This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Esperanza page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
Esperanza is officially inactive. Please send any comments about it or the essay on the front page to Wikipedia's Village pump. |
Esperanza was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 30 October 2013. |
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Archives before October 1, 2006
Archives after October 1, 2006 Post organisation discussions Other archived talk pages |
The disposition of Esperanza's programs is displayed below...
Following Esperanza's deletion, is community building still important? The essay should answer this question - especially if the answer is yes. After all, since the essay adequately discusses the negative aspects of Esperanza (for example, the last paragraph), it fails to discuss the positive aspects of Esperanza, so someone reading the essay may get the impression that community building should not occur on Wikipedia. (If that's the case, I rest my case.) -- Kaypoh 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a historical page isn't that historical if just mentions something "has been there". A detailed chronology might be a good idea for all those who appeared to click on those green links.-- Kylohk 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Its goal was to indirectly support the encyclopedia by providing support and other assistance for Wikipedians in need, and by strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. To fulfill this goal, Esperanza initiated numerous programs, which can be seen on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza.
While Esperanza was decentralized for numerous reasons as stated in the second Miscellany for deletion nomination, it should be noted that community building is still important in Wikipedia because it encourages collaboration and cooperation. A large organization is not necessary to build the community that the average editor can build him/herself with other users. In addition, a Wikipedian community should be a cooperative movement to improve the encyclopedia, not a social chatting group.
Please don't change the essay any further than the Steve Block version, for reasons that are obvious even on this very page. If you feel that you must state something about the community, I suggest adding this on at the very end, after the "Let this essay be a warning...":
Yes, the added text has a POV, but hopefully this will address the concerns about community spirit while making it clear that the community is more than Esperanza.
And yes, I know I had said that I was ready to walk away from this essay, but I'm trying to nip this conflict in the bud. Serves me right for having a watchlist with over 2030 items. -- Kyok o 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion from someone with no prior involvement in this issue but thinks it has gone on long enough: The essay here stays as is. Anyone with additional thoughts can put them on a subpage in his or her userspace, and put a link to that page here on talk. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
On Ryan's recommendation, I'm continuing discussion regarding the addition of a paragraph that discusses community building. Kyoko's proposal above is a good example of something that we can add:
Despite the dissolution of Esperanza, community remains an important and even necessary part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Community building should however be a byproduct of the cooperative work on the encyclopedia, rather than the primary goal of Wikipedians. Editors should also remember that Esperanza did not have a monopoly on community spirit; any person who has ever greeted or complimented another person is displaying a sense of community.
Because Esperanza was so closely associated with community building, we must establish the fact that community building is still important, despite Esperanza's decentralization. Dev and I have both stressed the importance of community building here, even though our thoughts about it differed at the time. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and because the expansion of the encyclopedia depends solely on the contributions of its editors, semi active editors, and anons, the details describing the community's importance shouldn't be left out.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Even after the Esperanza page has been submitted to mediation, argued over, agreed upon, and protected, it is still creating conflict. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the only way to satisfy all parties is to do the following:<
1. Leave the current essay unchanged and indefinitely protected.
2. If you want to say something beyond what the current essay says, write your own text on a subpage within your own userspace.
3. Leave a link to your subpage on this talk page.
Please don't press for any changes to the main Esperanza text. It has already been the source of far too much discord. The deletion debates about Esperanza, and the further debates about how it should be described have pretty much guaranteed that Esperanza will be known more for the arguments it engendered than any good it may have done for Wikipedia. -- Kyok o 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore. I had submitted my paragraph suggestion on the assumption that:
My submitted paragraph has already faced opposition, so it fails number 1 on that count. Furthermore, I am very concerned that if the essay is unprotected for further editing, that will only open the way for more drastic and more controversial changes.
I am unwilling to participate in any further discussion about changes to the essay. I can't speak for other people, but thanks to the MfDs, the deletion review, the drawn out mediation, and the attempts to reopen the discussion, Esperanza has caused me far more stress than it has alleviated. I don't want to subject myself to any more stress on its account. Please leave the essay alone and let the whole matter rest. -- Kyok o 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The last sentence of the essay says:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza.
The ending is poor style and includes grammar issues. It should say:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's.
