Wikipedia talk:First contact

Comments from Wiki Guides

I've added some comments from the Wiki Guide project page since I felt they fit the topic. The problem is that I can't edit them so that they make a better fit. I want to lose some of the directions so as not to mislead the reader. Any ideas? ```Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Searching thru old Wiki Guide stuff

Although I'm quite busy in RL, I'm looking for some methods that were used to track the new editors. Once the friendly welcome is in place keeping track of what and where they go and what happens to them is a nightmare. There was a system @ Wiki guides that I'll search for. Ive probably welcomed a thousand New editors and the ones that have reached out to me is a dozen. Maybe 2 dozen if you count just the simple "thank yous". So there has to be some way of evaluating, quickly and impartially, which editors were worth my time...our time...WER members time. The good ones are not obvious. They are not given a "Notice Me" flag when they make their first edit. Sounds harsh but the possibility of wasting time with a vandal or someone of that ilk, doesn't interest me. Ive tried to get them to realize that they could learn to drive the new car they were "keying" but to no avail. Time spent beyond the first welcome and some supportive contact has to have value. Retaining quality editors is a worthwhile goal...but determining quality, early on, is the trick. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisting user talk pages?

Assuming the task "Leave them on your watchlist..." is referring to the new editor's talk page, what is meant by "interject if necessary"? I'm a bit wary of counseling editors to interject in other people's conversations without providing more guidance.I think it is better not to give the impression that new editors are being watched, but to let them ask for assistance where they find it necessary. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Although they are given all the links, I'm not sure they are comfortable asking for help...or the are confused as to where to go. Do most men that are lost turn into the nearest gas station and ask for help? Same mindset here. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I mean leave them on MY watchlist. After I place the WER Welcome Template, there's a little box above save. "Watch This Page". its already checked so unless I uncheck it, they are on my watchlist...which gets amazingly messy. Now I only watchlist the ones that, for some reason, I notice..and I interject myself if necessary. It might be at a speedy deletion or a softening of a bitey kind of bot. As to watching, I disagree. When it happened to me I was comforted to know that I had WikiFriends that I hadn't even met yet. I really doubt that they will have a negative impression if some friendly editor falls out of the sky to help them, even if its just to explain "IT" (whatever the situation /hangup/miss-step is) differently. No. If we wait, they are gone. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I assumed you meant leave the new editor's talk page on your watchlist (the sentence as written isn't clear on what page you mean to watch, though the user talk page is the only obvious candidate). I agree that explaining automated / template messages can be useful (though I guess the longer-term solution would be to improve these messages so they are sufficiently friendly for newcomers; maybe they should have an option for what audience they are being used for, and have different text for each?). But if someone just kept dropping in on my talk page, personally I might feel that I was being stalked, or being treated condescendingly. So maybe some pointers to some real-world examples of useful assistance can help. isaacl (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A good real-world example might be moving to a new city. I think everyone would appreciate some help and assistance especially when the long term resident knows that there are most likely some rough neighborhoods to get through. Granted, I wouldn't want them walking behind me, watching and correcting my every move. But the initial welcome kind of sets the stage for all kinds of future "other editor' involvement. If the new editor stays and gets busy with the work of the encyclopedia, then other editors showing up out-of the blue will be commonplace. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, by "real-world example", I meant on Wikipedia: perhaps there could be pointers to diffs showing well-worded examples written by an editor who was helping, unasked, to clarify some messages on a user's talk page. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Here [1] is a recent one. More support follows at her talk and at the speedy. As a result of my "interjecting myself", unasked, (along with an editor I had asked), the article was a keep. Here is another [2]. There are others. As I come across more I'll put them here. A third, [3] ```Buster Seven Talk 22:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit wary of counseling editors to interject in other people's conversations without providing more guidance. 1) "counseling editors to interject in other people's conversations". This is Wikipedia. I don't know if you noticed but editors interject themselves into other ediotrs conversations all over the place 24/7. I must be missing something in the transmission. 2) "without providing more guidance". If its guidance to veteran editors that you mean, I agree. Im-proved interplay with new editors needs to change. If its guidance to the new editor well...its kind of guidance by experience (which is a valuable and effective learning vehicle). Like they say, "Experience is the best teacher". When the new editor experiences teamwork and fellow editorial support, I don't think, for one moment, that they will say to themselves, "Hey! That's Condescending!" or "Am I being stalked". I think its a stretch to hint either response would occur.```Buster Seven Talk 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this is how I would personally feel under the specific circumstance I outlined (someone continually commenting on my talk page), so it's not a stretch for me. I realize that others may react differently. My suggestion was to put examples with the guideline, so you can put them there, rather than on this talk page. isaacl (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Under construction

