Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

• User:Cirt/Gutting

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Prefer userfying to true deletion

Writing as someone who had one or two articles of mine getting deleted several years ago and who has not been inclined to create an article since - and who just now discovered that userfication is even an option - I'd like to suggest the following.

1. Seven days to deletion may not give an article creator long enough to correct issues. What if the creator only logs in to Wikipedia once a month or less? (I normally only log in when I plan to make an edit.)

2. If the creator hasn't copied the original Wikicode, the deleted work is lost. (Perhaps not, but I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to retrieve it.) This is a major disincentive to risk the effort of writing an article. Therefore, except for legally problematic things like G10 or logistically problematic things like an article entered by an IP address -- can you still do that anymore? -- it would be much more newcomer-friendly for the default deletion method to be userfication rather than deleting, and to err on the side of the idea that articles are salvageable, or at least are valuable to whoever created it even as you choose to remove them from the Wikipedia proper.

3. The article on userfication makes the userfying process seem like a lot of work. I wonder whether the developers could simplify it to an administrator's button click (and a user's button click to resubmit it once they've improved the article). This would make making userfication the default deletion a lot more feasible.

4. This applies both to speedy deletions and to proposals for deletion that have come down to a decision to delete.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

==Nice thought...==77.96.131.63 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Apparently this policy only applies to Wikipedians. 72.74.208.146 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Biting English as a second language (ESL) editors

Although English has many more second language speakers (500 million to 1.5 billion) than native speakers (300 million to 400 million), the English Wikipedia community is dominated by native English speakers. We must welcome editors writing in English as a second language (ESL), who are usually more qualified to contribute on poorly represented topics, such as African history, Chinese culture, Islamic law and women in India. Native speakers of English sometimes bite ESL editors (even experienced contributors) over their English errors.

For example, when I asked to clarify confusing wording in the good article criteria, Chris troutman replied that "if you can't speak English well then this project is probably not for you", even though I have written thirteen GAs. When an unregistered editor asked "[a not official chemistry holyday more important then main festival of major religion?]", Materialscientist reverted the post, warned the unregistered editor with {{uw-english}} and did nothing about the actual issue. New articles about notable topics are sometimes nominated for speedy deletion with {{db-nonsense}} due to English errors.

During a discussion about prejudice against ESL editors, Tryptofish suggested adding a new paragraph about ESL editors to a policy (or guideline) page, then creating a shortcut that links to this new paragraph. I think the proposed paragraph is best placed at "please do not bite the newcomers" and WP:BITESL would be a good shortcut. Hence I would like more input on this idea from the wider English Wikipedia community, who could write the paragraph together.

--Hildanknight (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair it is not just newcomers that are biten and most of the biting comes from "experienced" people and admins that beleive a little power goes a very long way Lemlinspire (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd Question

How come there is very little talk page discussion about this article (since this talk page has not been bot-archived in years) but every inexperienced contentious editor seems to know enough about this guideline in order to be able to use it as a tool to bite experienced editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

More seriously, it has been my understanding that this guideline is a guideline for experienced editors including admins, and that it was not really intended to be used BY inexperienced editors as a standard excuse for edit-warring/SPA editing/poor grammar/COI editing/incivility. My own opinion is that, if an editor is familiar enough with Wikipedia to be able to cite this guideline to attack other editors who are perceived as attacking them, they are no longer a newbie, and ought to be simply listening to advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone reads guidelines in a logical order. This was one of the first I read because it had a funny title, so some editors might know this one and not a more relevant one. That being said, I think once an editor has been informed of a policy (or has been editing long enough), they should be expected to follow it. The way I read it, it is not an excuse for bad behaviour, just a plea for newbie first offenders to be calmly and informatively warned rather than punished. As an example, if I see a newbie put a poorly sourced, POV edit into an article, I might revert and then leave them a detailed friendly post on their talk page explaining a few policies and linking them. If a more experienced editor did the same, I would revert and leave a short reason in the edit summary. The difference is not whether I revert or not, but whether I make the extra effort to make sure the editor understands. For incivility, I will put up with a lot more from a lost newbie than an experienced editor who should know better. Other platforms (like Facebook) allow and even encourage rudeness. However, if they persist, won't discuss and edit war, I will take them to the proper noticeboard etc. In that sense I agree that this should not be used as an excuse. Instead, I feel it is a realisation that when newbies invariably mess up, and end up with a talk page full of scary templates, they freak out and leave, rather than learning and staying. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, I think that this is a good guideline for experienced editors to remind other experienced editors about. When a combative editor uses this guideline as a cudgel to fight off experienced editors who are trying to advise them otherwise, it no longer applies to them, and they are gaming the system and wikilawyering. My own opinion is that, once they have gotten to the knowledge of guidelines to use this guideline, they should also be following the other guidelines and are ready for one last warning before a block (or maybe for a block because they have been warned). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Praise from a new editor

With a huge 16 days! (!) as an editor here, I figure I qualify as a newcomer.

