Wikipedia

User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors

< User:TallNapoleon

The Association of Established Editors

edit

There shall be an association of established editors (AEE) in Wikipedia. Established editors are those who have made substantial and enduring and properly sourced contributions to the encyclopedia for at least two years. The purposes of the association are to represent such content contributors in the Wikipedia community, to champion their interests, and to defend them where there is just cause.

This may include the negotiation of blocks or bans, representation at arbitration, and support in content issues where the core neutrality policies of Wikipedia are at stake.

Membership commitments

edit

Established editors must be committed to........ (Please add your own suggestions below.)

  • The core content policies of Wikipedia (WP:RS, WP:NOR) concerning the use of reliable and independent sources.
  • Other Wikipedia policies, where they do not come into conflict with the above.
  • Uphold the good reputation of the association Wikipedia.
I would delete the above principle.
  • Support the principle of the 5 pillars of wikipedia (if not all the detail)
  • Writing the f**cking articles
  • WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT. Too often the trivial and unnotable is allowed to overwhelm the vital and notable--and it's usually poorly sourced when it does.
  • WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE
  • Help with reviewing content disputes, e.g. by seeking the assistance of relevant content experts, determining where the dispute broke down, who is "at fault" and how to repair the situation. Seek unblock with the parties restricted from editing related pages to prevent further escalation.
    • Strongly oppose "determining where the dispute broke down, who is 'at fault'". That is the job of Arbcom. We should simply be trying to help improve content. Also oppose the idea that this group should be involved in blocking or unblocking anyone, although members can certainly participate in the many other fora available for providing feedback/evidence in disputes. Dispute resolution is handled elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • [...]

Membership qualifications

edit

Established editors will..... (Please add your own suggestions below.)

  • be elected into the association by the sitting members if they fulfil the membership criteria.
  • be elected into the association by an electorate who would meet the membership criteria.

The criteria for membership includes.....(Please add your own suggestions below.)

  • A record of at least two years of contributions to Wikipedia that demonstrate a strong commitment to the development of the project. This may take the form of substantial additions to articles, contribution to talk pages that are consistent with the policies on neutrality and scientific and academic consensus, or a consistent pattern of addressing vandalism and other issues that compromise article quality.
  • Having an established identity on Wikipedia for this period. The identity may cross different accounts or even IP contributions, so long as continuity can be adequately demonstrated. This identity does not have to be one in real life.

Setting up the association

edit

To set up the association, a group of Wikipedia editors will be informally nominated. They must accept nomination. If 20 editors accept, elections for founder members will be made. After this, new members will only be elected from within the association. If necessary, members will determine a suitable process for elections after the association is formed.

Comment: This section is perhaps the best example of what is wrong with this proposal. Editors should be free to join if they meet the qualifications, not if they have the approval of members. Otherwise, this is nothing more than an exclusive club. Noting the link to the trade union article earlier on this page, keep in mind that unions don't pick-and-choose their members in the manner proposed here. --Ckatzchatspy 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Motions

edit

Membership

edit

The following have accepted nominations. Please use this space to tell us about:

  1. Your editing interests
  2. Your ideas about what the established editors group might achieve for the encyclopaedia and how
  3. What the membership criteria should be
  4. Any other thoughts
  5. Sample of work
  1. My general tenor is expressed on my userpage. My patience and tact are in perennially short supply: I am an unwilling victim, and cut to the chase by addressing subtext directly. My interests are in basic coverage of lesser Western European painters, sculptors and architects; in works of art and architecture 15th-19th century; in history, especially Late Antiquity; Greek mythology and sculpture; Western cultural history. I range widely purely as an editor, trying for concision, clarity, tight construction, and balanced focus on essentials. I don't follow Featured Article and Good Article struggles or American Idol, but haunt DYK articles hoping to tune them to concert pitch. An encyclopedia anyone can edit is by definition a compromise with mediocrity: I've learned to enter information in the form of paraphrases of cited sources and with direct quotations and avoid all but the most insistent confrontations thereby.
  1. Your editing interests: Mainly the history of heavy engineering, with sidetracks into the geography of south-east England
  2. Your ideas about what the established editors group might achieve for the encyclopaedia and how: Not totally sure it's necessary, as WP:AWN (itself born from the discussion which set this page up) seems to be doing much of the job this was meant to address; a place where people can ask "high level" questions about article writing and technical issues, without the "froth" of the Village Pump. As previously stated, I don't think this should have any policy development or discussion role (other in the vaguest sense), for the same reasons I oppose the WP:ACPD proposal; policies that don't come from the community as a whole are too tainted by the perception of elitism, whether or not it's a valid criticism.
  3. What the membership criteria should be: I'd go with fairly lax criteria, or even no criteria at all as long as it doesn't get swamped (WP:AWN doesn't seem to be). A newcomer with something useful to say can be just as useful as someone long-established.
  4. Any other thoughts: In the current climate, it's clear that unless this is open to all (or at least, to a substantial majority) this will go down in the same flames that are consuming WP:ACPD, and I think rightly. I'd rather have the occasional well-intentioned newcomer than permanently fend off the "gentleman's club" allegation.
  5. Sample of work: Take your pick; Noel Park, Eilley Bowers and Hellingly Hospital Railway are probably a fairly representative cross-sample.