Thank you. -- Cromwellt| talk| contribs 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.
In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent.
I am looking for a copy-editor who:
Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see m:Wikicommunity for a proposal for a new Wikicommunity. This one would not be on Wikipedia itself; it would be a whole new wiki within the Wikimedia aegis. If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recommend deletion of this sentence: "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." It seems inappropriate to include such an imperative since consensus was not reached on adding such a thing to policy as far as I can tell; consensus can change; and there were other reasons cited for deleting Esperanza besides transparency and hierarchical structure.
Failing that, I think we should put the standard essay template up there, warning that it "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Why is this page still protected, anyway? It seems unnecessary. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Request delete Esperanza and make a new Esperanza on http://www.editthis.info or at http://request.wikia.com . Iswatch20 ( talk) 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the simple interwiki link, as it was deleted over there, thanks. 68.2.110.48 ( talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:ACID is now inactive. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a perfect symbol of human nature. We make something great, social, only to destroy it. Hmmm... CHEW ON THAT, DELETIONISTS!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I still think that the core idea of Esperanza (the promotion of Wiki-Love, and the support of the community which is building this encyclopedia) is a good one. (And the name was, in my opinion, an excellent choice.)
Noting that, there are several initiatives, programs, and "drives" which operate throughout Wikipedia userspace and projectspace.
I'd like to see Esperanza restarted as a "noticeboard", and possibly, even (presuming interest) a newsletter.
I'm looking over Template:Cent and thinking that something similar would be useful for this.
Why resusitating the "name" Esperanza? I have several reasons:
Before I became aware of its faults, Esperanza made an impact on me as a wikipedian. The newletters in particular. It really "grabbed" me in how collaboration was fostered, and individuals seemed to be cherished, and supported in Wiki-Love.
In addition, this wasn't the work of a single individual. The creation of Esperanza was honestly a tribute to the "wiki way". Even the logo was. And I believe that Esperanza (in name at least) was/is something that was unique to Wikipedia.
I think that this concept should be able to be revived in a way to embrace the great goals of Wiki-love and the spirit of collaboration, while avoidng the creation of a some exclusive "club". We're all Wikipedians here, and as such, we're all invited to support each other in the spirit of Esperanza.
One thing I ask is to please not shoot at this idea merely out of a sense of the past hurts involved with the previous structure of Esperanza as an organisation. Our goal should be to build toward the future, while remembering the mistakes of the past, not wallowing on them unhealthily.
As such, the main of my proposal would be to move this page and its subpages (to retain the as an historical archive, but to be separate of this proposed "new" Esperanza).
In short, this new proposed Esperanza would be inspired by the many noticeboards, the signpost, and template:Cent, among other things. A centralised discussion board (and possible sub-boards), and possibly even a newsletter for those who may be inetrested.
I welcome discussion on any issues. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. - jc37 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been quite disturbed as of late by the recent, almost radical attempts to resurrect Esperanza (not including jc37's offer), so I feel as a former Esperanzian that I have a duty to set things straight. I understand how the users who want to recreate Esperanza feel; I felt very much the same way when the first MFD came across. However, I feel that their motives are incorrect. Instead of trying to recreate it as a function of a Wikipedian community, it seems that they want to do it only to spite the "deletionists" or to recreate something akin to the cabal debacle we had a while back.
Esperanza was created at a time when Wikipedia was experiencing massive growing pains, the year of 2005. At this time, infamous vandals roamed the wiki, and many admin actions came into question, of which the userbox affair and the VFD deletion stand out. It was therefore natural that Esperanza, an organization of goodwill and thankfulness to help keep users in, was created. Esperanza was readily received by a drama-wracked community, swelling to include an admin committee (actually a caricature of ArbCom, and not so much the bureaucracy it was derided as), the famous (or infamous) coffee lounge, and several other activities that have gone to survive to the present day, including admin coaching and the tutorial drive. I readily admit Esperanza was what got me hooked on Wikipedia. I fondly remember participating in coffee lounge banter, while checking recent changes and my watchlist, working on articles and reverting vandalism while waiting for the next random thread. When Esperanza met its first MFD, I was rather shocked. I expected it to be something that would last as long as Wikipedia existed. The event shook me to the core, but I thank Robth for initiating it, because it caused me to grow out of my juvenile shell and move on. I suddenly became cognizant of policies I had never learned of, and how the community really is divided by terms of inclusionist and deletionist. For this very reason, I thank Esperanza for keeping me on Wikipedia, and I thank the MFDs for helping me finally mature as a user.
