Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Community rehabilitation

Best wishes

I agree wholeheartedly. I rarely work with anybody anymore. It's not worth it. Everything here boils down to drama and more drama. I still enjoy writing articles, and doing this and that, but the original feeling doesn't seem the same to me. Grsz¹¹ 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

old thoughts

During the whole "Civility" pole, It started a page along these lines (User:Ched Davis/Helping Hands), but never followed through with it. (apologies to Buster7 and Tznkai) It does have some thoughts on it and the talk page that may be of interest. Now - that being said:

1. We have a member list started now (Thank you Julian!)
2. What are our goals?
3. What questions do we need to ask?
4. What are the first things we should be doing to get this moving in the right direction?

Morale isn't particularly high right now - partly due to some dramas, some bickering, and some in-fighting. These are things we should probably not be trying to address - but we should be aware of. In my view the project is in a state of change right now; in the sense that as Jimbo moves further away from "governing" things - others are attempting to fill the void - again, not something for this project to address - just something to be aware of.

Julian has opened the door, I'm willing to help furnish the home - what do you want me to bring to the party? ;) — Ched :  ?  05:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Name?

Since, presumably, we are working on the current Vulture Culture, are we therefore calling our group The Julian Colton Project? :-) Unschool 05:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

lol .. that's cute. Prolly for now - the name isn't the most important thing - the direction we go, and how we get there is. ;) — Ched :  ?  05:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose section? Call me jaded, but...

It ain't gonna happen. And what's more, you should consider the possibility that it shouldn't. Wikipedia was fun when it was new because of the novelty (redundant statement?). Everything is fun when it's new. It's still fun on an individual basis -- when newbies come in, they have fun, since it's new to them; and this is also their most unproductive time, generally speaking. They're just having fun with their new toy, oblivious of the rules and standards, wide-eyed at the idea of editing a page that the world could see. What carries over afterward is some sense of duty mixed with addiction, in percentages that vary from person to person.

I'm not sure exactly how you would make it "fun again" without bringing back the irresponsible novelty as well. If you really want to make it fun, find a way to make people care less. Maybe Wikipedia should take itself less seriously. But do we want that? I dunno, maybe we do. Just be prepared for others to take us less seriously then, too. I mean, less than they already do. Equazcion (talk) 07:03, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)

And, PS, on an individual basis, if you want to make Wikipedia more fun and less dramatic (assuming the two are indeed mutually exclusive for you), simply un-watch all processes and noticeboards. Also de-op yourself, if applicable. Poof, instant relief. Equazcion (talk) 09:30, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Let's see where it goes first. If it works, well and good; if it doesn't, no harm done to anyone. No point predicting if this is going to crash or not even before it's got off the ground. You're free to oppose if you want to, of course. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how reducing drama and boredom is equal to being a new user. I think it's useful to try and reduce completely unneeded drama to make people want to work on this project (again). There is no reason why a sense of responsibility should be considered incompatible with having fun when working here. The amount of humor pages created by otherwise serious and responsible users is a good indication for this. Regards SoWhy 12:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "fun" is the right word; the (tentative) goal of this project, in the broadest sense, is to find ways to reduce the turmoil that's plagued Wikipedia over the past year and support contribubtors. Of course, this will be tweaked and narrowed down over coming weeks, during which we'll develop a more solid strategy. As Ched mentioned above, the sheer number of disputes over the past year, including everything from WP:ARBDATE to the User:Law debacle, has eroded away at the community and forced countless members away. I fully agree that as Wikipedia evolves, so will its atmosphere, however, SoWhy hit the nail on the head. As in any professional workplace, in order for work to get done, contributors need to be happy in their work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note on "new users" vs. "drama". As I understand Julian's intent (correct me if I'm wrong), this project isn't so much about "reducing drama", "resolving conflict", or "developing any governance model" - it's more to provide a buffer for the incoming new users. For example - a new user comes in and is bold ... adds something to an article - it violates WP:NOT - they get reverted. They ask at help - get pointed to our wikispeak acronym WP:NOT and told if they don't like it ... take it to some AN board - boom - in a short period they're thrown to the wolves/drama. I get the impression that we need some things to point folks to where they can get helpful encouraging and constructive assistance before thrown into some "dispute resolution" process. Experienced users often forget what their own early days were like: exciting, new, fresh, and being a part of contributing to a very worthwhile project. After being asked 100 times why someone who owns a website can't create an article about it - we simply type out the WP:N, WP:COI, WP:WEB, etc., etc. stuff. Those pages are valuable, but they lack any personal interaction and encouragement. I think that is where we could focus some of our efforts. Once it's up and running - we give the folks at the help desk, reference desk, and those who spend a lot of time in various areas the link, and the knowledge that there is something between "new" and "drama" - a place to learn, grow, and become knowledgeable before becoming jaded. Positive re-enforcement is always going to work much better than "you can't do that!". Just the line I'm thinking in... Julian? — Ched :  ?  19:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's reasonable, I think. Again, I don't think we have an exact goal yet (nor should we, IMO), but that seems like a good place to start. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally

This is a great idea for those of us who have never really contributed to the article side of Wikipedia before, but I'd suggest that simply stepping away from the Wikipedia talk space and editing a few articles is a really good way to reduce boredom and drama; though, I'm not suggesting that article space is entirely free from the latter. Recently I've focused less on participating in the administrative areas and focusing on articles. That should be something everyone should at least try out :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't so much of a mission on a person-level as it is an attempt to improve the overall morale of the Wikipedia community. (Although that is very sound advice!) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding momentum to an already swinging pendulum

Wikipedia is definitely within the rhelm of a growing # of "Online Social COmmunities" (OSCO).

WP may like to differentiate itself from other OSCO's but it cannot escape its clear inclusion.