1. I mostly edit on art history, with some history and religion - I do a lot of medieval stuff where the three run together. I am, as Anthony Blunt once described a colleague, a fully untrained art historian. I do a lot at DYK & CFD, and a little reviewing & helping at FAC, but I can't face the work involved in nominating my own stuff. I have generally had very good experiences with the WP hierarchy and structures, and other users, despite the inevitable frustrating episode, and have no burning desire for reform in any particular area. If anything I fear that WP is just slowly running out of puff after the incredible energy of the first years. Or maybe that's just me. I think this project should ideally provide a digest of issues that affect serious content editors hatching in the policy areas, and occasionally sally out in some loose way to slay dragons, rescue damsels etc. We are very lucky in Visual arts in having a project which though pretty laid-back has a good but varied group of active and experienced editors (many nominated or accepting here) who can act effectively on issues.

  1. Most of my time is devoted to articles related to the Visual Arts. My interest is in Art History from antiquity to the present. My main interest is in Western art of the last few hundred years especially from the 19th century to the 21st century. I am also interested in Eastern philosophy, Eastern art, literature, poetry and culture in general. I am trying to maintain balance between the limits of what is possible here and what has not been created yet. I've worked in league with several excellent editors; many of whom have helped me enormously, and I have also worked with several great editors in creating seven FA articles, although FA articles have little to do with my goals, they are challenging, informative, educational and interesting to put together. My goals are to maintain the highest quality in articles that I have worked on. Sometimes it entails challenging the status quo; and redefining the meaning of certain policies to suit the demands of individual articles - especially challenging when dealing with the visual arts. I consider it a privilege to contribute and to volunteer my time and expertise to this worthwhile project that communicates so much information to so many people.
  2. It remains to be seen what this group accomplishes - if anything. I would like to imagine that we are forming a multi-talented, multi-informed, experienced forum; that can deal with and solve a multiple of issues, questions, and problems. By calling on individual editors to weigh in on particular areas of scholarship and policy this may generate positive and helpful resources. I have been constantly helped in my editing by others far more knowledgeable than I am about Wikipedia policies and ins and outs of complex issues. I like the idea of being able to work in league with others more expert than I am in subjects that interest me as well as subjects that are compellingly important enough to engage my interest.
  1. I'm a practising architect. My first edits as user:mcginnly were about aspects of the planning and regulatory system in the UK, and then broadened to encompass wider architectural topics. I'm most comfortable with 20th century architecture, particularly German architectural developments before the seond world war. I have also taken an extensive interest in the Taj Mahal and related Mughal architecture. I am generally rather liberal and moderate in nature and I hope, polite in behaviour. What do we want! evolutionary progression over time. When do we want it? In the fullness of time after appropriate and due consideration.
  2. I would like us to be a group that identifies problems in wikipedia for the ordinary and expert editor and which suggests constructive and productive solutions to those problems. I'd rather be a persuasive body than an easily vilified agitation group. I'm conscious that we can only carry any credibility in such circumstances, by being whiter than white in terms of policy compliance from here on in. If we want a better class of admin, then we need to be an even better class of editor. I also suspect few of us are interested in the WP promotion ladder and this could be a considerable strength - we can be outspoken without fear or favour. I'm really unclear how the management is supposed to be encouraging established editors or making this a better place for us to edit. Practically I'd like to see some block reform and some institutional reform, particularly the principle that all 'functionary' positions on wikipedia should be elected for fixed terms and the powers and privileges they confer - CU, OS, private mailing lists etc. should be relinquished after those terms.
  3. I'm not keen on accusations of elitism, but at the same time, it's rather ironic that the concerns regarding this groups 'elitism' have been made by admins. If this group is to support writers of significant prose, then to an extent, it needs to be closed to certain sections of the community. I feel we have a few options here - exclude all functionaries eg. admins, arbs, CU's, OS etc. even if they are good content writers and so concentrate on the needs of the powerless. In this instance we might think about including the holy gnomes. Alternatively we might include, as Peter suggests, anyone with two years experience who has made significant mainspace contributions involving prose regardless of other 'powers'. We might also simply make this a wikiproject which anyone can join. Are we to encourage descenting voices in our ranks, or seek a homogeneity? It's rather hard to talk about membership criteria before establishing the goals - for that it would be better to pick some common concerns.
  1. I am very active in WP:G&S and, to a lesser extent, WP:MUSICALS. I have also created/edited quite a few articles about Victorian era actors-singers and have done mostly copy editing on articles on many other topics. My user page has more details. I have worked on a number of articles that have been promoted to FA or GA, and I believe that, now that Wikipedia's coverage is broader than the coverage of print encyclopedias, we should be focusing more on improving the quality of articles.
  2. I am keeping an open mind about what the established editors group might achieve. I think that a group of experienced Wikipedians who focus on content would be, at a minimum a useful brainstorming group.
