not content.

Brews ohare20:03, 21 January 2010

Well, firstly the behaviour of admins won't necessarily be in the least affected if this recommendation would be implemented. They can monitor conduct anyway, and they probably should do so.

Also the "senior editor" (as envisioned here) is not intended to be an authority on the particular topic he is asked to help out with: he is supposed to be an experienced Wikipedian, with a commitment to the core values. He is supposed to help guide the process of putting together a quality page.

But indeed much will depend on the details of how this is implemented; how to test for "commitment to the core values"? What powers will the senior editor get. Etc. - Brya 05:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brya05:57, 22 January 2010
 

The "senior editor" would be a trusted user, selected for skills and experience, and for commitment to core polices (NOR, NPoV and V-policies).

I believe this is exactly opposite to what is needed to improve the quality of WP. It simply introduces some more administrators that can bully Talk page discussions when their "expert" status is misapplied.

A better approach is to encourage existing Administrators to focus upon conduct, not content. That means NOR, NPoV and V-policies should not be the focus, because they require judgment of content. Rather CIVIL, NPA, AGF, DIS and so forth should be the emphasis. If Talk pages become useful discussion pages, instead of being used for entertainment and ego satisfaction, the articles content will reflect sensible consensus instead of the opinion of the (possibly) arrogant majority or oligarchy. Prompt and unbiased policing of bad behavior (easily done without reference to content, and based strictly upon conduct) will catalyze actual discussion in place of the present Jerry Springer Show tactics. It also will bring in participants with something to say that cannot be bothered with a melee.

Brews ohare20:20, 22 January 2010
  1. You are repeating yourself
  2. "Prompt and unbiased policing of bad behavior (easily done without reference to content, and based strictly upon conduct)" may avoid "the present Jerry Springer Show tactics." but will in itself not avoid users from sabotaging discussions. It is quite possible to be completely unconstructive while maintaing a perfectly polite mien. - Brya 06:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Brya06:02, 23 January 2010
 

Yes, not all problems are solved, particularly deliberate sabotage. But some problems would be solved, possibly the worst.

Brews ohare07:45, 23 January 2010

Yes, but it is a separate point. Both policies could be pursued independently. - Brya 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brya04:46, 24 January 2010