Why do I relate this story? Because Editor510, you misinterpret why Esperanza was finally disbanded. Esperanza managed to serve the purpose for which it was created back in 2005, but it could only distract after serving its purpose. It was inevitable that some member of the community start an MFD. Its deletion was not the result of some mean, misanthropic deletionists who had nothing to do but ruin others' fun, nor was it the result of "incontinence and hedonism" weakening it. It was simply the natural, almost Darwikian process that Wikipedia goes through. Consensus changes. And with that consensus, we are obliged to move along with it. Perhaps sometime, consensus will change and a new Esperanza will be created. Perhaps the community will beget something very similar to Esperanza. When I said that Esperanza was hidden, I did not mean a cabal or secret society. I meant that its spirit of camaraderie and of collaboration continues to live on even without a banner where Wikipedians can rally behind. Every nice word, every barnstar is, in a sense, continuing Esperanza. Esperanza means "hope" in Spanish. It is the hope that Wikipedia's quest for knowledge will continue on, and I hope that you will understand that. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could the note about the article creation and improvement drive being inactive be removed? It has recently been revitalized.[
WP:ACID--
Ipatrol (
talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
One more request: admin coaching should now be marked as inactive.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's smack there on the page!-- Ipatrol ( talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} ACID has gone inactive again. -- Yarnalgo talk to me 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
I stumbled onto this page and was rather displeased that the Esperanza page is acting as a "warning":
I would find it better to act as a well-meaning "notice":
That seems to be more in the spirit of Esperanza if you ask me. -- 64.85.222.193 ( talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've greatly enjoyed this talk by Anthere at Wikimania, which is (also) about this project (see video). -- Nemo 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You can really put your finger on when Wikipedia started to go downhill, and it was when they closed Esperanza. Sad times... 82.11.95.194 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC).
You are joking....right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.170.65 ( talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
"This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" should probably be worded "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times and not be overly hierarchical lest they meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" Tisane ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Teahouse is a new project serving the same purpose of Esperanza. I propose that this page have a link to the Teahouse so that users can see another form of this kind of organization implemented elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Esperanza and Teahouse share the belief that Wikipedians need support and wikilove, from what I’ve seen (I wasn't around in the days of Esperanza, but I've read through the documentation that remains) the 2 projects are otherwise quite different. With all due respect to those who requested and added Teahouse to this page, I don't really think that a note about Teahouse does belong on the Esperanza essay. Because of Esperanza’s checkered history, and because it appears that the crux of this essay is, as it says, to "serve as a notice...lest (other projects) are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's", I feel it would be more informative if there was some explicit mention of how Teahouse differs from Esperanza as well as noting similarities, if others feel a mention of the Teahouse project does belong here. We've given comparisons between the 2 projects some thought. I'll be curious to hear what everyone else thinks! Thanks Sbouterse (WMF) ( talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious what Siko suggested by asking, "Does Teahouse belong in this essay?" and then making a case the answer was no. As the staff point of contact for the project, she thinks it's an unhelpful comparison. I'm particularly convinced by Dev920's comments, as the person who originally lead to the charge to rein in Esperanza. I don't really see that there was a wide consensus to include it in the page, and if people who are intimately involved in both forums object to the comparison, then the common sense thing to do is hold off on including it. Steven Walling • talk 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The link between Esperanza and Wikipedia should be emphasized for the following reasons, any of which could be disputed:
For the first point, I assert that there has never been an established project on Wikipedia so similar to the Teahouse as was Esperanza, and no project so similar to Esperanza as Teahouse. Their similarity merits a link between the two. This page Teahouse/Esperanza_comparisons has a line which says, "After this point the two projects diverge:" which is an ambiguous qualifier. If that line were changed to read "Look at the similarities between the projects:" then nothing else about the table would need to be changed to use this table as supporting evidence for similarity instead of divergence because the table is neutrally created. It is my opinion that if that table were shown without a qualifier most people would be more likely to say that it represented a comparison between like projects rather than a contrast between radically different ones.