• Online (it exists nowhere else)(or does it?)
• Social (constant give and take, tetete's, discussions, random meetings, communications, friend/foe, neighbor/enemy, etc.)
• COmmunity (a gathering of like-minded or like-intended individuals that have gathered in a certain place)

--Buster7 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When was the last time you had an edit war with one of your wikifriends? By nature, we are much more tolerant of our friends. We need to make sure that newbies are "better" welcomed into our community. That they experience a ton more friendship than they experience strife.--Buster7 (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indirectly (although I suspect intensionally) you bring up a fundamental issue Buster7. There are some established policies about WP not being a social networking site - and though the reasons behind those policies are valid, at times they seem to hinder the communication levels here. We're not here to be "Facebook", but on the other hand - we desperately need to begin communicating better with each other. Judging from some history I've read, it has gotten better - at one time, there was even a huge debate about userboxes. I don't know that we can make any "definitive" policy - but we do need to use the talk pages more. A "How was your weekend" isn't a problem anymore, but there are still issues with page devoted to twitter style off-wiki "I'm doing this" things. Judging by my RfA, perhaps I have pushed the envelope at times, but I think we need to strike a balance between the "Hey, how was your weekend" and the "Hey - do you think article ABC needs a better reference?" I'm curious about others thoughts on this. — Ched :  ?  05:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something fun?

Idea: software running on a GPS-enabled, internet-connected device in your car that displays text from the article with the coords nearest to where you are at the moment. It could also read aloud, from an audio recording if the article has one, or by screen reader if not. You could pick or exclude certain categories of articles, and you could hit a button to move on to the next selection if you're bored with the current one. Something that feels like a radio channel is going to reach a wider audience than something that feels like an encyclopedia, and this might help our donation drives (public radio pulls in a lot of cash with their donation drives), and might generate more interest in local Wikipedia groups. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea ... but is it something that the WMF is able to finance? — Ched :  ?  05:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a gentle note

The good old days were never really that good. The week I started was a week or two after Larry Sanger quit Wikipedia in a final fit of Wikiburnout, & I remember Ed Poor posting as "Surfer Dude", asking everyone to mellow out. And around that time, during the original inclusionist vs. deletionist debates, we had something called "Wikipedians for Fun Editing" -- which seems to have gone out of existence since then.

I'm not trying to discourage this effort: Wikipedia needs more campaigns to remind people that it can be fun. But we can't think in terms of "the good old days" -- rather, we are looking forward to "the good days to come." -- llywrch (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The key to having fun in Wikipedia is to force yourself to have fun. Or rather, you need to make sure you avoid having "not fun" in the project. It is very hard to work on a project that you love and care for without getting attached, entrenched and over-emotional. Combine this with the difficulty of communicating emotion in text in a multilingual community and you have a recipe for disaster. It takes many years (think 10+) of online social activity to be able to deal with all this for long amounts of time.

All this is nothing new and from all times, both within Wikipedia, as well as most other online fora. The thing is that when you are new, you are not yet part of the "social network" in this huge place. You don't easily encounter the truly personal conflicts that exist in the core community. You either enjoy yourself, or get bitten (deserved or not). When you learn more and become more part of the project you logically will encounter that side of the project. You will know where to find those problems, and due to your dedication towards certain issues you are more likely to experience them yourself. It is easy to say "have fun" but that goal conflicts with your dedication. This is why so many experienced editors leave in frustration instead.

There are 2 basic ways to avoid this frustration

1. Avoid the drama all together. When you encounter drama, turn around, and start editing somewhere else. This can be called the "coward" approach. It is a good approach, and probably your content contributions will be valuable enough to compensate for your lack of defending your opinion
2. The second way is to relativize the importance of what you are doing. It is only a website. You can join other communities if you really get fed up. One small line you disagree with in a MoS guideline, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia is irrelevant compared to the greatness of the rest. etc. etc. So take your right to defend and fight for any opinion, but concede to consensus without being frustrated, no matter how much you disagree with it. If you really, really, really don't like how the project has changed, leave without drama and go find another hobby.

I do not think we should shoot down any attempt such as this one, just because it looks a "little" like Esperanza. Esperanza failed because it basically did some things that attract drama (counsels, forming of a select group with it's own symbols, voting, ownership (welcoming committee)), the issues it was trying to counter. Any project that touches the same issues should always have those lessons in mind of course.

To conclude. The key to having fun (to enjoy being part of the project) is to learn to deal with the parts that are not fun. We cannot take those parts out, nor can we ignore them. So find ways to help people learn how to handle these issues and how not to create or contribute to those kinds of issues themselves. This is very difficult, because everyone is emotional but it's not impossible, and it is commendable to try and improve the atmosphere within Wikipedia. I think the guidelines for this project are in the line of:

• We are a community, even though we are not myspace
• We cannot and should not always be on the job. Humor/games/fun/coffeebreaks/chats are part of any real life job and thus also of Wikipedia. Remember that the best ideas usually form during coffeebreaks with your colleagues.
• We cannot reach Encyclopedia Utopia, but should always try
• Keep the fun out of the Wikipedia encyclopedia, but keep having fun building it as a community. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My point was simply to remind people that just because something is different from the "good old days", it doesn't mean the old way was necessarily better or more fun. (And Esperanza never entered my mind while I was typing the above.) Don't be afraid to innovate! -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I initially wanted to state that the big part of most editors feeling of "good old days" is probably their lack of exposure to these problems earlier on in their editing career. I got a bit side tracked once I started writing though :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary thoughts

Good to see there's some interest in this. That said, I've been thinking of some ways the project can proceed. My general thinking for an 'official scope' is:

The goal of this project is, in the broadest sense, to support the community of the English Wikipedia by encouraging and helping contributors, both tenured and inexperienced; to develop easier and more efficient ways for people to get involved; and to create and sustain taskforces for improving specific regions of Wikipedia.