I think the advice on the page is fully usable right now, even if it is still growing, so personally I don't believe an under construction banner is required. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have undone. While I'm enjoying our collaboration, I thought it might attrack other editors. Do you know if 'under construction' projects are listed somewhere. just curious. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See the documentation for Template:Under construction; it states that pages with the template are placed in Category:Pages actively undergoing construction. isaacl (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WPAFC#standards

A quote from ".....seek others' input, but many reviewers are new, enthusiastic editors who do not fully understand policy yet. They end up being – by virtue of their role as the first users to contact submitters – the explainers of policy to newbies. Another reviewer can always undo their decision, but this rarely happens given the size of the backlog, and people are only made aware of problematic reviewers when they are making consistent and serious mistakes." Do you think we can use anything at WPAFC/standards? Or how about where Editor Kudpung says; "Enthusiastic, but poor work when attacking backlogs is in many ways far worse than not doing it at all. One must not forget that user retention is a core Foundation policy." ```Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It took me a little bit of time to find the link you meant to include: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#standards. Issues of competence are always tricky to address, particularly while trying to encourage the prospective volunteer. For example, I've seen cases where editor Z expressed a desire to mentor editor X, other editors responded by saying that editor Z didn't have the necessary experience to be a mentor, and editor Z failed to get the hint, saying there were no requirements for being a mentor. In one case editor Z seemed to be someone who wanted to climb the ranks in Wikipedia and saw "mentor" as one task to accomplish.

Although this page could list a set of qualifications that are beneficial for a greeter—such as good communication skills, knowledgeable about policy and procedures, experienced in dispute resolution—it's sort of a Catch-22: anyone who doesn't realize what being a greeter entails (even after reading through the list of tasks) and wants to be one anyway is unlikely to be able to self-evaluate their abilities in these areas. isaacl (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Un-intentionally biting a New Editor

I came across the following on a new editors page the day after I had welcomed him. On the surface, it's a nice enough note....

== Portola Middle School ==

Hi. I've removed most of what you added to the Portola Middle School article for the following reasons;

• Firstly; you need to write neutrally in Wikipedia. You cannot add your own observations and opinions. Phrases like "may be one of the best in the state" is voicing an opinion, even when phrased weaselly.
• Secondly; you need to cite things. Claims like "Dr.Boucher's students have placed at the top in many national contests." are worthless without a source to verify it.
• Thirdly; things should be notable. The fact that the school self-publishes writing by the students is not really notable. Many schools do this. It is not evidence that "The school's honors writing program has been so successful".
• Lastly; you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It is best to avoid writing about things you are directly involved in, as it can be hard to be completely objective.

Please don't let this put you off editing Wikipedia. If you think you can be objective, perhaps you might try again? Anonomous Editors signature and time stamp

But at second glance, when we read it as a newbie might, it can be construed as a little bitey. We veteran editors don't even realize we're doing it. Heres the same message with much of the bite removed:

==your High school===

Hi. Sorry but I've had to edit out much of what you added to the Insert Article here article for the following reasons;

• Firstly; we need to write neutrally in Wikipedia. As wikipedia editors, we should not add our own observations and opinions. A phrases like "may be one of the best in the state" is voicing an opinion and is out of place in an encyclopedia.
• Secondly; we need to cite things. Claims like "Dr.Boucher's students have placed at the top in many national contests." need a verifiable a source to verify it. A newspaper article or a magazine might do it!
• Thirdly; things should be notable. The fact that the school self-publishes writing assignments by the students is not notable. Many schools do this. More evidence is needed in order to state, "The school's honors writing program has been so successful".
• Lastly; we should read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It is best to avoid writing about things we are directly involved in, as it is hard to be completely objective.

Please don't let this put you off editing Wikipedia. Being objective is a difficult but necessary editorial capacity. Perhaps you might try again. WER editor Signature and timestamp

I think the most important change is "you" to "we". It changes everything. It is softer and friendlier. It unifies rather than chastises, "We are partners, We are collaborating." I await your guidance comment on how we can use this or present it in the essay but I feel it lies at the heart of the conflict. Not conflict maybe but at the heart of the different vantage points that the essay articulates. We veterans need to remember we are talking to novices, first graders (even kindergardners). If we constantly tell them they are wrong...They will cry easily and run to the teacher complaining. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a personal preference, I'm not inclined to use "we" as it is reminiscent of the phony "we" that some people use ("We have to learn to speak kindly") when they really mean "you". That being said, I can see how judicious use of it can be useful, and I agree that it is important to make new editors feel welcome from the start and not begin with an "us versus you" environment. Personally I would try to word statements using the third person ("Wikipedia editors must find notable sources") or the passive voice, though I appreciate this can feel less emphatic than the active voice.

