Wikipedia talk:Competence is acquired

Deletion

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Competence_is_acquired

New essay "Competence is desired"

Hi all, please read and contribute to Draft:Wikipedia:Competence is desired, which agrees with and explains this essay. If you want to acquire it, you have to desire it. And those who "require" it, sometimes don't.

It is a fork of WP:Competence is required that agrees in part and disagrees in part. I hope it will help us all improve on both the civility and the competence. These two virtues should be in harmony rather than at odds with each other.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have reverted your changes to this page, mostly because the word choice worsened the overall essay's premise. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACompetence_is_acquired&diff=1147249103&oldid=1101419440&diffmode=source Throwing around words like "POV Cabal" and "status quo stonewalling" sounds pretty much like you have a point to prove and are editing established existing essays to promote it. Please discuss before making more essay changes to existing documents, thanks Soni (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Many essays exist to prove some point or another: and the reason we make points in essays is because we should not disrupt the mainspace encyclopedia to make them. Writing "pointy" words in an essay is not only acceptable - it is the very purpose of the essay. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Point I am trying to clarify is the original Point made by this essay itself, which is in substantial agreement with this other WP:Don't bite the newcomers. To "prove" or "clarify" is not a problem, it is encouraged. If there is something else you meant, that I'm not getting, please explain. Also please WP:Assume good faith, and the section below where deal the sub-points individually

  Wikipedia talk:Competence is acquired § Proposed Improvements Clarify existing consensus

  Jaredscribe (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Soni

  The two "points" you dispute here are linked to a humorous essay and an explanatory essay.

  Perhaps a different choice of words is better, perhaps different link, perhaps both. I invite to improve my contribution if you wish to. Since you are disputing my first draft, I will not obvert until there is some consensus

  on what to do. It in order to get feedback like this, that I notified at the Village pump of my changes and invited editorial input.

  If perceive that I'm following the principle of WP:BRD.

  Our essay on WP:Bold says this:

  "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia."

  Thank for understanding and working with me. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike on other essays, your main point here is not far from the spirit of this essay. My contention is with the wording you chose. Both those links could be skipped, or at least have much better wording Soni (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Soni thank you for acknowledging that, and yes - my work here is insubstantial in that I'm in full agreement and seeking to clarify.

  In the other, I had proposed a radical change in the nature of the thesis and scope of application, and now its incubated as the draft. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Improvements Clarify existing consensus

• The proposed lede sentences adds two new links, to WP:Bold and WP:IAR. These are not my personal POV (as some might allege), but rather foundational principles of the Wiki, the latter is the 5th of our WP:5P. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think IAR is not the right choice, just because it makes no sense in the context. Newcomers need boldness to learn, IAR is not related to that. I'm happy with BOLD. Soni (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Link suggested better wording for "POV-cabal" was WP:SCREW, but it could instead User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles #2. Or we could leave it out. In favor of including one or the other of these links, I will argue that as the existing text already indicates that as these do sometimes exist, it would be more informative to the readers to make our consensus principles clearer, by adding the link. Jaredscribe (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• The word POV Cabal itself is the problematic bit. I'm happy with leaving it out, or having wording that's at least a bit more neutral to describe the same thing. Soni (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well yes, it could be changed.

  Since newcomers who persistently contribute in the area of their particular interest and knowledge, are often accused of POV-pushing or SOAPBOXing. Therefore not "morally wrong" for them to assume that there is also POV-pushing in the opposing direction by semi-organized consensus of like-minded senior editors, who may be seeking to have a certain status-quo accepted as neutral and normative, and who may be seeking to suppress an alternative theoretic formulation. I don't know how to express this concisely. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• They are meeting with WP:OWN behavior "and WP:Status quo stonewalling by incumbent managing editors" could be changed to "and reversion by incumbent managing editors to fail to edit in such a way that WP:PRESERVEs constructive contributions" Jaredscribe (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• The wording is better, but still confusing. What the hecc's a managing editor? Also I think WP:OWN needs to be part of the links there. Soni (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)