Thoughts? Agree, disagree, 'meh'? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One idea, if possible. One thing that is mentioned above is the lack of any sort of physical contact between editors, particularly physical contact with the younger, more nubile blonde female editors :(). Is there any way to, maybe in the "my preferences" section, to maybe add a section for the editor to list their physical location, preferably as one of a series of multiple choices? Like, maybe, by state or ZIP code in the US? If it would be possible to keep that information confidential, but allow the system to keep track of how many editors are in a given area, and, if there is a "quorum", let any editor listed as being interested in setting up meetups know so that some sort of meetup can be arranged? Particularly if at least some meetups were arranged at the same time, and possibly with video or audio hookup, that might help engender a few stronger ties. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a local project, that would be the place to organise a meetup. You will find all sorts of people, mostly not fitting your expectation. But it does take a bit of effort to get out from in front of the computer and show up! This selects the kind of people who like to participate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is one, and if it's active. And it should be noted that my proposal doesn't indicate that even the örganizer" would necessarily know who he's contacting. I would think that in such events the system would forward e-mail to everyone listed as being from an area, which they can respond to or not. But if we could find some sort of way to create, for lack of a better word, a virtual meeting of people from a given region, like central Europe, the American Midwest, etc., all to meet at the same time, possibly for the purposes of playing some sort of game somehow related to the project, maybe, yes, FREE BEER!, if it were at, for instance, a local microbrewery/restaurant, or anything along those lines, that would help as well. But I do think that if there were any way to make a single "meetup" also one in which on could meet non-locals, and maybe do something fun (but what do we consider fun? I dunno), that might help. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, to satisfy John Carter's needs, we can look into having our own personals center for lonely intellectuals to find partners of the appropriate sex. ("SWM looking for a young nubile blonde with an interest in proofreading & discussing geographical works of Africa written in Russian. Open-minded pairs welcome. No trolls or tendentious editors.") -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually, I'm still married. The divorce from Dejah Thoris is taking a lot longer than I would have expected. I do however think that, if possible, simultaneous meetups in several places, possibly with some sort of game or contest uniting them, might be one way to both increase the cooperation and sense of community among editors and maybe make things a bit more "fun"". John Carter (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While my world view may be "the oneness of mankind" I'm not sure I'm capable of simultaneous meetups in several places. Does this mean I'm out of the loop?--Buster7 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By which I mean, there might be several contemporaneous meetups in varied locations, allowing a meetup in London or New York, for instance, to hold a contest against one in Dublin or Boston. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Esperanza

It's pretty obvious that this is very closely connected to the mission that animated Esperanza. I quote: "Its goal was ... strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community" (WP:ESPERANZA) and from this very page "this WikiProject is a group of editors devoted to re-instating the feeling of community on Wikipedia." Anyone who fails to see the similarity is deluding himself/herself. Unless the parallels are acknowledged, and the lessons of esparanza learned, then whatever this is, it will be a failure.

No, Esparanza was mainly to generate social activities. This project intends to do nothing of the sort; please re-read the main page of this project (including the paragraph which explicitly differentiates between itself and Esperenza). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, some of us couldn't give a damn about Esperenza and whatever stress it causes people to think about, and are entirely more interested in moving forward. This is EXACTLY the problem! I don't want to have to encounter metawikipolitical bullshit every time I sign on.--Tznkai (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that Esperanza was a failure, and I think many people understand why. One of the biggest problems, is that they were building a community within a community. If any other project is gonna succeed, it should focus on improving our community, instead of building its own. All of the more experience participants of this project will know that the last thing this project idea should be, is anything like Esperanza, because people are watching this time. It cannot become Esperanza, because that idea is tainted and not reusable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a point. Not all of us know the history of Esperenza. While reasearching I found Wikipedia talk:Esperanza especially bibliomaniac15's 20 August 2008 entry. I hope can be an aide to move us from what was-----> to what can be.--Buster7 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of us who were around at the time never really knew what Esperanza was attempting to do. Obviously it was important to some Wikipedians, but for the rest of us it was an odd little project that led to no significant accomplishments. I don't know if its creation, life & demise was a symptom of a discontinuity between an older group of Wikipedians (like me) & a newer one -- if this was the case, it clearly is not the only time there was a breakdown in community between older Wikipedians & newer ones. In any case, a history of this movement might make for a worthwhile Signpost article, since there are obviously a lot of established Wikipedians who have not heard of Esperanza, & it is part of the history of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem seemed to be that a lot of community focused parts got drawn under the umbrella of Epseranza from the birthday committee through various mentoring and emotional support groups - then someone said to the Esperansans "who died and made you God?" I was uninvolved but that was what it looked like to me. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

I don't get it

I wish I knew where you were going with this, Julian. Right now the defined purpose of this page is so abstract it effectively has none. We need some concrete ideas here. I am glad you unretired, though :) — Jake Wartenberg 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point at the moment. I'm only trying to get a base of support for some kind of project along the lines of what I proposed in the above thread before creating a set of goals. In following the spirit of a wiki, I encourage all editors to post ideas so we can get it off the ground. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest working on a fluid list of basic principles / axioms / wiki-ways which wiki types should aspire to. This project could develop such a list, find examples of said, and share better practices that way, plus of course facilitate discussion for folk to learn more about them. Here's one 'Written policies should generally be descriptive of what we do, not prescriptive of behaviour' - or another 'On the wiki, be tough on your friends, and kind to those you may feel oppose you, this way less drama lies' ;-) - The risk of wishy washiness is mediated by the fact that no-one has to join in such discussions, and no-one's making any rules, it's just a good old support group for those who want things to be better! Good luck one 'n all...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

some offerings to throw in the stew..........