I do not believe using bold face when writing a personal message is the best approach, as it gives the impression of yelling. I also think we don't have to treat new editors like kindergartners; part of assuming good faith is assuming they are reasonable, rational, and intelligent, though they may harbour some mistaken assumptions regarding Wikipedia's standards, and so may require some assistance.

Generally speaking, I think it is good to show how some messages can be written politely, clearly, and invitingly. isaacl (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The boldface was only to highlite the changes...for you to see. Not for the final product. :~0...That should have been obvious to you. Also, I didn't say or mean to imply that we treat them as toddlers. What they are is Novices. They may be all you say...but if they cross the street without knowing how...they are going to get hit!```Buster Seven Talk 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't pick up on the bold face highlighting changes, as I had already read your text before you added the bold. I'm not partial to the imagery of new editors crying and complaining to the teacher, but I understand the message you are conveying that experienced editors must be sensitive to the needs of newcomers. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Sorry, too! I just use imagery(s) so we (you and I) can transfer ideas back and forth. I would never use them in the final product. We are "thinking together" which can be messy at times. If you recall we met at Tim Raines where, I think, our conversation created a great example of two editors with opposite desires who worked it out for the good of the article. TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Gtwfan52

This editor is a fine example of someone that works with new editors in a special, nurturing way. I will work towaard creating a dialogue with him and hopefully he will be willing to share some of his wisdom. ((Below is a sample of Gfans work))`Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Thank for your assistance in editing the Wiki on WGMD. As you can tell by my edits I am new at this and somewhat frustrated. I am trying to help a friend who thinks I am computer literate. I am, but more so in hardware. I seem to remember editing papers in WordStar in similar environment. I am happy I no longer have to boot from 12" floppies. I am learning a lot but I am somewhat frustrated because it is taking me so long to figure out how to make a page, that the system logs me out before I save and the changes show up without my name! Another somewhat annoying thing, I have to admit, was spending all day yesterday on the schedule only to find out my friend was a sleep when I was finished. The next day I set up a conference call in the morning to go through the page and the paragraph schedule was gone. Only the table was there making me look like foolish. "No, really I remember putting it here. I learned about the code for breaks when I created it. It has to be here. Where did it go?" I was hoping the notes explaining the edits would let you know I was aware of the redundancy.

While I appreciate the edits and grammar changes (admittedly not my strong point), I have tried to keep the page in line with other stations and wow, they are far more promotional. While other pages about stations include logos, this page seams to be restricted from bolding it's own call sign! It hardly seems fair that the big radio stations aren't held to the same scrutiny! I hope I am using the talk page correctly and didn't mess up your page. EditorialNoted — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorialNoted (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, EditorialNoted! I am glad you are trying to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't take the edits I made at WGMD personally. I will try to address your concerns one by one. BTW, you may want to click the edit button on this conversation so you can see how numbered lists are made.

1. All your past edits are still here! Just click the history button and you will find a list of every edit made on every page. If you want to put the lists back and get rid of the box, just go back to an edit where it was and copy it, then edit the page delete the box and paste in the list. To make it a bit simpler than using the <br> code, you can put an asterisk (*) at the beginning of each line and that will give you a bulleted list.
2. Please don't feel anyone singled out the article you have been working on for any reason pertaining to the subject of the article. There are groups on Wikipedia that go through and just randomly check articles for issues such as style and promotional language, among other topics. Pages are selected in two main ways, either by pressing the "Random Page" button or by pulling up a list of "recent changes", which is how I came across your article. Mainly, when patrolling recent changes, we look for vandalism, of which there is plenty. Sometimes, frankly, I get bored doing that and I will find a page like the one that you have been working on that need help with style issues. Believe it or not, there is a standard way to make a Wikipedia page. It is outlined in general terms in the Manual of Style. Then, more particularly, there are groups called Wikiprojects that have guidelines for particular types of articles. A radio station would be covered by Wiikiproject Radio stations. Articles also get a quality rating from the projects. The lowest is Start, then Stub, then "C", then "B", then Good, then Featured. WGMD was at start. Now that the promotional language is cleared out of it, it would now be considered stub. I will try to get someone from the project to come by and look and change the rating. A little more history with the proper referencing and it could easily be a "C".
3. You are more than welcome to put the stations logo in the infobox, providing you can get the proper copyright clearance. Copyright is tricky and a big pain, so I will look into that for you.
4. I agree that there are other radio station articles that are very promotional in tone. That is never a reason to make another one. At some point someone will address those issues in other articles. You can if you want! As I am sure you are aware, Wikipedia is huge and it takes time for quality to catch up to some articles.
5. A great place to go for "noobs" to Wikipedia is The Teahouse. They will answer any technical question you have with zero judgement or attitude, something that is kinda hard to find around here.
6. When you post an entry anyplace but in an article, you should sign it by typing four tildes (~~~~).

