Some advice I've seen while trolling around!
- Use a clear and unambiguous writing style
- Never lump together no-brainers and potentially controversial edits into one
- Be rigorous in quoting sources, and use the best quality sources you can find (peer-reviewed history journals might help, for instance)
- Mark controversial edits clearly as such (your edit summary in science, for instance, should have contained the word "astrology")
- Avoid interpretation (like calling mainstream scientists "conventional thinkers") and focus on verifiable facts
- .... WP needs editors who challenge convential wisdom. Just play by the rules, even if others don't. Good luck. Algae 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
There is more to be learned by looking inside than by looking outside.
Given that all external data must be internalized and analyzed before reaching a decision the onus of the decision-making process is therefore placed upon said internalization. ....
- The larger an edit, the more likely it is to be reverted. This is simply a psychological observation. It doesn't matter whether you technically do one big edit or twenty small edits in a row. If the watchers of an article feel it is changing too quickly for them to understand, they'll slam the brakes on. It's practically instinctual.
- After an edit is reverted once, people will feel much more justified in reverting a similar edit in the future. This ties in with the above rule; if you want to reintroduce a controversial change, it has to be gradual.
- Small edits are also more productive on talk pages. There's really no way for half a dozen editors to carry on a rational debate on five topics at once in a linearly formatted talk page, and it only gets worse if everyone writes an essay.
- Other editors are generally much more conservative with old articles, while they will allow radical changes to new articles. I don't know who proposed the creation of Judicial astrology, for example, but it was a good idea.
- A certain level of double standards is absolutely necessary to the current functioning of Wikipedia. Many of the oldest articles around here are generally believed to be correct, even though they are totally unverified. Of course, this is a huge problem, and we're all working on it. It's a difficult phase in the life of the project, and that's the context in which you're entering. It doesn't help that the website's popularity is growing exponentially, along with the amount of pure vandalism we receive. The upshot: new contributions, including substantial changes to old articles, are more strictly required to cite their sources than before.
Speaking of which, if you read Wikipedia:Citing sources, there is no strong consensus on how to do it! Probably the most popular choice is described at Wikipedia:Footnotes; that's the style you'll see in the majority of articles that are featured on the front page, such as today's article, War of the League of Cambrai. It's also the style that some editor(s) have rather clumsily applied to Astrology. I see that you've been protesting that your edits are sourced. If you add footnotes to your edits, you won't have to describe the sources on the talk pages; they'll be right there for everyone to see. From a more pragmatic view, other editors are extremely reluctant to remove a sentence that has a footnote marker right after it.
Well, I've written too much myself! Melchoir 21:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to offer some editing advice, for your kind consideration. Please take what you like, and leave the rest.
In a debate, is supposed to argue forcefully for one's side. Providing your sources, illustrating your reasoning, and explaining why you think you're right. In debate-style forums, like the newsgroups, some blogs, and other places; this is exactly the right approach.
On Wikipedia, these activities can be detrimental to your position. The reason is, everybody working on the article needs to agree to a position before it'll be released as the "live" version. Anybody (you, me, Jimmy Wales) throwing out something that isn't agreed to by everybody working on the article is quickly reverted.
The trick on Wikipedia is very simple: Convince those who disagree with you to write your position for you. If others write your position for you, there is a very good chance it will reach consensus. So the question is this: How to convince others?
- Try to keep cool at all times. Antagonizing your opponent (as one might do in a debate) will only make it harder to convince them (as one must do on Wikipedia). If somebody attacks you or plays games with you, take it in stride and keep cool. Ironically, not biting back makes them respect you more, and makes it easier to convince them.
- Take article text in small steps. If you throw out ten paragraphs, it's quite likely that somebody will disagree with something in there. If you throw out one sentence, you'll find that some will agree and others will need to be convinced, but you've narrowed down your target (ah ha! this is the fact I need to convince John of)
- Ask more questions than you make statements. The importance of this cannot be overstated. In order to convince somebody, you need to know what they are thinking. If you're not a professional mind-reader, asking questions is the only way to understand what somebody is thinking.
- Take discussion in small steps. Theo, in talk pages, you in particular write huge paragraphs sometimes. People find it difficult to read and follow all you have written. Don't worry, you can discuss every single point to death; the editors will still be here. Just make sure to keep each edit small and readable. If you feed somebody "more than they can chew" then you'll never be able to convince them.
- Be willing to go the extra mile. Likely you'll need to reference sources that others have not read or do not know about. You'll need to take the time to post the relevant material to the discussion. If they can't see the source, they can't judge if your proposed version is correct or not. You can't expect them to go to the library or look on the web. The goal is to convince others, and sometimes that'll mean going to extra mile to put the actual text of your source in front of their eyes. Yes, it is more work; but they will appreciate and respect your effort to provide the source text, and that makes it easier to convince people.
Ideally, your discussions should go like this:
- I'd like to change the sentence "blah persnickity" to "persnickity blah". - You
- I'm not so about that, "persnickity blah" is pretty POV. - Some editor
- What leads you to believe that "persnickity blah" is POV? - You
- Well, it doesn't seem very well sourced. - Some editor
- Here's a relevant section from "The Blah of Persnickity" by Mr. P. Snick, "blah blah persnick blah, blah snickity blah blah". Is that a good enough source? - You
- etc...
You probably won't win every time. But by keeping it small, keeping it simple, and keeping it cool; both sides can learn and appreciate the other. Work not to modify the text, work to convince the other editors to do it for you.
Just my 1 Indian Rupee... —Pradeep Arya 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?"
"The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you."
And the novice was Enlightened.
"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." Søren Kierkegaard DanielDemaret 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Will we get into Heaven
edit
The burden of proof lies with them. - Soleil Noir
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