• invisible
• couteous
• humble, most times.
• colorful and vigorous in language and War.
• a person of artistic persuation
• a hero
• a gentleman
• a saint
• a protector of the poor (newbies-NWB, giffees-GFE)
• a herald to the vanquished (the "I quit"ters)
• a brother to other editors in mutual courtesy
• a persuer of the infidels (vandals/dispoilers/trolls)
• a standard, a model
• a restorer of editorial order
• a champion of Justice

• in control of his/her

courseness

incendiarism

treachery

contempt

crudeness

temper

desire to ridicule....from The Story of Civilization, Part IV, The Age of Faith..pgs-572-578

Pledged to honor and service, seeking adventure and fame rather than comfort and security...WILL DURANT--Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pledged to honor and service, seeking adventure and fame rather than comfort and security? Sounds like what you get when Jem joins the Marine Corps. Mike H. Fierce! 11:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to get this off the ground

Well, I think I have a reasonable outline that should suffice for now. Please help out by posting your ideas as instructed on the project page. Good luck and thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

making it easier for novices goal

Hi there, sounds intriguing - you'd better get a coffee and snack machine in :) I see one of your possible goals is 'Make it easier and less overwhelming for novice editors to become more involved.' We've been rebooting recently to achieve this at WP:Help Project if you check out the project page there are links to other projects which have the same goal as part of their aims. The more the merrier, just thought I'd point it out for possible collaborations, or to enable you to refine this goal - as there are many aspects to making life easier :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that most of the projects are undersubscribed, and as a possible idea - it might be that this project could go in and collaborate with them on random tasks to help them get things moving? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, WP:PROJPOL has sought to simplify and clarify policy and guidelines where possible. Rd232 ^talk 13:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

meh

• Everyone knows everyone, and people simply dislike each other. The established community is ingrown and contentious. And as for the ones who aren't widely known, they universally latch onto a well-known clique and join that herd, baa baa baa and all that. No positive impact. Add to that the number of folks who love to add new layers of bureaucracy etc., increasing the tedium and steepening the learning curve, then the goal of making Wikipedia a better and nicer and easier and more pleasant place is almost certainly an unattainable one.
• Having said that, the case mirrors FAC in many ways. FAC cannot be successful in stopping crappy articles from getting through; people have learned how to paint-by-numbers and otherwise game the system, while remaining within the explicit rules. The pursuit of excellence, however, has a number of significant and positive spillover effects. This project could play out in a similar way: never even coming close to actually achieving its stated goals, but still offering a net positive impact. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From project page

Please post any thoughts you have that are relevant to the project's goal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Abolish all automated templated warning messages. Make the effort to personalise a message be it advice or warning, the personal touch, it shows you really care. RMHED (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, and I've been an advocate of that idea for quite a while. At the very least, remove the fancy stopsign icons and bold font. Such an effort would certainly help new users feel more welcomed I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to rephrase ideas like this as 'support the removal of all automated templates' to be clear that this project doesn't actually really have the ability to shift policy and practice in a direct way. Of course, that may have the (unintended? intended?) consequence of defining this project as kind of a wiki political party - with a manifesto / statements of position on various matters - I suppose if members of this project are willing to create policy proposals and then support them in the wider community discussions, it might just work! (or people might go bonkers at such an idea and decide it's terrible... that's the joy of the wiki, you never know!) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is automated? We don't do automated welcomes for just that reason. Most automated warnings (such as unlicensed images) are ones that you wouldn't get at all if a human was required to leave them. As far as warnings such as test-1 etc. go, the templates are relatively well honed text - I suggest you try Huggle to see the volume of these, in the time it would take me to type a message such as this maybe 20-40 editors would be reverted, and warned. The alternative - not to warn - means that vandals are leaving as much vandalism as they like. Rich Farmbrough, 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

  I agree with Rich Farmbrough. I've warned more vandals in the past two days with Twinkle than I have in the past nine months without it. It's simpler, it's faster, you can leave an extra, personalised message (or so it would appear, though I haven't tried it yet), the people who come here to vandalise won't care about what type of warning they recieve and the people who come here to edit are probably thick-skinned enough to be content with default warnings/aware enough to understand why it's a default warning and not a personalised one. Just my two pence. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What about taking the exclamation point sign gifs out of them so that they read like courteous comments? Automation is reasonable, but they are pretty ugly and aggressive looking. What do the gifs add? Or can they be made pleasant looking? We're not handling nuclear materials here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM .. great to see you here! I really hope you'll stick around, I know you have a lot of suggestions to offer. Taking the givs out of warnings eh? Hmmm ... well ... I would totally agree when it comes to experienced editors ... no questions there. For those folks that do the "vandalism patrol" stuff though - I have to admit, the graphics make it quick easy work. I'm talking about the "I like poop" vandalism - not the (perhaps) un-intensional POV stuff. Something that deserves discussion I think. — Ched :  ?  05:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I support getting rid of automated templates, which by the way inspired Wikipedia:Fun. Hiding T 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New Request

I like the idea:

1.Edit Warring and 3RR: The current policy on edit warring and 3RR appears to agraviate disputes rather than resolve them. Blocking/banning users who violate these policies just generate more anger rather than consensus. I propose, intstead, that people who violate them would instead be topic banned rather than given an outright block. That way they can vent their frustration by editing other articles. I also propose in creating a sub-committee that would deal with these cases. Participants in those edit wars are invited to discuss their views in the talk page of the committee and are required to reach consensus within 3 days if they want their topic bans removed. This is similar to AfD discussions.

2.Blocking/banning policy. Blocked/banned users who still wish to edit are allowed to do so provided they avoid using sockpuppets and only use anonymous IP addresses. If their edits are not controversial or are with merit, administrators are obliged ito ignore them, effectively changing the policy that "all edits by banned users MAY be reverted". This policy change is, of course, not applicale to vandals and trolls.