1. Lastly, I wish you happy editing and encourage you to come ask me any time you have questions. Thanks and sorry this was so long winded. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming newbies W/ Page Triage

• Retreaved from User:Itemirus' Talk Page

Hi. Thanks for patrolling new pages - a tedious but essential task! When you add a speedy notice to a talk page which previously did not exist, like User talk:Issi5978 just now, it's a good idea to precede it with a welcome message like {{welcome}} or {{firstarticle}}. That makes the deletion notice less BITEy, and also gives the newbie links to useful advice which may help them do better next time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD - yes, adding the welcome tag is polite. The problem is that the deletion notice is added automatically to the user's talk page by the PageTriage tool. So after patrolling, I would be required to manually check if the user is a new user and, if that's the case, add the welcome tag to his talk page...--Itemirus^{Message me!} 11:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That seems a problem with the Page Triage system - I'll mention it there. It ought to be possible to do it automatically - the PROD template mechanism adds "firstarticle" in front of the PROD if it finds an empty page. I have been having a similar discussion about the AfC notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Welcome message for newbies See Below. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Page Triage is still in beta testing, i have also left a notice on the tool's feedback page with some suggestions - maybe you should point this out as well ) --Itemirus^{Message me!} 11:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome message for newbies re:Decline Notice too Bitey

• Retreaved from WP:AfC/Welecome message for newbies

I came here to make the same point as DGG's no. 1 above, about not telling contributors of copyvios that they can continue working on their submission when it has actually been deleted. I have only one thing to add to his comprehensive list: when a decline notice is the first entry on a newbie's talk page, it seems less BITEy if it is preceded by {{welcome}} or another suitable welcome message, which also gives the newbie links to general advice which should help them do better next time. It ought to be possible to do that automatically - the existing PROD template mechanism puts {{firstarticle}} before the PROD when added to a new page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, users should receive a welcome message especially if it may help them with the guidelines and what they should and shouldn't be adding. I've welcomed AfC users several times especially if I find the user(s) editing while reviewing "recent changes". SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have Teahouse inviting implemented in the script. It would be a nightmare to implement, but I'll prod Mabdul. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So easy: if page doesn't exists, add "{{welcome}} (newline) AFC related stuff" instead of "AFC related stuff"? mabdul 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

/me facepalms. That's why you're the lead developer and not me. Will put on the agenda. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just came up: Or do / should I check if there isn't any welcome template? This might create some false-positives or "older" users. mabdul 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe an AfC version such as subst:first article would be an excellent choice. However, the template would need to be changed such as removing "your article may not be retained" and should also include something such as "thanks for your recent efforts at your Article for creation submission but it has not passed Wikipedia guidelines at this time. Visiting the following links may help you improve the submission". Welcoming users can only help them and us and not to mention possibly saving time than simply adding another decline message and driving away the user after they have attempted multiple times. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we either have to change {{first article}} (new parameter) or create our own/new template. But basically my major question still stands (before I say goodbye and drive away cause of holidays): Checking for existing welcome templates (hard to develop) or only if there isn't any page? mabdul 11:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"If there isn't any page" is the important case, as that is "first contact". I'd be happy with that. Checking for previous welcomes only on the page might result in giving welcomes to long-standing editors who have had and archived a welcome in the past, which could seem patronising, and I imagine checking the whole history for welcomes would be complicated. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How does User:Mdann52/AfC welcome look to everyone? Mdann52 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the job! JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out {{Subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}}. Does that rock anyones boat? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Also, as a result of talk at WP:WER there is an essay at WP:First contact...for what its worth. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome--Amadscientist (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)