| Revision as of 08:20, 30 September 2009 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,168 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:21, 30 September 2009 edit undoVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,168 edits →Edit warring is good for you (and for Misplaced Pages)Next edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a ] headline. What I mean is that '''some''' edit warring is good. To understand this we need to look at the encyclopedia from two very different points of view; that of the "''bureaucratic administrator''" and that of the "''content creating drone''" (i.e. non-admin ]) | Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a ] headline. What I mean is that '''some''' edit warring is good. To understand this we need to look at the encyclopedia from two very different points of view; that of the "''bureaucratic administrator''" and that of the "''content creating drone''" (i.e. non-admin ]) | ||
| If you’re an administrator then edit warring is like the '''Worst. Thing. Ever'''. Why? Well, if a particular article is non-stable then sooner or later somebody’s gonna have to '''deal''' with it. Reports will be filed. People will whine. Controversial decisions will have to be made. ] and will show up the next time you go up for , or try to get , or just endeavor to annoy you in general. In other words, if you’re an administrator and there’s edit warring going on, you might actually have to get off your ass and do some of the things that administrators are (warning: unintentional comedy). Which is "]". And nobody likes "]". Come on, be honest, if you were an administrator you’d hate dealing with this crap too! | If you’re an administrator then edit warring is like the '''Worst. Thing. Ever'''. Why? Well, if a particular article is non-stable then sooner or later somebody’s gonna have to '''deal''' with it. Reports will be filed. People will whine. Controversial decisions will have to be made. ] and will show up the next time you go up for , or try to get , or just endeavor to annoy you in general. Dramu will ensue!!!. In other words, if you’re an administrator and there’s edit warring going on, you might actually have to get off your ass and do some of the things that administrators are (warning: unintentional comedy). Which is "]". And nobody likes "]". Come on, be honest, if you were an administrator you’d hate dealing with this crap too! | ||
| But if you’re the little guy who actually writes and edits articles and content, then edit warring … well, it’s not really that big of a deal. It’s just something that happens along the way, as natural as the fact that if you get enough people in the room, at least ]. What you care about, if you’re a content creating editor, is not whether some article is “stable” but rather what the actual … '''content''' of the article ends up being. Like, you know, what's in the actual encyclopedia. | But if you’re the little guy who actually writes and edits articles and content, then edit warring … well, it’s not really that big of a deal. It’s just something that happens along the way, as natural as the fact that if you get enough people in the room, at least ]. What you care about, if you’re a content creating editor, is not whether some article is “stable” but rather what the actual … '''content''' of the article ends up being. Like, you know, what's in the actual encyclopedia. | ||
Revision as of 08:21, 30 September 2009
East European mailing list news
Yes, the East European mailing list is still active and we are still talking about YOU. Yes, YOU, the one in the corner, picking his nose (see 20090929-0666- Those people pick their noses). We've actually been talking for some time about "legitimizing" the list so I decided to "Wiki blog" what's going on. Some of you might want to pay attention, updates are posted randomly.
First some retroactive catching up:
Monday, September 23: We are talking about football. Specifically we are talking about creating articles on Polish interwar football cuz they're ain't many (an exception). Some are also making fun of the pathetic Polish football team .
Tuesday, September 24: General shruggin' of shoulders as to the current situation. Some members have become desperate enough to sip (sip?!? WTF? chug Cabal boy!) German beer.
- East European mailing news list exclusive!!! DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE LIST!!! Exact quote from one of the members commenting on the Arb Com case (this is the real thing folks, I'm not shitting you, somebody actually said this, in reference to all the people that have showed up on the case pages) (20090924-Who you gonna call?)):
- It's as though somebody opened the ghost storage tank of Ghost Busters.
- There you go. Serious EEML bloggin' going on here.
Wednesday, September 25: Peoples are sick. Colds or swine flu? Ostap and Tymek are sure that everyone's lying and they're really just plain ol' hangover.
Thursday, September 27: Germs be spreading. Dc is also "seek". Some members think that the FSB has successfully recruited Autumn as a secret agent. The "hangover theory" still holds sway however.
Friday, September 28: Peters reads over the latest posted at the ArbCom case and comments We've got facts, we don't need sockpuppets.
Saturday, September 29: On Saturdays we all take a pause from our usual plotting and make an effort to appreciate the positive aspects of Soviet culture. This time around, someone who shall not be named, posts a link to the Yunyy Tekhnik (shouldn't that have an article)?
Wednesday, September 30: Conversation has turned to child rearing. Basic consensus: Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Wikipedians.
AfDs
Communist genocide, now under what was supposed to be a compromise title "Mass killings under communist regimes" is up for deletion again . Last time around several of those who voted "delete" stated that they'd be fine if the article title was changed. Lets see if that was honest or empty talk.