3. Sockpuppetry: Sockpuppetry in itself should not be used to block, extend a block, or enforce a ban, rather it should only be considered if it is accompanied by vandalism, trolling, harassment, or other behavior that may be abusive with the exception of 3RR and edit wars. The latter two should be treated in a case-to-case basis and a block/ban should only apply if their case is continuous or without merit. a topic ban is still the most effective solution here since it avoids angering the user. - The Spirit of 23prootie from outside Wikipedia. (talk) 8 November 2009

Technology

The biggest problem with what community does manage to exist on Wikipedia is technical, though. I don't disagree with the thought behind this project page at all, but there's really just nothing that it can accomplish without pushing for the implementation of technical improvements.

The fact is that the Wiki interface/style is great for articles, but it's lousy for discussions. We essentially have to force people not to socialize on site due to the simple fact that talk pages can't handle the load. Under that onerous restriction is it any wonder that "we just don't like each other", as someone else said above?

Pushing for implementation of LiquidThreads to start with, and then continuing to push for more discussion/community related development are excellent and concrete community building goals in my mind. Everything else... i'm not going to say that it's unimportant, but I don't think that it's as important as doing things to make on site socialization better.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

being a member of the liquidthread lab, I will say that you do bring a very good, but very novel topic to the table. At the moment, I think it should be our goal to step beyond the technical limitations, and go out and discuss things with people who are having problems. Communication is a huge issue here - as you have mentioned. We all have our own talk pages, but too often they are limited to "notices", or "warnings". Looking at the more experienced users who have been here a while, often you'll see idle chit-chat - but that can be a core building block for talking to each other. Yes, the project is to build an encyclopedia - but your point of talking to each other is well taken. Good points Ohms law - and for myself, I'll work on using the various editors talk pages to improve the technology limitations we have. Thank you! — Ched :  ?  05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Straightening out the talk page mess would be the next technical target, if I were able to offer any sort of direction towards site development (within this sphere of issues, at least. Bug fixes are and should always be the top development priority, of course). However, I'm really replying here in order to clarify that I don't think that we should simply sit around and wait for a LT rollout. Communicating with each other around a project page such as this could only be helpful (even with the current limitations of on-wiki discussion), and this sort of reaction (the "thank you for bringing this up!" sort of thing) is an excellent example of the reasons why.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea for fringe viewpoints and controversial topics

So, this was in response to an ANI thread but I realized that it might actually work...to create a subpage of article talk pages where previously considered fringe viewpoints or controversial items which haven't found consensus can be listed. This would allow new users who espouse those viewpoints to see that their ideas have already been considered, and why they didn't meet with consensus...and hopefully encourage them to either find a way for them to meet consensus, or to contribute in other places without feeling like they have been bitten.

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Frmatt, you do bring up some very valid points, and ones that can be addressed. I don't think our project is equipped to deal with any specific content issues quite yet though. Many of the members listed on the project page however are quite knowledgable, and I'm sure they'd be willing to assist you. "Fringe" theories are indeed a frequent concern on many topics at WP, it's just that our little group isn't really designed to address those things specifically. Perhaps a member here could point you in a direction such as WP:FRINGE and help with any questions you have. — Ched :  ?  05:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Being relatively new and not having pushed the boundaries a whole lot...is this something that I (or anyone) can do...to add a subpage to a talk page? Obviously there would need to be some conversation about it first, but can it happen as long as consensus is to make it happen?

And I agree that this group isn't necessarily the best place for it, but in the interests of trying to keep some of the long-term stress down (I've only really been around 6 months, and I've experienced some of it!), thought that it might be a topic for consideration as we try to figure out how to re-energize people...maybe not having to deal with as much of the same old, unreliable arguments would help? Or have I missed the point of this project entirely? Frmatt (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

More proposals

Come on! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• A ban on wiki-lawyering would be a relief - not to see any WP:OWN etc in a whole discussion and project would be a relief in itself :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Coffee table

I had this idea a while ago it could work for a number of projects - but I'll suggest it here... A coffee table discussion, when you wish to sit down you add you're user name to the list of names at the top, when you decide to wander off or og off you remove your name, everyone can then see instantly they are together and might get quick responses. This could even be extended so that if there are enough people they could fire up an IRC chat. cheers, mines one sugar, with milk! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hide all user names

I think I remember a discussion about ArbCom voting which said that it could be done anonymously. I think all editing should be logged in, but anonymous. People would still have user names, but these would be hidden from all editors. In fact, I would prefer to require logins, and disable IP editing; what's the diff between IP editing and anonymous editing? Even admins would need to have special circumstances before they would be able to see the usernames... I dunno how this would sit with all the legalese of GFDL or CC-by-whatever, but i think the drama would drop to a tolerable equivalent of zero. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of our scope, this would require vast community consensus and technological adaptations to the MediaWiki software, not to mention it would most likely be illegal given the site's licence ("all the legalese" as you put it). It's also very half-arsed; it would stifle debate and cause people to act even more obnoxiously than they already do (ever seen an anonymous board?). —what a crazy random happenstance 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

A pertinent article in this weeks Signpost....Wikipedians test the water.--Buster7 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Doughnut Drive 2009

There's nothing like doughnuts to bring people together. Everyone is welcome to participate in this wondrous coming together of Wikipedians in a ring of unity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

similar project

do you know about Wikipedia:Community_Facilitation ? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I don't think you can call this one WikiProject Community... we've already got one of those... — Pretzels ^Hii! 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A vision for the future

This is somewhat continued from Privatemusings's post in #From project page. I would agree we need to avoid looking like a political party (and let's face it, we're talking about Esperanza), yet we can't very well ban ideas like the one proposed in that section from being tabled, that's akin to Finlandisation. So we come to a dillema about where we want to head with this project.