For the second point, the connection is worth mentioning because Wikipedia culture and Western culture precedent is to provide attribution to all contributors to an idea, and to be encyclopedic in describing things, and to make information easily accessible to those who search to find it. Mentioning Esperanza as a precedent to Teahouse satisfies these traditions, assuming that point 1 is correct.
For the third point, I assert that Teahouse is harmed when this link is not present. The Esperanza trial demonstrated that the community demanded a friendly community forum on Wikipedia in 2005, and the loss for such a place has been felt since then. The problems with Esperanza explain why the Teahouse was not developed sooner despite community demand. Also, it explains why WMF intervention in collaboration with thoughtful researchers was required when typically programs like this come directly from the community. I assert that frequently the WMF is perceived in the Wikipedia community as being insensitive to community demand or impetuous in starting projects without first getting community opinion, and the tie between Esperanza and Teahouse demonstrates that the community has wanted such a project. For so long as people have access to information about Esperanza and any other precedents to Teahouse, previous problems and successes can provide guidance to prevent bad and promote good in the future.
I fail to identify an argument in previous commenters' posts as to why the link should not be present. I propose to reinsert it. Forgive me for this, but can you restate the arguments for removing it more simply and more obviously? Might you like to refute any point which I have asserted? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Admin coaching is inactive and should be crossed off like so:
Breawycker public ( talk) main account ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I see Esperanza referred to all of the time on Wikipedia, not in positive ways (some call it "cultish"). The main page barely scratches the surface of why a program that clearly a lot of Editors had high hopes for and put a lot of energy into, lasted such a short period of time and was ultimately deleted.
Even though it appears to be inactive for 6 years now, is it still too controversial to write a NPOV article assessing it, its contributions and the backlash that seems to have doomed it? In particular, a timeline would be useful. I think being a little more forthcoming and specific would assist other Wikipedians considering embarking on new WP Projects. Liz Read! Talk! 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unprotect. I don't have any edit in mind, but after so many years, protection isn't needed here anymore. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Esperanza page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
Esperanza is officially inactive. Please send any comments about it or the essay on the front page to Wikipedia's Village pump. |
Esperanza was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 30 October 2013. |
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Archives before October 1, 2006
Archives after October 1, 2006 Post organisation discussions Other archived talk pages |
The disposition of Esperanza's programs is displayed below...
Following Esperanza's deletion, is community building still important? The essay should answer this question - especially if the answer is yes. After all, since the essay adequately discusses the negative aspects of Esperanza (for example, the last paragraph), it fails to discuss the positive aspects of Esperanza, so someone reading the essay may get the impression that community building should not occur on Wikipedia. (If that's the case, I rest my case.) -- Kaypoh 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a historical page isn't that historical if just mentions something "has been there". A detailed chronology might be a good idea for all those who appeared to click on those green links.-- Kylohk 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Its goal was to indirectly support the encyclopedia by providing support and other assistance for Wikipedians in need, and by strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. To fulfill this goal, Esperanza initiated numerous programs, which can be seen on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza.
While Esperanza was decentralized for numerous reasons as stated in the second Miscellany for deletion nomination, it should be noted that community building is still important in Wikipedia because it encourages collaboration and cooperation. A large organization is not necessary to build the community that the average editor can build him/herself with other users. In addition, a Wikipedian community should be a cooperative movement to improve the encyclopedia, not a social chatting group.
Please don't change the essay any further than the Steve Block version, for reasons that are obvious even on this very page. If you feel that you must state something about the community, I suggest adding this on at the very end, after the "Let this essay be a warning...":
Yes, the added text has a POV, but hopefully this will address the concerns about community spirit while making it clear that the community is more than Esperanza.
And yes, I know I had said that I was ready to walk away from this essay, but I'm trying to nip this conflict in the bud. Serves me right for having a watchlist with over 2030 items. -- Kyok o 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion from someone with no prior involvement in this issue but thinks it has gone on long enough: The essay here stays as is. Anyone with additional thoughts can put them on a subpage in his or her userspace, and put a link to that page here on talk. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
On Ryan's recommendation, I'm continuing discussion regarding the addition of a paragraph that discusses community building. Kyoko's proposal above is a good example of something that we can add:
Despite the dissolution of Esperanza, community remains an important and even necessary part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Community building should however be a byproduct of the cooperative work on the encyclopedia, rather than the primary goal of Wikipedians. Editors should also remember that Esperanza did not have a monopoly on community spirit; any person who has ever greeted or complimented another person is displaying a sense of community.