  3. I think that the membership criteria should include not just a time requirement, but also a demonstration of editorial quality, although the only way I can see to show that is involvement in the FA process.
  • DreamGuy (talk)
  • Greg L (talk)
  • Kleinzach
    • 1. Copy-editor (London Publishers' Association-trained) and music contributor active on Music, Classical music, Composers etc. Main speciality: opera genres.
      • Supports: content-based projects and (beat the drums! blow the trumpets!) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
      • Critical of: FA/GA processes, Version 1.0 and assessments (especially class C), the Biography Project's attempt to assess 713,084 articles, stub-sorting, infoboxes, and copy-and-paste and Anglo-centric contributors.
      • Not willing to become an administrator - maybe that's obvious!
    • 2. What should this group might achieve and how: A forum. A place where ideas can be exchanged, content issues discussed, guidelines developed, centralized discussions advertised, consensus tested, synergy created. Project-style task forces can be set up to deal with particular problems.
    • 3. Membership criteria: we need to attract experienced encyclopedia-builders, but is exclusion the Wikipedia way? Perhaps the group can be open to all with participants listed according to seniority (WP start date/number of edits), thereby giving the highest recognition to the longest serving? If the group expands, we can elect some co-ordinators.
  • Peter Damian (talk)
    • Used to teach philosophy, now retired. I am currently working on a translation of a work by Duns Scotus.
    • Wikipedia: I first started contributing in July 2003. Mostly active in the area of philosophy and medieval philosophy, also mathematics and set theory. Continue to be frustrated by the poor quality of philosophy articles on Wikipedia - the article Existence, which I wrote a few years ago, is now a wreck.
    • I have also worked on controversial areas where POV groups are a problem, namely the articles around Ayn Rand, which are a disgrace, Neuro-linguistic programming, which I partly cleaned up, also Pederasty and Zoophilia, which are a continuing problem.
    • On inclusion or exclusion criteria: if the group is to have authority, there must be some kind of vetting process that ensures members can actually write, and are committed to and understand NPOV.
    • Objectives: a lobbying or advocacy group that focuses attention on the frustrations that those actually writing, as opposed to playing whack-a-mole with vandals or new-page patrolling, actually have to put up with day-to-day.
    • Favourite contribution: Medieval philosophy.
  • Tony the Marine (talk)
  • TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)
  • DavidRF (talk)
  • &freshacconci talktalk
  • Antandrus (talk)
  • Ty
  • TallNapoleon (talk)
  • Pericles of AthensTalk
  1. I mostly edit history articles here at Wikipedia and am primarily focused on Chinese history. However, I occasionally venture out into the fields of Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Indian, Mesoamerican, Italian, etc. history.
  2. I think this group is simply a convenient one to join in order to associate and collaborate with other dedicated Wiki editors. I actually joined hoping to find others who have interests in Chinese history and might offer contributions or advice on my various projects and featured articles.
  3. I believe each member should have at least one featured article under their belt. I think this group should stress vetted, peer-reviewed, quality contributions above all concerns.
  4. I have no other thoughts to share. Good luck with maintaining the group, Damian!
  1. I started out, as I suppose many others did, by coming across an article about the place where I live and deciding that I could do better. Until fairly recently I've deliberately avoided getting involved in any articles related to my own professional expertise, but have now started dipping a toe in the water with a few articles on historic computers. In general though I like to focus on the less well trodden paths like 17th-century witchcraft trials and other oddities.
  2. I'm convinced that there's an increasing divide between wikipedia's "ruling elite" and the proles who slog away at the coalface with only the occasional slap for thanks. Having said that I think it would be a grave mistake for this group to exclude administrators, or anyone else in a position of power; it needs to be open to everyone who's demonstrated a commitment to writing good quality articles over a period of time.
  3. As to what the group's aims should be, I'm not sure. I'm thinking of it in terms of a lobbying group that might be able to focus attention on the frustrations that those actually writing, as opposed to playing whack-a-mole with vandals or new-page patrolling, actually have to put up with day-to-day. I really fail to understand the objections of those who appear to believe that members of this group would be even in the slightest inclined to, for instance, block-vote at someone's RfA; to me that's just another demonstration of the divisive culture of mistrust that's taken root here.

The name of the group

edit

Can we decide on a name for the group? Ideally a name that represents our aspirations, doesn't offend people, is compatible with WP structures and perhaps even makes a catchy acronym. Peter has suggested 'Established Editors Association'. Can we discuss this word by word? --Kleinzach 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 'Established', alternatives 'Veteran', 'Senior', 'Long-term' or ?
edit
  • Veteran. Many Wikipedians may claim to be 'established', some after only being here for a week or two. 'Veteran' is a stronger word in this context, more likely to be adopted appropriately. --Kleinzach 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
2. 'Editors', alternatives 'Contributors', or ?
edit
  • Editors. Contributors might be more accurate but the vowel would make an acronym; VEG (members=veggies?) --Kleinzach 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
3. 'Association', alternatives 'Group' or ?
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TallNapoleon/Association_of_Established_Editors&oldid=1142404405"