I would like to propose a more formalised brainstorming process, which is as follows: this talk page, or another page dedicated to the purpose would be a safe area where ideas can be proposed. These ideas may be half-arsed, very very preliminary or proposed by new users who are not yet fully familiar with current policy in the area, but have an idea on how to improve things. These suggestions would then be polished through very friendly, and completely AGF discussion, and subsequently - if supported - turned into a voluntary Initiative. The initiative would be an essay style proposal for the suggestion, now polished up, and would after final discussion be presented to the wider Wikipedia community for consideration. So "Ideas" would be a preliminary discussion stage in a proposal, and "Initiatives" draft essays. This process would be very informal, and would seek to allow laissez-faire discussion of ideas and proposals without the pressure of actual centralised discussion (and speed, yikes do those things move fast) and in a nurturing atmosphere, allowing new users a voice in Wikipedia's governance.

There's also the issue of in-house initiatives, such as many of the ones currently proposed as Ideas (eg. reviving WikiProjects, Random Task comp). There's two possible solutions, either these proposals and subsequent taskforces can run concurrently under the umbrella of this project, or we limit this project to the above process, and any subsequent community initiatives which we agree upon are spun-off and presented to the Wikipedia community for discussion much as any other policy change. Whilst members would be welcome to engage in the operation of the resulting taskforce/WP/whatever, they would do so independently and the taskforce/WP/whatever would not be operating under the flag of this project. In proposing this I'm trying to consolidate our goals without making things seem too bureaucratic, and I hope I'm making sense. My roadmap would also firmly move us away from the legacy of Esperanza and the pre-existing community wikiprojects. Thoughts? PS: Having browsed through WP:CF I notice certain parallels, yet CF is far more formalised and less discussion-oriented, and the issues raised there are much higher level and divisive then I envision the process here. PS2: I suppose a good analogy would be WP:DRAW but for the technical side of things rather than articles. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorming

See the guidelines Brainstorming#Ground_Rules for supportive ideas and framing...--Buster7 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
2. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions.

Criticism stifles sharing and participation.--Buster7 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to go from here

Well, we have plenty of members to get the ball rolling, and I've advertised the project at a few dozen pages. But as of yet, very little has been done. I'd greatly appreciate if folks could go create proposals as instructed on the project page, but does anyone have any ideas as to where to go from here...? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few ideas.

• (1) Move it into wikipedia space and announce its existence on the main page in the new projects section. Coming up with a name, of course, would then be required. Any ideas?

• Sounds like a good idea to me. How about "WikiProject community rehabilitation"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I could live with that. One other thing occurs to me as well, specifically regarding newer users. WP:NEWT, which recently ended its experiment, was created to help understand and address concerns about newbies and article creation. If there were any interest in implementing any recommendations made there, or in further experiments of that kind, they might be useful as well. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• (2) Have a discussion, probably here, on which of the proposals look like things involved individuals would like to try.
• (3) Maybe set up a rotating schedule initially of the various ideas, say one per month initially, where we can try everything that we think sounds good and give it a try. If it works, it could be kept in the rotation. If it doesn't, we could bring it back for fine turning or discard, depending on its effectiveness.

It would be a start, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree, it may be time to roll it out into wiki-space with a name. I don't know about the "rehab" part, as the project is as much a "hab" as it is a "rehab", but there seems to be enough people here to effect some changes and improvements; I'd hate to see it just dry-up before it ever got its legs. Really, I guess that the name is not as important as the work that could be done, and I'm happy to support any name you choose. WikiProject Wiki-Helpers, Training, or Friends of n00bs - I really hope we can get this going. Let me know if there is anything I can do. — Ched :  ?  20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, moved to the projectspace. Here goes nothing! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am not a fan of the new name. It sounds like we have got out of gaol and are looking for a new home! I would favour a name that implies that things are getting better, or we are making life easy by focussing on the positive; rather than fixing a serious problem, by looking back at how bad things were. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

These ideas may be half-arsed, very very preliminary or proposed by new users who are not yet fully familiar with current policy in the area, but have an idea on how to improve things.

• Every Wikipedia editor has a quota of new editors to meet and greet every week. Lets say...25. 25 X 10000 active editors is 250000.
• Every speedy deletion must be accompanied with a friendly "hello...how do ya do...nothing personal...don't take offense...gimme me a buzz and I'll explain...etc.
• Keep an eye on WP:NEWT
• Hide all user names
• Coffee/Snack machine...Coffee table...provide a buffer for the incoming new users...
• provide a patrolled safe wading area instead of the shark infested waters of mainspace
• suggest a name....._______________
• add a section "physical location" to User Page, preferably as one of a series of multiple choices...state or ZIP code in the US... confidential...system keeps track of editors in a given area, if there is a "quorum", let editors listed know so as to facilitate possible meetups
• get a bot to make a list of new articles by newbies
• point people to WP:FEED and WP:New contributors' help page
• create a page linked w/ welcome templates where newbies can list their article for sympathetic review and changes and suggestions
• Investigate WP:Incubate
• To encourage newbies particularly, giving them something for Christmas might be a good idea.

