User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/Draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Balance - openess versus protectiveness

If I may, a counterpoint to the following:

"Disruptive or tendentious editors are given repeated "last chances" in hopes that they will reform. Though well-intended, this ignores the effect that these persons have on constructive editors. The community has neglected to weigh the potential benefits of reforming an editor with a history of disruption against the cost to constructive editors who abide by community norms."

It is worth noting that not all disruptive or tendentious editors are given repeated last chances. Some are kicked out immediately, and that gives rise to the possibility that mistakes are made. It is difficult to assess what the proportions are. The risk of letting the pendulum swing too far the other way is the following scenario:

Allegedly disruptive or tendentious editors are routinely blocked and have their edits reverted. Collateral damage includes new editors that are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Eventually, the supply of new editors dries up, and the entrenched defenders of an article are the only ones left. Increased blocking and protection staves off vandalism and unwanted edits, but the end result is a page that is difficult for outsiders to change and (due to the small pool of editors) only changes slowly by edits from the insiders. This is probably good if the article is stable and featured, but this is less good if the article is poor, or good but still in need of improvement. It is also not good if, by chance, the article's defenders happen to be promoting a particular point-of-view (mistakes do happen). Maximum exposure, rather than locking down the article, is the best way to avoid the wrong article being written. - Carcharoth

Ultimately, it may be that Wikipedia can only take articles so far, and that to reach the next level of quality, or in the cases of controversial articles, expert micromanagement is needed. But expert micromanagement would not, in my opinion, be good for articles trying to grow. The best stages for experts to have veto-style input, in my opinion, is at the beginning and end of the processes (ie. removing the non-notable and crank topics, and reviewing and fact-checking and polishing up articles ready for final publication). However, historically, Wikipedia's success has been due to it being an open project that anyone can edit. If you go too much against that, you will encounter strong resistance. Not quite sure of the best way to counter that, but just mentioning it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in experts having "veto-style input." And new editors are welcome. In most cases the serious troublemakers aren't newcomers, but have been here for months and have 1000 or more edits. "Anyone can edit" is a great idea. But when "anyone" includes people whose block logs are so long that you have to scroll down to read the whole thing, something's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on this whole idea of "new editors being the lifeblood of WP" mentality. I really, really wish I could understand how this whole idea came about. I am sure I will be referred to a policy or an essay or a comment from Jimbo about this, but I think we, as a group, need to wake up and smell the coffee on this one. Looking only at the science new editors, it becomes apparent that a large majority of these new editors are not going to contribute to this project. A new editor, in simply the name itself, is new to everything about Wikipedia. More often than not, they have little knowledge of the policies, no idea what constitutes an RS, no clue as to the true meaning of NPOV, etc. Learning these things requires a good deal of time and by and large, few have the patience to learn. New editors that take the time to learn the policies can become valued contributers, but they are rare. I would like to see some statistics about how long newly registered accounts last on the project. I would not be the least bit surprised if, when examined over the course of a 1, 3, 6, and 12 month period and socks are removed, the number of these active users steadily decreases until it is only a few.

The point of this rant is that it would be nice if those in the power positions will acknowledge the fact that not all newly registered editors are equal. In fact, we need to stop making the assumption that these people will all magically help further the project. In the course of the past 2 days of discussion on the Homeopathy article, I have seen at least one and maybe two new editors appear and sit firmly on the pro-homeo side and help to further this god awful mess that would easily be solved if they would understand policy. If someone immediately enters WP and interjects themselves into a messy subject, without nary a glance at policy pages and without any understanding of how things work, they are probably going to be a problematic editor. I would put the odds of this somewhere around 95%. You don't turn the keys to a dragster over to a kid that just got his license. Argh. Baegis (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Somehow the policy has evolved that the more experienced you are, the more productive you are, the less Wikipedia wants you. If you are productive, they will as a matter of policy make conditions hellish in an attempt, possibly inadvertant, to get you to leave. We need data and statistical modelling, and I suspect we will see that this "policy" is destroying Wikipedia, or at least hampering it badly. The assumption that everyone unproductive, including the deranged, the mentally ill, the mentally deficient, the immature, the cranks, the POV pushers, the psychotic, the illiterate, the nonEnglish speakers, the uncivil, the trolls, ALL are vastly more important than someone who is producing FAs and GAs and doing antivandal patrol and has 10s of thousands of edits under their belt is just...bizzare. But it is true, as far as I can tell. I am not the only one who has noticed it. It is not just some strange fantasy I am experiencing. I think it is a real effect. We might even be able to measure it. --Filll (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments: As I said, what this document should do is introduce proposals or suggestions, and then potential anticipated advantages and disadvantages to each. Also, as I have said repeatedly, there will be mistakes made no matter what is done. I have advocated a more fault tolerant system to try to reduce the chance of mistakes of blocking the wrong people, as Carcharoth knows full well. And this should be included or considered.--Filll (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, we've already written more here than on the draft... Having said my bit, I'll go away and leave you and others to write the draft. I would be interested in seeing and commenting on the final stages of the draft, so do drop me a note when you get to that stage. Carcharoth (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)