Because Esperanza was so closely associated with community building, we must establish the fact that community building is still important, despite Esperanza's decentralization. Dev and I have both stressed the importance of community building here, even though our thoughts about it differed at the time. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and because the expansion of the encyclopedia depends solely on the contributions of its editors, semi active editors, and anons, the details describing the community's importance shouldn't be left out.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Even after the Esperanza page has been submitted to mediation, argued over, agreed upon, and protected, it is still creating conflict. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the only way to satisfy all parties is to do the following:<
1. Leave the current essay unchanged and indefinitely protected.
2. If you want to say something beyond what the current essay says, write your own text on a subpage within your own userspace.
3. Leave a link to your subpage on this talk page.
Please don't press for any changes to the main Esperanza text. It has already been the source of far too much discord. The deletion debates about Esperanza, and the further debates about how it should be described have pretty much guaranteed that Esperanza will be known more for the arguments it engendered than any good it may have done for Wikipedia. -- Kyok o 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore. I had submitted my paragraph suggestion on the assumption that:
My submitted paragraph has already faced opposition, so it fails number 1 on that count. Furthermore, I am very concerned that if the essay is unprotected for further editing, that will only open the way for more drastic and more controversial changes.
I am unwilling to participate in any further discussion about changes to the essay. I can't speak for other people, but thanks to the MfDs, the deletion review, the drawn out mediation, and the attempts to reopen the discussion, Esperanza has caused me far more stress than it has alleviated. I don't want to subject myself to any more stress on its account. Please leave the essay alone and let the whole matter rest. -- Kyok o 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The last sentence of the essay says:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza.
The ending is poor style and includes grammar issues. It should say:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's.
Thank you. -- Cromwellt| talk| contribs 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.
In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent.
I am looking for a copy-editor who:
Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see m:Wikicommunity for a proposal for a new Wikicommunity. This one would not be on Wikipedia itself; it would be a whole new wiki within the Wikimedia aegis. If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I recommend deletion of this sentence: "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." It seems inappropriate to include such an imperative since consensus was not reached on adding such a thing to policy as far as I can tell; consensus can change; and there were other reasons cited for deleting Esperanza besides transparency and hierarchical structure.
Failing that, I think we should put the standard essay template up there, warning that it "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Why is this page still protected, anyway? It seems unnecessary. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Request delete Esperanza and make a new Esperanza on http://www.editthis.info or at http://request.wikia.com . Iswatch20 ( talk) 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the simple interwiki link, as it was deleted over there, thanks. 68.2.110.48 ( talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:ACID is now inactive. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It is a perfect symbol of human nature. We make something great, social, only to destroy it. Hmmm... CHEW ON THAT, DELETIONISTS!-- Editor510 drop us a line, mate 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I still think that the core idea of Esperanza (the promotion of Wiki-Love, and the support of the community which is building this encyclopedia) is a good one. (And the name was, in my opinion, an excellent choice.)
Noting that, there are several initiatives, programs, and "drives" which operate throughout Wikipedia userspace and projectspace.
I'd like to see Esperanza restarted as a "noticeboard", and possibly, even (presuming interest) a newsletter.
I'm looking over Template:Cent and thinking that something similar would be useful for this.
Why resusitating the "name" Esperanza? I have several reasons:
Before I became aware of its faults, Esperanza made an impact on me as a wikipedian. The newletters in particular. It really "grabbed" me in how collaboration was fostered, and individuals seemed to be cherished, and supported in Wiki-Love.
In addition, this wasn't the work of a single individual. The creation of Esperanza was honestly a tribute to the "wiki way". Even the logo was. And I believe that Esperanza (in name at least) was/is something that was unique to Wikipedia.
I think that this concept should be able to be revived in a way to embrace the great goals of Wiki-love and the spirit of collaboration, while avoidng the creation of a some exclusive "club". We're all Wikipedians here, and as such, we're all invited to support each other in the spirit of Esperanza.