I disagree with most of the above, but I just wanted to scream a giant NO to the no-signatures thing, that is beyond foolish and quite counter-productive. It is inconsistent and thus confusing to newbies, and it heavily stifles debate. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I like some of the above but not others. Real Life meetups can be a very positive thing, I'm a regular at the London ones. They are very easy to organise if you are near to a large English speaking community. Lots of editors identify their geographic location by way of userboxes and other comments on their userpage, and I've used the London ones to invite quite a few editors to London meetups over the last year, and even the people who don't come seem to be quite appreciative of the invite. In practice people are much more likely to come to a meeting if you persuade a museum to provide a room with coffee and doughnuts and allow digital photography of their exhibits, and that takes a bit more organisation than picking a convenient pub. I think that a Wiki ad would be a great way to start some going - all you need is a page for people to say they would like to be informed of meetings in particular areas and an ad promoting that page and the existing meetups. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No signature prevents ownership of the idea. You can sceam all you want but not signing ideas is a basic brainstorming tactic. If you paid attention you would notice that I have lifted these ideas from the discussion and moved them here, in one spot, for consideration. Most of them are your fellow editors input...not mine. Your negative feedback is counter-productive to an open forum of ideas. Also, I'm glad it stifles debate. Debate is not why we are here...collaboration is.--Buster7 (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(Parts of the following are also in response to this edit) Debate (=discussion) leads to collaboration. Collaboration is, by definition, impossible without debate. This is not a kindergarten class. Newbies are not small children. When an adult presents an idea to another adult; they want constructive criticism; that's generally the entire point of the exchange. Would you prefer showers of baseless praise and unfounded positivity? Is that more constructive? I've provided a succinct but well-founded response, because, I'm sorry, but I just generally disagree with the ideas above, and considering you're not a new editor (but the comfort of new editors is at stake here) I don't feel the need to sugar coat it. Not signing ideas may be constructive in small groups where everyone is aware of what's going on, not in pages open to billions of people. The quota is silly; there's a Welcome committee for that, and you're hardly going to attract people to a voluntary initiative by mandating a "quota"; it should be a pleasurable and friendly thing to welcome newbies. Speedy deletions are already followed by a user talk notification, which you are free to propose changes to if you feel it is too wiki-legalese. By coffee table you basically mean (I'm assuming) the Village Pump and the plethora of help desks, right? The physical location is a software issue, not a community issue, and I would oppose for privacy issues. I'm not sure I understand it either; how do you plan to establish a quorum before you notify the relevant editors? Your idea is basically spamming people until they attend a meet-up, isn't it? The others are problematic too, though they are salvageable to an extent. Sorry if I'm WP:BITEy, but there's a difference between constructive debate and a Woodstockesque love-fest and one which it would seem eludes you. PS: Please don't edit the above block now that it is being discussed. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. And I will continue to edit in a way I feel is condusive to the free flow of ideas, allowing for the randomness of thought. Collecting fellow editors ideas in one location so they are easy to find should be non-confrontational. The coffee table is not my idea. If you want an explanation, ask the editor that presented it. The quota is just the means to present the concept of veteran editors, en masse, getting involved in the lifeblood of "future WP"--- the new editor. Everything in its time...constructive debate will happen. --Buster7 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wading area

If we can steer the new users from the shark infested deep dangerous waters and into a patrolled safe wading area, then they may survive to go into the more tricky areas. But of course the new person can make that new article themselves, so why would they want to discuss it first, or stick it in at WP:AFC? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing we might be able to do is somehow get a bot making a list of new articles by newbies, or maybe create a page which can be linked on welcome templates, where newbies can list their article for maybe more sympathetic review and changes, if necessary. That might help from scaring off some newer editors. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're aware of WP:FEED and WP:New contributors' help page? Pointing people to those appropriately is always helpful, but FEED in particular has limited capacity as not too many people hang out there to provide the feedback. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And the newbies output may go straight to the speedy delete taggers, but I suppose that is what is happening now. The article creation wizard is there now and a fair fraction are using it. But that is no protection against it ending up at WP:CSD and the contributor disillusioned. One area that I have noticed that the CSD taggers often get wrong is the no context article. Most of the time there is enough there to determine what the topic is. So perhaps we need more people looking at Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that No context is probably the most misused tag, and its a subcategory of CSD that I frequently check out. But I fear that not every newby comes back after their article has been rescued, though communication with overenthusiastic taggers can help the situation for future newbies. However I think that rather than tinker with the situation we need a radical change; Either to the deletionist extreme of requiring all new articles to quote a source and clearly communicating that to article creators, or my preferred scheme of allowing all new articles a No indexed period of grace of perhaps an hour, during which the only deletion criteria that could be applied to them are G3, G10, G11 and G12. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's do something

I would like to get something similar to what was suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject community rehabilitation/Idea/RandomTaskCompetition going. Here are my thoughts, feel free to change/comment/complain at will. The first editor to complete each of the following ten tasks gets a shiny thing (to be designed by someone more creative than me) to display on their user page:

1. Complete two editor reviews
2. Evaluate one good article nominee
3. Sufficiently improve two articles at article rescue
4. Incubate one article
5. Create one requested article
6. Give barnstars to 2 newbies whose first article lasts 30 days
7. Thank 10 newbies for their contributions to Wikipedia (without a "however I'm deleting/undoing everything you did")
8. peer review 3 articles
9. wikify 5 articles
10. Fix 25 disambiguation pages with links

In the spirit of this project everyone should follow the honor system and assume good faith in their fellow competitors. I am certainly open to suggestions for alternate tasks. Thoughts? J04n(talk page) 04:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is eerily similar to the old Award Centre, which crashed and burned in a rather spectacular fashion after mindless "competitors" disrupted the Wiki sufficiently to warrant a discussion at WP:AN, and the caused damage which proved rather difficult to rectify given the sheer number of mindless but manual edits and the relative obscurity of the articles involved (probably reached through Special:Random). —what a crazy random happenstance 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was an encouragement to do some of those things. For example I have wikified several pages and contacted the original writers. THe idea to encourage them to do more and not disappear. It seems a good fraction are nominated for speedy delete or proded! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to shoot it down; it's quite a good idea, and in fact the way you've implemented it (large range of tasks but in small quantities) would probably prevent some of the problems which caused the Award Centre to fail. Maybe you could break it down somewhat and add some other stuff, FA reviews, pages for creation, etc. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

