Hi everyone! In this section are general assignments for you to complete, to avoid having to repeat them over for each of you. Of course, you can stll expect to receive individualized assignments.
Hi everyone. The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. This is also the secton to suggest new topics of discussions. Don't be shy, just add another subheading for whichever issue you think we should discuss! There's also a question and answer section further down the page.
Please share your observations and opinions below about how Wikipedia is evolving and changing over time, for better or for worse....
One thing I've noticed over the past few months is the proliferation of tags, like citation and reference tags, and other "what's wrong with this article" tags. Concerning citation tags, the push for verfication has intensified, but the general approach of those doing the pushing seems to be to tag articles and then delete the unreferenced material if nobody else adds citations, rather than tracking down references themselves.
At the same time, at Wikipedia's front end, new users are cordially welcomed and encouraged to just jump in and edit Wikipedia, with very little mention or guidance concerning references. Little do they know that their material is subject to removal if they don't cite sources.
The two above efforts are working at cross-purposes -- one creates content, and the other deletes it. I see this as an incredible waste of resources. What do you think should be done about it?
The Transhumanist 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Fox/Virtual classroom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
As someone who's been an active editor and administrator for 3+ years, I think it is ridiculous that the way we edit articles on Wikipedia hasn't changed substantially at all in that period, yet the state of Wikipedia itself has changed completely. Frankly, Wikipedia doesn't need causal contributors any more. We have every important subject covered and then some. What we are in desperate need for are real editors and fact checkers (by "editor" I mean something similar to a book or newspaper editor). We need to implement some form of approved versions and we probably need to semi-protect all of our featured articles, so that they don't require constant effort to keep them from slipping back into mediocrity. Every year a higher and higher percentage of Wikipedia edits are edits that are immediately reverted for one reason or another. This isn't because we're all reversion-crazy and love to spend all of our free time reverting other people's edits. It's because most Wikipedia articles are in a fairly acceptable state (at least as far as amount of information) so edits made by Wikipedia tourists generally aren't that useful (especially because they are rarely backed up with citations). This religious adherence to allowing anyone to edit anything is eventually going to have to evolve into something a bit more structured if we're ever going to take Wikipedia to the next level (a reliable encyclopedia). How about "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit if they are willing to provide a source"? Kaldari 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering myself, with all these {{fact}} tags all over, how long something with a tag is supposed to stay. The meaning of life article was a perfect example: half of the article was eligible for erasure. Smokizzy ( talk) 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that one of Wikipedia's major problems is the process through which users become administrators. Currently, in order for an RfA to pass, the user tends to require several thousand edits, several months of experience, and, in many cases, a featured article promotion. That is a pile of nonsense. For example, in my RfA, the comments opposing my promotion were almost identical to the arguments listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Most users who run for adminship are probably unlikely to abuse the tools. If we were to simply promote almost every user who requested adminship, simply running through a quick check of the user's edits first, it would be unlikely to cause much damage. The few bad promotions could be rapidly undone, and the good promotions wouldn't cause damage. Although I do consider that to not be a good idea, I think that RfA should be more like AfD; that is, promotion is based on the value of the arguments presented for/against the user than on the number. Currently, several oppose votes based solely on the user's age can outweigh a support vote with a paragraph or more of well-reasoned text explaining how a user would make a good admin. For example, in my RfA, I may have passed had I not mentioned my age on my userpage. That is clearly at least a minor sign of problems with the adminship system. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::How do i restrict users from editing my userpage or subpages and allow only me or the administrators to edit the pages without having to have it page-protected, i've found references on Mediawiki but it doesn't seem secure is there a different way like a script which i could insert into the monobook.
→Dust
Rider→ 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Each participant here has a subpage, listed below, upon which to receive assignments and advice, and where to complete assignments and ask questions.
Coaches' coaching pages (you get to coach us! If you see an area in which we can improve, we really want to know.):
Archives:
Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.
Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The reality is that participants in RfA can and do post almost anything you can imagine as the reasons for their votes. Some don't post any reason at all. Many vote based on misconceptions or to further a personal agenda. Many just vote the way others do, in the so-called "pile-on" fashion. And many vote based upon a customized personal standard.
The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.
The last chart on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards shows how Wikipedia's article base is growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted. Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait.
Fortunately, RfA is the only place on Wikipedia that personal attacks are allowed. But it is unfortunate that they are allowed at all. The Transhumanist 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins. The Transhumanist 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone! In this section are general assignments for you to complete, to avoid having to repeat them over for each of you. Of course, you can stll expect to receive individualized assignments.
