Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-21/News and notes
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Pretzels in topic Discuss this story
Discuss this story
- Made a few small tweaks, but very well written. Thanks again :-) Steven Zhang Talk 02:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Is it possible for someone clever to get rid of the massive gap in the middle of the article? After "our main page.", there's about 12 blank lines on my screen, presumably caused by the images. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please see User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. I have stopped nearly all my editing of Wikipedia article pages since early January. Yesterday was my first serious editing of a Wikipedia article in a long time. I still edit on the Commons, Wikia, Bugzilla, technical discussions, Village Pumps, talk pages, etc.. It is good that there is a dispute resolution noticeboard. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I see that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution too. That is a good idea too. The bottom line is that there are less active editors and more articles. I doubt that the number of active editors will increase. If the numbers do turn around, I doubt it will be by much. So that means content dispute resolution will have to become more efficient. It is way too time-consuming now. I agree that we need more people at lower levels of content dispute resolution. The bigger problem is the lack of accountable, efficient dispute resolution between average editors and admins. Admins are mainly only accountable to other admins, and even then only barely accountable. Objective observers of Wikipedia administration see it as another fanboy groupthink club where the vast majority of admins are male. Editors too. Wikipedia:Teahouse is an effort to counter that. Wikipedia mirrors society in its increasing control at the top by unaccountable leaders. Wikipedia refuses to truly deal with it, or to acknowledge the depth of the problem. Content dispute resolution oftentimes ends up with admin intervention. Since there is no definitive content resolution it oftentimes ends up in deadlock, or with admin arbitrariness. Editors leave due to both problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution does need to be more time-efficient, I agree. I have a few ideas that I am thinking over and might start chatting about it with a few people, and see if it's a viable option. Keep your eyes and ears open. No comment on admins - my perspective from what I've observed is that they do not participate in dispute resolution enough to have an impact on its outcome, but we of course are all entitled to our own opinion. Of course, my work will be focused on extracting the opinions of the community from the survey over my own, and putting something together to make dispute resolution more efficient, and to encourage more to get involved. That's my goal. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest asking more survey questions concerning disputes with admins, and content disputes where admins get involved. That way it is not just my opinion or yours. The article says: "23% of respondents rating their fellow editors 'arrogant', 13% 'unfriendly'." There is also a certain percentage of admins that editors consider arrogant or unfriendly. That is got to effect content disputes too. Especially when admins step in as an enforcer instead of as a mediator. Admins frequently have to step in. WP:3RR, page protection, incivility warnings and blocks, and WP:Edit warring (a completely vague policy). Just thinking about some of my experiences with admins in the last year makes me question why I would want to do anything but the rare article edit until content dispute resolution is far more efficient. The quality of admin interactions has definitely gotten worse since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. I sincerely hope your efforts and others succeed because then far fewer admin interactions would be needed. Due to its vagueness and arbitrariness WP:Edit warring is almost diabolically efficient in driving away active editors. It is inevitable that active editors will arrive at content disputes one after another especially as they edit more and more controversial topics. After a few arbitrary clueless rulings (oh, it happens often) by admins wielding WP:Edit warring even the most thick-skinned active editors just throw in the towel. Why bother? Admin power corrupts, WP:Edit warring corrupts absolutely. It is the perfect tool for rude admins who enjoy the fanboy groupthink cheers of their fellow clique of admins. The groupthink reminds me of the fanboy groupthink of spam fighters who arbitrarily remove external links. Wikipedia has become like gang warfare. The best editing lately is done by WikiProjects who can overcome rude admins. I just checked to see if you were an admin, Steven Zhang, and found out that you were not. I found this though: User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure. I think it qualifies you perfectly to help start the Admin Misconduct Noticeboard I proposed. Combined with the Dispute resolution noticeboard, the two noticeboards would greatly enhance editor retention. By the way, I am a bureaucrat on Wikia with over 35,000 edits there, and thoroughly understand wiki groupthink. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see how my past should affect my input on the project one way or another. I think we have two different ways for tackling the same problem here, but I also wonder if this is the proper venue to discuss such matters. My user talk page would likely be a better location for this discussion. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize if I said anything offensive. I did not mean to. On the contrary, I think your background is a big plus. I can use your talk page too if you desire. But discussion here is more important in my opinion, because unless more and more people become knowledgeable about the existence of the problem, and see the difficulties in arriving at solutions, then progress may not occur. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not offended, I just don't think my past is really relevant in this situation. I am also curious as to how you have come to the conclusions that you describe above, and think that sort of discussion is one to have via my talk page. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize if I said anything offensive. I did not mean to. On the contrary, I think your background is a big plus. I can use your talk page too if you desire. But discussion here is more important in my opinion, because unless more and more people become knowledgeable about the existence of the problem, and see the difficulties in arriving at solutions, then progress may not occur. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see how my past should affect my input on the project one way or another. I think we have two different ways for tackling the same problem here, but I also wonder if this is the proper venue to discuss such matters. My user talk page would likely be a better location for this discussion. Regards, Steven Zhang Talk 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest asking more survey questions concerning disputes with admins, and content disputes where admins get involved. That way it is not just my opinion or yours. The article says: "23% of respondents rating their fellow editors 'arrogant', 13% 'unfriendly'." There is also a certain percentage of admins that editors consider arrogant or unfriendly. That is got to effect content disputes too. Especially when admins step in as an enforcer instead of as a mediator. Admins frequently have to step in. WP:3RR, page protection, incivility warnings and blocks, and WP:Edit warring (a completely vague policy). Just thinking about some of my experiences with admins in the last year makes me question why I would want to do anything but the rare article edit until content dispute resolution is far more efficient. The quality of admin interactions has definitely gotten worse since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. I sincerely hope your efforts and others succeed because then far fewer admin interactions would be needed. Due to its vagueness and arbitrariness WP:Edit warring is almost diabolically efficient in driving away active editors. It is inevitable that active editors will arrive at content disputes one after another especially as they edit more and more controversial topics. After a few arbitrary clueless rulings (oh, it happens often) by admins wielding WP:Edit warring even the most thick-skinned active editors just throw in the towel. Why bother? Admin power corrupts, WP:Edit warring corrupts absolutely. It is the perfect tool for rude admins who enjoy the fanboy groupthink cheers of their fellow clique of admins. The groupthink reminds me of the fanboy groupthink of spam fighters who arbitrarily remove external links. Wikipedia has become like gang warfare. The best editing lately is done by WikiProjects who can overcome rude admins. I just checked to see if you were an admin, Steven Zhang, and found out that you were not. I found this though: User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure. I think it qualifies you perfectly to help start the Admin Misconduct Noticeboard I proposed. Combined with the Dispute resolution noticeboard, the two noticeboards would greatly enhance editor retention. By the way, I am a bureaucrat on Wikia with over 35,000 edits there, and thoroughly understand wiki groupthink. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I suggest removing the "In this issue" right sidebar in the discussion section here. Or make it a right-floating table instead of a sidebar. That way the comments are not squished into a narrow column. That is a problem when there are multiple replies with more and more indentation. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost as it's not related to the article. I consider the right margin important in visually differentiating the comments from the article. Comments can be viewed full-width on the talk page as normal. — Pretzels Hii! 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)