I applaud this article and, let me say, so far I have found everyone very welcoming and nice.

One thing I find a bit overwhelming is the 'amount' of help available. So many help pages and sites and WP: this and WP: that. It's good to have, but it can be overwhelming.

One thing to consider adding to this page is something I have found to be true across many areas of life:

It is easy to forget that what you know isn't known by all and that what is easy for you may be hard for someone else. -- PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There should be a catagory page for new comers.

This way it is easy to help them and find them too. Doorknob747 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)

Support I have seen two cases recently where biting went on unchecked for a little while before the new editor requested help. In one case I was too late and the editor got very bitter and left. The second is at ANI and the new editor is quite upset. It would be nice if we could have a category to keep an eye on them, say for the first week or month and see they come to no harm. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It is currently quite hard to go by the current Wikipedia's level of regulation enforcement standards for any newcomer. 186.120.130.16 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U5

I sometimes see new users make the first edit of their Wikipedia career as creating their user page with autobiographical content. Then I see that another editor has placed the {{db-g5}} template on the user page which says, "This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace."

Am I correct in saying that this is inappropriate when applied to a new editor's creation of their own user page? Granted, the editor may have made zero edits outside userspace, but that shouldn't be considered a problem if the user has only been registered for one day (or even a somewhat longer period of time). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate, unless that user has been consistently editing that page and nothing else for multiple weeks. A lot of people (myself included) prefer to have a profile about themselves first and then start contributing. Up to a week or two, they might just be using their user page to practice Wikipedia syntax, editing, etc. and have a profile for themselves. I wouldn't feel very welcome (and probably would have left) if I got that tag on a page I was actively working on. Appable (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Edit Review Improvements

If someone amongst you is interested as a patroller or a tutor for newbie, there is a new project described on mw:Edit Review Improvements--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

¿How do I report users for their hostility?

I've been editing on Windows 10 related articles and there seems to be a clique of 2 or 3 users who constantly help each other in reverting to never break the 3 revert rule and often whenever they disagree with people they will report and threaten with banning as well use name-calling. I want to know how I can report people who do this multiple times. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In cases like this one, you can file a dispute resolution request. Jarble (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Some arbitration enforcement warnings seem to be 'biting' the newcomers

This template is now included in more than 100 talk pages on Wikipedia. Can this message be conveyed in a less-intimidating way (so that newcomers can edit Wikipedia without fear of retaliation)? Jarble (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar edit notices are used on pages related to the Syrian Civil War, such as this one. Will new editors be able to contribute to Wikipedia without understanding Wikipedia's "discretionary sanctions" system and the editing restrictions associated with it? Jarble (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Discretionary sanctions are used on article areas that are so contentious that inexperienced editors really may not understand. Articles subject to discretionary sanctions really are a case where an inexperienced editor should get some experience before editing, largely because, no matter how neutral and good the intention of the new editor, it is probably less unwelcoming for them to feel put off by the DS than to be bitten really hard by getting caught between POV-pushers who caused the discretionary sanctions to be necessary in the first place. Some areas in fact have special restrictions such as the 30/500 rule (30 days, 500 edits) deliberately designed to keep new editors away (especially since too many of the new editors in those areas are not really new editors anyway but sockpuppets). I realize that the warning seems bitey, but that is the lesser of the harms. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Meta-warning: a newcomer weighing in on sanctions and disgruntlements about newcomers and edits. I almost walked away from all these pages, after I started by noting a debate about whether to change the title of article about lawsuits against Trump's immigration policy. I went down a rabbit-hole of wikipedia links to ultimately decide, I would like to let any wiki-folk know (and likely this is an ineffective route but bear with me) that all of this is so opaque that a) I was driven to create an account and post, b) I LITERALLY am experiencing some symptoms of panic attacks reading these guidelines and rules and the responses to the original question of whether the article title should be revised, c) reponses appear to incorporate Latin but ungrammatically so I don't know if these are jokes or a new Wikipedia legal language or references to earlier statements and d) finally, that if Wikipedia wants to be "of and for the people", that it may be in deep deep trouble. So bite me- knock yourself out. Jefoley (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I mostly agree with User:Jefoley's statements here. Arbitration enforcement warnings like this one are likely to have a strong chilling effect on Wikipedia, in spite of its ongoing shortage of editors. Jarble (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A Controversial Thought About This Guideline

