User:Elonka/WikiDots proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

? The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

WikiDots are a proposal for a voluntary rating system for Wikipedia editors, which help to quickly identify productive and good-faith editors.

Contents

[edit] Problem being addressed

Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, we are all to assume that the other editors that we are dealing with on Wikipedia are here for the right reasons, and are individuals who are emotionally and mentally mature. We would like to believe that all other editors are sane individuals who, even if they might have the occasional human outburst, are capable of working cooperatively with other editors towards mutual goals, in the best interests of the project.

However, as is obvious to anyone who spends time on Wikipedia, not all editors are here for positive reasons. A few are immature, mentally unstable, emotionally unstable, or occasionally just plain malicious.

Any one good-faith editor, when dealing with other editors, can usually determine in a certain amount of time whether or not they are dealing with a "good" editor or an unstable one.

[edit] Definitions

In general terms, a good editor:

  • Is experienced in Wikipedia procedures
  • Puts the majority of their time into constructive pursuits on articles, WikiProjects, templates, images, and so forth
  • Works hard to get along with other editors, and in the case of a dispute, genuinely tries to find a mutually agreeable compromise


In general terms, a bad editor:

  • Has a history of being blocked and warned
  • Is someone who seems more interested in the conflict on Wikipedia, than actually building an encyclopedia
  • May have been taken to ArbCom and be under sanctions of some type
  • Appears either unwilling or unable to seek compromise, and instead acts as a blocker of consensus, rather than an enabler

[edit] Problems with identification

However, even when unstable editors have been identified, Wikipedia's current policies are not sufficient for dealing with them.

  • Though there are methods available (such as ArbCom) for dealing with unstable editors, these methods are extremely bureaucratic and time-consuming, requiring hours of work from good editors which could be put to better use elsewhere
  • The existing methods are often extremely backlogged
  • The existing methods often result in intensifying disputes, rather than de-escalating them
  • When an editor is causing problems in one area, they are often causing problems in other areas too. In other words, even when an unstable editor has been identified by ArbCom, such that they are under sanctions, the knowledge of these sanctions is often extremely limited, as other editors who might be very interested in learning about those sanctions, are often completely unaware of them. So if the problem editor simply moves to another subject area, there is no ready method for identifying this problem editor to other (good) editors, requiring a duplication of effort as they must then start the process anew in identifying and dealing with the unstable editor
  • Unstable editors currently have equal voices in controversial Wikipedia discussions such as AfDs, RfCs, and ANI threads

In short, unstable (or immature) editors can often cause great damage to Wikipedia, and there are no effective mechanisms for identifying them or dealing with them in a time-efficient manner.

[edit] Requirements for a new system

  • Easy to implement
  • Mechanism to quickly identify whether you are dealing with a good and respected editor, or one with a history of problems.
  • System-based as opposed to authority-based
  • Flexible enough to allow for good editors who may be "having a bad day" without antagonizing them off the project
  • Quick and easy to use, by good editors who don't want to spend hours dealing with a bad one.


[edit] Proposal

The WikiDots system would:

  • Provide a colored dot next to the name of each editor. This dot could either be visible via an unobtrusive javascript "mouse hover", or perhaps more visible by being associated with a user's signature on talkpages
    • White (or hollow) dot: New user
    • Green dot: User in good standing
    • Yellow dot: Borderline cases
    • Red dot: User in bad standing, or under sanctions

[edit] White dot

  • Less than 500 edits
  • Less than 30 days on Wikipedia

[edit] Green dot

Note: All users with administrator access or higher are automatically at green-dot status.

Experienced and active user in good standing:

  • Experienced: More than 500 edits total
  • Active: At least 10 article edits over the last 30 days
  • Constructive participants: More than 50% of their edits in last 30 days are to articles, as opposed to talkpages
  • Clean record:
    • No unreversed blocks within last 60 days
    • No active ArbCom sanctions
    • No multiple talkpage warnings from administrators within the last 30 days

[edit] Other possible green-dot criteria
  • Successful participation in a mediation
  • Primary editor for Good/Featured articles
  • Work in WikiProjects/DYK/Image space could qualify as article work

[edit] Red dot

Any of the following:

[edit] Yellow dot

Borderline cases:

  • Warnings: Two or more talkpage warnings from any administrator within the last 30 days
  • Too much time in discussions: More than 50% of edits in last 30 days are to non-article spaces
  • Recent block: One or more unreversed blocks within the last 90 days
  • Inactive: Less than 10 edits to article space within the last 30 days

[edit] Advantages

  • With the WikiDot system, users are incentivized to maintain a good standing at all times
  • Administrators reviewing an AfD or RM or other "consensus-based" decision process are empowered to quickly and easily give more weight to the opinions of the good-standing editors. White/yellow/red WikiDot editors still have a voice, but identification becomes much easier.
  • Controversial talkpage discussions become easier to follow, when opinions of "good standing" editors can be quickly identified

[edit] Implementation

Though the longterm goal for this would of course be technical implementation into the MediaWiki software, a voluntary "test" phase could be implemented via javascript, where the dots would only appear to testers via a mouse "hover over" on a name

[edit] Voluntary participation

Editors interested in participating in the test phase would:

  • Add a userbox to their user page, identifying themselves as a WikiDots participant
  • (optional) Add some javascript to their monobook.js page, allowing them to view the WikiDots status of other editors

[edit] Javascript implementation

  • A list would be generated that rated "active" editors, meaning those with at least 100 edits within the last 30 days, and sorted them by the above green/yellow/red criteria
  • Any editor could install a javascript utility (yet to be written) that will check talkpage signatures against the WikiDots list, and place a dot next to each name.
    • The dot could be directly on the page; or
    • The dot could be visible via a mouse hover