Hi everyone. The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. This is also the secton to suggest new topics of discussions. Don't be shy, just add another subheading for whichever issue you think we should discuss! There's also a question and answer section further down the page.
Please share your observations and opinions below about how Wikipedia is evolving and changing over time, for better or for worse....
One thing I've noticed over the past few months is the proliferation of tags, like citation and reference tags, and other "what's wrong with this article" tags. Concerning citation tags, the push for verfication has intensified, but the general approach of those doing the pushing seems to be to tag articles and then delete the unreferenced material if nobody else adds citations, rather than tracking down references themselves.
At the same time, at Wikipedia's front end, new users are cordially welcomed and encouraged to just jump in and edit Wikipedia, with very little mention or guidance concerning references. Little do they know that their material is subject to removal if they don't cite sources.
The two above efforts are working at cross-purposes -- one creates content, and the other deletes it. I see this as an incredible waste of resources. What do you think should be done about it?
The Transhumanist 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Fox/Virtual classroom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
As someone who's been an active editor and administrator for 3+ years, I think it is ridiculous that the way we edit articles on Wikipedia hasn't changed substantially at all in that period, yet the state of Wikipedia itself has changed completely. Frankly, Wikipedia doesn't need causal contributors any more. We have every important subject covered and then some. What we are in desperate need for are real editors and fact checkers (by "editor" I mean something similar to a book or newspaper editor). We need to implement some form of approved versions and we probably need to semi-protect all of our featured articles, so that they don't require constant effort to keep them from slipping back into mediocrity. Every year a higher and higher percentage of Wikipedia edits are edits that are immediately reverted for one reason or another. This isn't because we're all reversion-crazy and love to spend all of our free time reverting other people's edits. It's because most Wikipedia articles are in a fairly acceptable state (at least as far as amount of information) so edits made by Wikipedia tourists generally aren't that useful (especially because they are rarely backed up with citations). This religious adherence to allowing anyone to edit anything is eventually going to have to evolve into something a bit more structured if we're ever going to take Wikipedia to the next level (a reliable encyclopedia). How about "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit if they are willing to provide a source"? Kaldari 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering myself, with all these {{fact}} tags all over, how long something with a tag is supposed to stay. The meaning of life article was a perfect example: half of the article was eligible for erasure. Smokizzy ( talk) 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that one of Wikipedia's major problems is the process through which users become administrators. Currently, in order for an RfA to pass, the user tends to require several thousand edits, several months of experience, and, in many cases, a featured article promotion. That is a pile of nonsense. For example, in my RfA, the comments opposing my promotion were almost identical to the arguments listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Most users who run for adminship are probably unlikely to abuse the tools. If we were to simply promote almost every user who requested adminship, simply running through a quick check of the user's edits first, it would be unlikely to cause much damage. The few bad promotions could be rapidly undone, and the good promotions wouldn't cause damage. Although I do consider that to not be a good idea, I think that RfA should be more like AfD; that is, promotion is based on the value of the arguments presented for/against the user than on the number. Currently, several oppose votes based solely on the user's age can outweigh a support vote with a paragraph or more of well-reasoned text explaining how a user would make a good admin. For example, in my RfA, I may have passed had I not mentioned my age on my userpage. That is clearly at least a minor sign of problems with the adminship system. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::How do i restrict users from editing my userpage or subpages and allow only me or the administrators to edit the pages without having to have it page-protected, i've found references on Mediawiki but it doesn't seem secure is there a different way like a script which i could insert into the monobook.
→Dust
Rider→ 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Each participant here has a subpage, listed below, upon which to receive assignments and advice, and where to complete assignments and ask questions.
Coaches' coaching pages (you get to coach us! If you see an area in which we can improve, we really want to know.):
Archives:
Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.
Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The reality is that participants in RfA can and do post almost anything you can imagine as the reasons for their votes. Some don't post any reason at all. Many vote based on misconceptions or to further a personal agenda. Many just vote the way others do, in the so-called "pile-on" fashion. And many vote based upon a customized personal standard.
The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.
The last chart on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards shows how Wikipedia's article base is growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted. Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait.
Fortunately, RfA is the only place on Wikipedia that personal attacks are allowed. But it is unfortunate that they are allowed at all. The Transhumanist 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins. The Transhumanist 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)