Occasionally a good idea becomes so popular or so widely accepted without regard to its original context that it is overused and may do harm as well as good. That is the case with the Wikipedia guideline Do not bite the newcomers. It was and still is a very good idea, in particular because Wikipedia needs new editors, and is complicated and has a culture that takes time to learn, and new editors may not understand its rules and its culture, and should be welcomed. However, this guideline, over a long period of time, has been raised to a status that is beyond its original purpose, and can do unintended harm in at least two ways, as well as doing (intended) good by encouraging the welcoming of new editors. There are at least two ways that this guideline does unintended harm. The first has to do with relatively new aggressive editors, who may be either POV-pushing editors or (worse) may be COI editors. It seems that such editors often quickly learn the guideline, Do not bite the newcomers, and use it as a cudgel to protect themselves from advice by other experienced editors by saying that they are being bitten when they are cautioned about aggressive editing and aggressive discussion of their editing. Maybe that guideline should be clarified to note that any editor who is able to quote it is no longer a newbie, and that the guideline should (in my opinion) be used by one experienced editor to admonish another experienced editor, not by a “newbie” against an experienced editor. The second problem has to do with review of contributions by new editors. Because reviewers at NPP and AFC take the Bite guideline very seriously, they are cautious, often excessively cautious, about dealing with new editors. New editors, in my opinion, fall into three main classes. The first is those who want to make a good-faith contribution to improve Wikipedia. They should be encouraged; because of the complexity of Wikipedia, they may need time to learn how Wikipedia works. The second is those who are simply clueless. The third is those who have a specific interest, such as themselves, their band, or their company, and want to get it into Wikipedia; they are single purpose accounts and may have a conflict of interest. It is true that these classes overlap. There are new editors who are good-faith but are clueless. They may or may not acquire clue. There are also single-purpose accounts who are clueless; they are among the most frustrating for a reviewer. However, undisclosed COI editors do need to be bitten, and the exalted status of the guideline not to bite newcomers often wastes considerable time on the part of experienced editors trying to be gentle with editors who need to be bitten. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This guideline is in itself a good idea, but, partly because it is overused, it does unintended harm as well as intended good. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have noticed people dropping helpful WP:BITE links when what they should have been doing was to tell an aggressive new editor to pull their head in. I have no idea what to do about it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

See my comments under [1] Mikemorrell49 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions/comments from a newbie (who joined clueless and with a COI 2 months ago)

As a newby (2 months) there is vast amount I still don't know about the inner workings of Wikipedia and other Wikiprojects. To be perfectly honest, I don't have either the motivation or time to find or read all the many policies and guidelines in any detail. I'm sure I'll come across the main ones sooner or later. IMHO the principle of 'don't bite the newcomers' is a good one, at least until the newcomer has had sufficient time and guidance to go through the initial stage of the Wikipedia learning curve. The more newcomers learn, the more willing and able they are to learn more and contribute.

My suggestion is to formulate this policy more positively, for example: "Encourage and help newcomers feel at home and learn more about Wikipedia". This does not in any way affect our principles, editorial policy or guidelines. But it does affect how we help newcomers learn about these (and why they are there).

2 months ago, I joined (clueless) with the aim of publishing a page for which I had a clear COI, POV and was neither notable, reliable nor neutral. Unsurprisingly, it was summarily rejected with links to the relevant guidelines. I also received a somewhat friendlier message on my talk page inviting me to learn more about Wikipedia and not to give up yet.

To cut a long story short, I was interested enough to learn more about Wikipedia (initially still motivated by a desire to publish the page on a subject for which I had a COI). I realized the topic had insufficient English-language notability but more than sufficient Dutch-language notability. I requested - and collaborated with - an independent Wikipedia coach on the Dutch-language page. Because I realized that I had a COI, I also invited 2 other independent editors to review and contribute to the page. So the current page is a collaborative effort and approved by all contributors. I have also explicitly declared my potential COI. Since then, I have contributed to various discussions across the various Wikiprojects.

So there is a big shift in my perspective of Wikipedia and it's sister projects. I'm sure that some newcomers join motivated by the mission, being part of the community, etc. From what I read in the Tea House, many more join (initially) - just like me - out of self-interest: to publish a page, with no clue about the mission, policy, processes or guidelines. IMHO it is unrealistic to expect newcomers to first read and digest the relevant information on these topics. That's not how most people in the real world think. Their primary goal is "how do I get this published?". Their motivation for learning (as long as it lasts) is 'frustration'. So it's very much learning by doing.