One thing I ask is to please not shoot at this idea merely out of a sense of the past hurts involved with the previous structure of Esperanza as an organisation. Our goal should be to build toward the future, while remembering the mistakes of the past, not wallowing on them unhealthily.
As such, the main of my proposal would be to move this page and its subpages (to retain the as an historical archive, but to be separate of this proposed "new" Esperanza).
In short, this new proposed Esperanza would be inspired by the many noticeboards, the signpost, and template:Cent, among other things. A centralised discussion board (and possible sub-boards), and possibly even a newsletter for those who may be inetrested.
I welcome discussion on any issues. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. - jc37 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been quite disturbed as of late by the recent, almost radical attempts to resurrect Esperanza (not including jc37's offer), so I feel as a former Esperanzian that I have a duty to set things straight. I understand how the users who want to recreate Esperanza feel; I felt very much the same way when the first MFD came across. However, I feel that their motives are incorrect. Instead of trying to recreate it as a function of a Wikipedian community, it seems that they want to do it only to spite the "deletionists" or to recreate something akin to the cabal debacle we had a while back.
Esperanza was created at a time when Wikipedia was experiencing massive growing pains, the year of 2005. At this time, infamous vandals roamed the wiki, and many admin actions came into question, of which the userbox affair and the VFD deletion stand out. It was therefore natural that Esperanza, an organization of goodwill and thankfulness to help keep users in, was created. Esperanza was readily received by a drama-wracked community, swelling to include an admin committee (actually a caricature of ArbCom, and not so much the bureaucracy it was derided as), the famous (or infamous) coffee lounge, and several other activities that have gone to survive to the present day, including admin coaching and the tutorial drive. I readily admit Esperanza was what got me hooked on Wikipedia. I fondly remember participating in coffee lounge banter, while checking recent changes and my watchlist, working on articles and reverting vandalism while waiting for the next random thread. When Esperanza met its first MFD, I was rather shocked. I expected it to be something that would last as long as Wikipedia existed. The event shook me to the core, but I thank Robth for initiating it, because it caused me to grow out of my juvenile shell and move on. I suddenly became cognizant of policies I had never learned of, and how the community really is divided by terms of inclusionist and deletionist. For this very reason, I thank Esperanza for keeping me on Wikipedia, and I thank the MFDs for helping me finally mature as a user.
Why do I relate this story? Because Editor510, you misinterpret why Esperanza was finally disbanded. Esperanza managed to serve the purpose for which it was created back in 2005, but it could only distract after serving its purpose. It was inevitable that some member of the community start an MFD. Its deletion was not the result of some mean, misanthropic deletionists who had nothing to do but ruin others' fun, nor was it the result of "incontinence and hedonism" weakening it. It was simply the natural, almost Darwikian process that Wikipedia goes through. Consensus changes. And with that consensus, we are obliged to move along with it. Perhaps sometime, consensus will change and a new Esperanza will be created. Perhaps the community will beget something very similar to Esperanza. When I said that Esperanza was hidden, I did not mean a cabal or secret society. I meant that its spirit of camaraderie and of collaboration continues to live on even without a banner where Wikipedians can rally behind. Every nice word, every barnstar is, in a sense, continuing Esperanza. Esperanza means "hope" in Spanish. It is the hope that Wikipedia's quest for knowledge will continue on, and I hope that you will understand that. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could the note about the article creation and improvement drive being inactive be removed? It has recently been revitalized.[
WP:ACID--
Ipatrol (
talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
One more request: admin coaching should now be marked as inactive.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's smack there on the page!-- Ipatrol ( talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} ACID has gone inactive again. -- Yarnalgo talk to me 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotect}}
I stumbled onto this page and was rather displeased that the Esperanza page is acting as a "warning":
I would find it better to act as a well-meaning "notice":
That seems to be more in the spirit of Esperanza if you ask me. -- 64.85.222.193 ( talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've greatly enjoyed this talk by Anthere at Wikimania, which is (also) about this project (see video). -- Nemo 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You can really put your finger on when Wikipedia started to go downhill, and it was when they closed Esperanza. Sad times... 82.11.95.194 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC).