These were the first 10 off the top of my head, substitutions are welcome. Anyone up to designing the 'prize'? J04n(talk page) 01:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is a prize, I would vote against it being barnstar-y, and I would recommend that no organised approval process exists for its granting, editors who have completed the above are merely free to grab it and display it on their user page. —what a crazy random happenstance 14:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would only note that the WikiCup doesn't give points for gnomish or reviewer edits anymore, and that I think it is a good idea if there be some sort of way of thanking such editorss. I in fact proposed a few options for other awards at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Awards for other types of editors, suggesting that maybe we try to get Wikipe-tan to somehow personally congratulate the overall winner. You will note that there hasn't been a lot of interest expressed so far. If we could figure out ways to determine "championship" awards for other types of edits, as well as ways of awarding other significant contributors in either specialized fields or in general, I think that would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a WikiCup-style "championship" for wikignomes? I'm not sure that's a good idea, it could quickly become an elite affair to which ordinary editors could never aspire, or get out of hand like the Award Centre. Now, I'm tired, it's 3:30 in the morning so sorry if I'm not making sense, but I would probably support something similar to those Journeyman Badges, except with more complex criteria. A person would sign their name, complete a few tasks as per above, and ask someone to approve and give them the relevant award (or just grab it themselves?). So, to get the novice level reward, you'd have to do, say, 2 RAs, 5 welcomes to editors with over 10 edits, whatever. The next one up may require a higher number, or a more diverse/complex range of tasks. This would help create more balanced editors by introducing them to various sometimes obscure parts of the encyclopaedia and possibly get some back-logged maintenance work done. To prevent the pitfalls of the Award Centre this number would be kept quite low (say 30 max for any given task), and would be something which can't be achieved with simple semi-automated edits (death to AWB). They would also be well-thought out and thoroughly discussed first, so we don't end up with any welcome-newbie-now-go-tag-500-articles-as-unreferenced fiascos... again. Thoughts? —what a crazy random happenstance 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My vision is a wide diversity of relatively easy but useful tasks. I think that anyone who achieves a 'level' would have to hit on each of the tasks thus hopefully introducing editors to areas that they rarely contribute to. I like the idea of folks moving up levels as they achieve more tasks. Being that a wide range of tasks have to be accomplished it would prevent folks from 'tagging 500 articles' (I hope). However, the spirit should be fixing tagged articles not tagging them. I also like the idea of folks taking the 'award' themselves in the spirit of the honor system. This should be something that any newbie can participate in and learn a lot of the 'behind the scenes' stuff. J04n(talk page) 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the idea I was thinking of was to maybe have one single award per year for the greatest contributor in a given field, although that may not necessarily relate to edit count. I'm thinking particularly hear of things like gnoming and mediation, where edit counts aren't the primary point. But I was thinking something along the lines of maybe having some sort of special recognition for the one single greatest contributor in a field. Particularly for things like mediation, individuals involved there might not honestly have the time to do a lot of other things. One other option, which might be workable, would be to have something like User:ChildofMightnight/Bacon Challenge 2010 or User:Grundle/Doughnut Days 2009, short-term targeted contests/collaborations/what have you, started in the short term for specific targeted activities. Having a large number of people doing the same sort of task at the same time, like maybe providing sources for unsourced articles, would I think be likely to be more effective if a group were engaged in such activity rather than individuals acting as individuals. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with where J04n is going, I remember certain parts of the old Award Centre really did introduce me to new areas of the Wikipedia of which I was sometimes not even previously aware. I'm not sure about John Carter's idea, how do you determine the greatest wikignome? This would have the same problem as the WikiCup, namely that a helluvalot of great editors who do very minor edits consistently and well would be totally ignored in favour of already high-profile editors. It's easy to scoff as people who spend hours spell-checking and touching up grammar, but it's even easier to dismiss a whole website because just one page is in broken English. —what a crazy random happenstance 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that being the greatest is always what motivates people in this sort of thing, and I'm concerned that a do 10 of the following approach would lead to people skimping one or two to complete the set. But participation can be an end in itself, As an alternative I would like to suggest a project of the month type operation where participants try out a different backlog each month: De-orphanning, disambiguating, Cat:U, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. Participants would get to try out a different area of the pedia and some of our backlogs would be reduced. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna play Santa Claus?

If we want to encourage newbies particularly, giving them something for Christmas might be a good idea. Some sort of Christmas party type thing, maybe in particular some sort of nice "joke" presents to newbies and infrequent editors, might be a good idea. Unfortunately, although I more or less look the part of Santa Claus, my personality more closely resembles that of a, well, peckish Hannibal Lecter. Any nicer people out there? John Carter (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Last year I created {{User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} which could conveniently be forwarded on - I even had it given back to me. There will be an 09 version but I want to get my real life cards in the post before I start to circulate it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just threw together {{User:Happenstance/Xmas}} if anyone's interested. Oh, and WereSpielChequers, you should be wary of using terms like the Winter Solstice, a fair bit of the world celebrates Christmas in the middle of summer, including where I am. The new NPOV term is the December Solstice. Kinda ironic that out of all those religious holidays you tactfully place in your template it's the science that gets you with its political correctness. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 17:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What about a Festivus for the rest of us? J04n(talk page) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

{{User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} is a suitably hemisphericly neutral version for this year, Festivus now added. ϢereSpielChequers 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realised that my Dec 2008 version was originally hemispherically neutral - but got "improved" ϢereSpielChequers 13:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help

User:Rlevse, who had been continuing Phaedriel's Wikipedian of the Day program, seems to have left the project for an indeterminate time. I think it would help a lot if we had editors take up the matter of giving out one of the Wikipedians of the Day awards for every day. The current list of Rlevse's awards can be found at User:Rlevse/Today/Archive. I myself may not be able to give one out tomorrow, Sunday, but I hope that this group as a whole can carry this one, and, possibly, with some degree of uniformity, by which I mean, maybe agreeing on only one person being given it per day. Rlevse himself got the award for today, from me, but I think it would be useful if we as a project could cooperate to keep this going. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you are needed

If ever community rehabilitation was called for, it is now. Calm heads and bridge-builders are in short supply, and the threat of bad blood, deepening partisan divides and institutional gridlock is real. Please put your gesture of good intent to work and step up now. History:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's deletions
• Request for Arbitration on "BLP deletions"

Where you can help:

• WP:BLPRFC

Colleagues, thank you in advance.  Skomorokh  21:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)