IMHO, we should expect newcomers to be clueless, have a COI en POV. Ideally, we should gently help them through the learning curve and accept that standard abbreviations and shortcuts to individual policies and guidelines are meaningless to newcomers. Not every newcomer will be willing or able to stay the course through the learning curve but the more the merrier. In my opinion there are many aspects of Wikipedia (and other projects) that are likely to dissuade newcomers from staying. But that's a topic for a different essay. Mikemorrell49 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Mikemorrell49, our general philosophy is that people are welcome to jump in and start contributing without reading the policies and stuff. Part of the philosophy is not to put barriers in the way of a new users. New users are invited to Boldly improve and contribute. We expect people to make mistakes. When they do, we post shortcut links to whatever they need to learn at the moment. New users who stick around soon start posting shortcut links themselves. It's just too time consuming to explain policies in detail all the time, and explanations often leave out important points.

Helping new users get started is a hard problem. There are basically two options: Force new users to read long pages of information before editing, or human-to-human assistance. Human-to-human assistance is great, and you've already found the Tea house is a great place to find help. But it's hard to supply the human-time for helping all new people. It requires experienced volunteer editors, the experienced editors generally have other things they are working on, and to be honest... it too often turns out to be poor use of time. There are so many new people, and very few of them stick around. If someone is here just to write one article, it's costly in experienced-volunteer-tiime to handle it. What we really want is people who will stick around to become experienced general editors, writing or improving article without assistance, and hopefully they start helping users :)io

Regarding the article you wanted to create: I left a post on your talk page. It wasn't a Notability issue, and it looks fixable. Alsee (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, I completely understand (partly through my involvement in other voluntary organisations) the valid points you make. Especially the one about the time investment in individuals given the statistics on 'new editors' who quickly leave or stay around. I completely accept that the majority of 'new editors' join WP clueless and for the wrong reasons. I suspect that statistics show that 'new editors' who realize that they're not going to get their pet (POV/COI) page(s) published quickly disappear. For some reason, I'm interested in the question "how could a greater percentage of people who join 'Wikimedia' for the wrong reasons be motivated to stay around for the right reasons?". I don't know any of the answers. Perhaps there are are ways of predicting who will be most/least likely to stay. Perhaps there are indicators (based on WP behavior) of who is most or least likely to stay around. Perhaps there are ways of focusing help/support towards those most likely to stay. Perhaps the "Wikimedia Culture" also turns prospective 'stayers' off. Many thanks for your positive remarks on my 'pet project'!Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In my efforts to address these concerns, I've started using an extended welcome message in addition to Template:Welcomeg. I use mostly when coming across new editors working on topics under general sanctions, preferring Template:Uw-coi for potential conflicts of interest. I'd always hoped that Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, or a similar team, would create something to replace it. I've not looked for replacements in a year or more. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz and thanks for your response. Your welcome message and info page is great! Both friendly and useful for new editors. I used a 3-year old account to create my 1st page so it's possible I didn't see the usual welcome/info then. I don't have any overview of new editor motivations, learning behaviors or stay/leave statistics, other than some surveys done in Asia in 2017. So I'm not sure what % of new editors in which countries/projects run into which types of problems or why. I learned the hard way (through rejection) because my initial motivation was self-interest and I didn't take enough time to really learn about WP. I see some similar cases in the Tea House but we are perhaps a small minority of new editors. I suspect the 'self-interest' mindset also determines what 'help' articles new editors read and how much of the content really sticks. "How do I get my pet page published?" is a different driver than "How can I contribute to WP?". I don't have much time to look into this now but I'll learn more about it and contribute where and when I can. Kind Regards, Mikemorrell49 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome message example

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful. Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily. Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines. I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Paid editors

Does this policy apply to self-declared paid editors who are making incompetent edits? While I usually try to assist new users, I guess I am reluctant to put in my volunteer effort into a paid person clearly not competent to do the job they are being paid for. Kerry (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New?

Does a “newcomer” often mean someone that created an account over a year ago but up until recently has barely used it? Thissecretperson (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017

I think when we say "newcomer", we really mean "inexperienced". So the user you describe above would seem to fit that description. Having said that, some new/rarely-used accounts exhibit a pattern of edits that is characteristic of an experienced editor, which may indicate they have previously edited as an IP or other account and probably not truly newcomers. Kerry (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Thissecretperson (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)