Random thought and proposals
Writing new articles vs. improving old ones
Right now there's an institutional Wiki-bias towards creating new articles rather than improving old ones. This is because most editors care most about getting exposure for their work. New articles can be submitted to DYK, which guarantees a good bit of publicity. But improving already existing articles most of the time doesn't get you any kind of recognition. Sure, if you take a crappy article and turn it into a GA you'll get some props. But this takes way way way more work than writing a new article from scratch (about 2 days to write a new DYKable article vs.at least a month and some serious library time to take an article from C-class to GA) for much less publicity (GAs are not guaranteed to be featured on the Main page) and only a small bit of recognition (other people involved in your sub-sub-sub-topic area might notice but that's about it). The problem with incentives for improving existing articles is the huge gulf between a C-class or even a B-class article and a GA. Basically, unless you're willing to seriously commit to an article you get no "Wiki reward" for improving articles at the margin.
One thing that could remedy this is to relax requirements for DYKing already existing articles which have been improved. Right now, it takes a 5X expansion for a already existing article to be DYKable (I'm not sure where this 5X threshold came from - probably from the parallel to the fact that new articles must be at least 5 days old to be DYKable. But this is mixing apples and oranges). As a result the overwhelming majority of DYKs are new articles. If that guidelines got decreased to 2X or 3X, a lot more effort would be devoted to expanding already existing, but orphaned, articles.
This is desirable because Misplaced Pages is already good at scope and quantity - it's got a buttload of articles, more than other encyclopedias - and this is indeed, something to be proud of. What it still struggles with (sucks at?) is quality and detail. Creating real, noticeable and public incentives for article improvement rather than just article creation would restores some balance here.
A "reference sleuth" award, combined with some kind of explicit award in the way of publicity, given to people who do the hard, often unrecognized and much under-appreciated task of just finding sources and reffing articles previously unsourced is also in order. Sure, Misplaced Pages relies on free labor done out of charitable motives by its contributors - but that's no reason not to recognize hard work when it occurs.
Edit warring is good for you (and for Misplaced Pages)
Ok, I don’t mean that literally – I just wanted a heretical headline. What I mean is that some edit warring is good. To understand this we need to look at the encyclopedia from two very different points of view; that of the "bureaucratic administrator" and that of the "content creating drone" (i.e. non-admin shmoe)
If you’re an administrator then edit warring is like the Worst. Thing. Ever. Why? Well, if a particular article is non-stable then sooner or later somebody’s gonna have to deal with it. Reports will be filed. People will whine. Controversial decisions will have to be made. Somebody somewhere will end up pissed off and will show up the next time you go up for recall, or try to get CheckUser, or just endeavor to annoy you in general. Dramu will ensue!!!. In other words, if you’re an administrator and there’s edit warring going on, you might actually have to get off your ass and do some of the things that administrators are supposed to do (warning: unintentional comedy). Which is "work". And nobody likes "work". Come on, be honest, if you were an administrator you’d hate dealing with this crap too!
But if you’re the little guy who actually writes and edits articles and content, then edit warring … well, it’s not really that big of a deal. It’s just something that happens along the way, as natural as the fact that if you get enough people in the room, at least two of them will find an excuse to disagree. What you care about, if you’re a content creating editor, is not whether some article is “stable” but rather what the actual … content of the article ends up being. Like, you know, what's in the actual encyclopedia.
So bureaucratic administrators and content creating editors have different perspectives on this. The first get their panties in a twist over procedures while the latter’s underwear gets all bunched up over outcomes. That’s like the history of the world and I think some Greek philosopher dude had something to say about this and how these two worldviews just will never be reconciled.
Ok, ok, but how is edit warring good for Misplaced Pages? Or for you, yourself, and your POV pushing battle ground having self? Well… think of what would happen if nobody ever reverted your sorry ass. This is one of those things that sound good in theory, but deep down in your BFG heart you know it wouldn’t work well in practice. You’d get lazy, sloppy and stupid. You’d end up writing crappy articles and crappy content, simply because you could get away with it.
Some of the best articles on Misplaced Pages have gone through some serious edit wars. And they are better for it. An edit war – having somebody revert, challenge and fight you every inch, every word of an article – forces you to go to the sources. To do some real research. Inline cite every single word. Think about your own POV and confront it. Spend time at the library and even, Monkeys forbid!, sometimes change your mind. In other words, do what content creating editors are actually suppose to do! Just like bureaucratic admins are supposed to take their time with filed reports, consider the merits, learn something about the subject area and make controversial decisions (it’s why they be given the toolz and the power over the rest of us after all) and have the guts to take a position. Content creating editors are supposed to find reliable sources for every single piece of text they write.
And edit warring is exactly the competitive process which makes sure that they do that.