You are joking....right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.170.65 ( talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
"This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" should probably be worded "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times and not be overly hierarchical lest they meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" Tisane ( talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Teahouse is a new project serving the same purpose of Esperanza. I propose that this page have a link to the Teahouse so that users can see another form of this kind of organization implemented elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Esperanza and Teahouse share the belief that Wikipedians need support and wikilove, from what I’ve seen (I wasn't around in the days of Esperanza, but I've read through the documentation that remains) the 2 projects are otherwise quite different. With all due respect to those who requested and added Teahouse to this page, I don't really think that a note about Teahouse does belong on the Esperanza essay. Because of Esperanza’s checkered history, and because it appears that the crux of this essay is, as it says, to "serve as a notice...lest (other projects) are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's", I feel it would be more informative if there was some explicit mention of how Teahouse differs from Esperanza as well as noting similarities, if others feel a mention of the Teahouse project does belong here. We've given comparisons between the 2 projects some thought. I'll be curious to hear what everyone else thinks! Thanks Sbouterse (WMF) ( talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious what Siko suggested by asking, "Does Teahouse belong in this essay?" and then making a case the answer was no. As the staff point of contact for the project, she thinks it's an unhelpful comparison. I'm particularly convinced by Dev920's comments, as the person who originally lead to the charge to rein in Esperanza. I don't really see that there was a wide consensus to include it in the page, and if people who are intimately involved in both forums object to the comparison, then the common sense thing to do is hold off on including it. Steven Walling • talk 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The link between Esperanza and Wikipedia should be emphasized for the following reasons, any of which could be disputed:
For the first point, I assert that there has never been an established project on Wikipedia so similar to the Teahouse as was Esperanza, and no project so similar to Esperanza as Teahouse. Their similarity merits a link between the two. This page Teahouse/Esperanza_comparisons has a line which says, "After this point the two projects diverge:" which is an ambiguous qualifier. If that line were changed to read "Look at the similarities between the projects:" then nothing else about the table would need to be changed to use this table as supporting evidence for similarity instead of divergence because the table is neutrally created. It is my opinion that if that table were shown without a qualifier most people would be more likely to say that it represented a comparison between like projects rather than a contrast between radically different ones.
For the second point, the connection is worth mentioning because Wikipedia culture and Western culture precedent is to provide attribution to all contributors to an idea, and to be encyclopedic in describing things, and to make information easily accessible to those who search to find it. Mentioning Esperanza as a precedent to Teahouse satisfies these traditions, assuming that point 1 is correct.
For the third point, I assert that Teahouse is harmed when this link is not present. The Esperanza trial demonstrated that the community demanded a friendly community forum on Wikipedia in 2005, and the loss for such a place has been felt since then. The problems with Esperanza explain why the Teahouse was not developed sooner despite community demand. Also, it explains why WMF intervention in collaboration with thoughtful researchers was required when typically programs like this come directly from the community. I assert that frequently the WMF is perceived in the Wikipedia community as being insensitive to community demand or impetuous in starting projects without first getting community opinion, and the tie between Esperanza and Teahouse demonstrates that the community has wanted such a project. For so long as people have access to information about Esperanza and any other precedents to Teahouse, previous problems and successes can provide guidance to prevent bad and promote good in the future.
I fail to identify an argument in previous commenters' posts as to why the link should not be present. I propose to reinsert it. Forgive me for this, but can you restate the arguments for removing it more simply and more obviously? Might you like to refute any point which I have asserted? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Admin coaching is inactive and should be crossed off like so:
Breawycker public ( talk) main account ( talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I see Esperanza referred to all of the time on Wikipedia, not in positive ways (some call it "cultish"). The main page barely scratches the surface of why a program that clearly a lot of Editors had high hopes for and put a lot of energy into, lasted such a short period of time and was ultimately deleted.
Even though it appears to be inactive for 6 years now, is it still too controversial to write a NPOV article assessing it, its contributions and the backlash that seems to have doomed it? In particular, a timeline would be useful. I think being a little more forthcoming and specific would assist other Wikipedians considering embarking on new WP Projects. Liz Read! Talk! 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please unprotect. I don't have any edit in mind, but after so many years, protection isn't needed here anymore. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)