Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20091001/Interview

 Main page Rescue list Content menus Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Awards Talk page 

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Issue 2

News items and announcements | Feature | Featured editor | Featured administrator | Humor | Contest | Want ads |

Interview with Teeninvestor

In this regular feature readers get a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Article Rescue Squadron.

With only 5883 edits, Teeninvestor has been editing Wikipedia since only September 2008 and has been a member of Article Rescue Squadron since February 2009, one of the 65 new members who joined in that month alone.

1. What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?

   Well, I remember being a heavy wikipedia user even when I was a kid (I'm still a teen, lol). Whenever I'd want to look something up, I'd go to wikipedia. As I began to use wikipedia more, I saw that there were some areas of it that unfortunately were not covered adequately. I decided to become a member of wikipedia and contribute to the project. As my userpage says: wikipedia has given me so much; so, it should be natural that I should give some back.

   I've always been a big supporter of the wikipedia concept, with a free encyclopedia made by volunteer editors. The economist Adam Smith once said that when people exchange and work among themselves freely without any interference, the best results happen. I think wikipedia's a manifestation of that spirit; thousands of editors who don't even know each other and who have nothing to gain have compiled the greatest collection of information known to mankind; a great achievement.

2. What do you think is the most difficult part of editing on Wikipedia?

   The most difficult part of wikipedia is gaining Consensus. We have thousands of editors, each with their different views, and it's extremely difficult, especially on highly controversial subjects, to gain consensus. Finding sources and writing content is not too difficult; the difficult part is getting the content you write accepted by other editors, including some with the exactly opposite views as yourself.

3. You passion for the article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires was the reason you were chosen to be interviewed for this newsletter. Explain what happened with this article and why it was not deleted.

   Creation When I first created this article a year ago, my editing skills were virtually nil; I could barely make a signature, I didn't know what a citation was, I had barely any knowledge of wikipedia policy. In other words, I was an average new wikipedia editor.

   First deletion Not surprisingly, my first serious article Comparison between Roman and Han Empires was nominated for deletion, by editors who piled on five delete votes in less than ten minutes. I was fortunately able to contact the Article Rescue Squadron, in which some more experienced editors were able to give some powerful arguments for saving the article, as well as helping me in my effort to find good, scholarly sources. My editing skills were also greatly improved by this experience, as I learned how to do citations, subheaders, and virtually all the skills needed for editing wikipedia almost overnight. I warrant it was probably the fastest wiki-education that any editor could get. Thanks to my own as well as ARS' efforts, the first Article for Deletion closed as a default keep. I also became a member of ARS during this period.

   Second article for deletion But I was invited here because of the recent second Article for Deletion. By the time I had a serious look at the AFD there was maybe eight deletes to two keeps. It was not too promising.

   I had to work on the article frantically to save it. I spent an entire evening working on the article, asking editors opinions on what needs to be fixed, removing the problematic parts (about three quarters), finding new scholarly sources, and adding new content. By the time I was finished, the article had changed from an amateurish article with few sources and rambling paragraphs to a concise, neat article with many citations from the most reputable scholarly sources. All of this was done during what was the nastiest AFD I've seen thus far; deditors were not only denouncing the article, one even tried to stop any work on the article. One professed that the "community must judge the article as it stood during the AFD", and even threatened to get admins to block me if I edited the article any further. It took rebukes from multiple editors to for him to stop. Apparently, no one recalled the sentence that says "Feel free to edit the article further" on every AFD.

   The hard work on the article succeeded in getting many strong deletes into weak keeps and by the end of the AFD the picture had changed from roughly 80% delete votes to around 50-50, with the keep side having a few more votes. You'd think that would be the end of troubles for the article; a no consensus, default to keep was in order. However, the closing nom closed the article by stubbifying and protecting it, and moving the rest of the content to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Despite this, I' am still optimistic; at least it's better than deletion! I hope the main body of the article should be back to article space very soon.

4. What advice would you give to editors joining the Squadron?

   First: Sources The most important advice, is that editors who want to rescue articles should have good, third-party, reliable sources on the subject, demonstrating it's notability. That's what 99% of Article for Deletion's are about: sources and notability. If you want to change the course of an AFD, nothing is better than showing some good sources, and using them to massively expand the article. This is usually enough to keep any article.

   Second: Ask for feedback It's also important to get opinions of other editors, even those who have voted delete. There are usually two kinds of delete voters on AFD, the hardcore kind, that wants the article gone no matter what and the ones that have genuine concerns. Usually the latter are the most important; seek them and ask them why they voted delete. Then address their concerns and ask them again if they still have problems with the article. By using this method I was able to change some strong deletes to keeps in both AFDs, which was instrumental to saving the article. If an editor claim there's Original research/copyright violations/Synthesis, nicely ask them to show some examples. If they show some examples, fix it and nicely ask for more. Removing bad content is key to keeping any article; by presenting only good content backed by reliable sources, you increase the chance of anyone viewing the article and then voting keep by several times. It's only through hard work and persistence that all the errors and patches on the article can get fixed.

   Third: Be polite Finally, it's important to be polite. Never make personal attacks or dishonest edits (e.g., misrepresenting a source). If you're caught, it will only discredit the article you are trying to save. If editors are making dishonest edits or personal attacks, ask them to stop. If they continue, report them (I had one editor who removed a Harvard paper as a source, claiming it was "not a scholarly source").

5. How has the Squadron personally helped you?

   The squadron's been a great source of support for me and my editing efforts. The ARS is home to some of the nicest and most helpful editors I've worked with, and it was through their help that my editing skills were greatly improved and some of my articles were saved. I would want to thank here all the editors of ARS who have helped me.