Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Be welcoming vs not biting

I'm just wondering if the attitude this page takes is wrong. Rather than "Do not bite the newcomers", perhaps it should be "Be welcoming" (or something like that)? Not only would that be shorter and arguably easier to understand, but it suggests a positive course of action, rather than just condemning negative behavior. Granted, I'm not sure how much it really matters, but sometimes attitude can make a difference. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's so totally true, we should be more positive. i guess since they invested so much time drawing a don't bite new users logo and everything, they don't want to have to change it. speaking of the logo, what I'm really wondering is, why is a caricature of William II biting the newcomers in that picture. It looks just like him, he has the mustache, the German Spiked Helmet and everything. —jtgerman
The Do Not Bite picture was based directly on a famous caricature of William II. You can see the comment to that affect in the descriptive text on the image page. —DragonHawk (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be really nice if much of the negativity on Wikipedia's policies and behavioral guidelines were changed to something more constructive. I think that the negativity has completely overshadowed Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which is a pretty positive, constructive policy. I think in effect, that the IAR policy does not seem to be followed.
What do you suggest a positive way to say, "Don't bite the newbies" is? Fredsmith2 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's always m:Don't be a dick...er, I mean of course Wikipedia:Be nice. Feezo (Talk) 06:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As a very newcomer, "Do not bite . . ." seems to convey the message very well. We generally know this is a community populated by dedicated residents and know what that entails. We, or at least I, almost expect to be bitten, so a guideline not to bite us seems to strike just the right tone to me. Phenylphree (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I read this article as a recent newcomber and I found it really nicely worded. It made me feel welcome. Sandra.anderson.brighton (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the phrase

Please do not bite the newcomers is a good title for this page. It's a common phrase now on other forums.

I'd like to complain about how hard it is to request an article, or to create one in the first place. I think we should greatly encourage readers to show which articles they think need correcting. My solution to that problem had been to first create the talk page, using the talk page to provide useful links and notes about an article I think needs creating, and that I can spend just a bit of time working on. That now seems to be against wiki policy, for reasons I don't understand.

ENDRANT. Barring that, I think we should improve the wikipedia process for request articles. It should be greatly streamlined. Mathiastck 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping

think we could put something in here guiding experienced users to help newcomers fix their edits instead of reverting them or deleting parts of them. this is a common problem if you ask me. thuglasT|C 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A good place for new users to get help is to ask on the Help desk. Most new users won't know what something like NPOV or NOR means in the edit summary, even if they know to check the page history. Many new users probably need a human to explain it to them, or at least give them a link. --Teratornis 00:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki'ing as opposed to just deleting

See the recently-added section: Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?#If all else fails, try another wiki. I'd like to get some opinions about adding something similar to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/Archive 2#Common newcomer errors. Wikipedia allegedly gets about 4,000 new articles and deletes 2,000 articles per day. Many of the deleted articles were probably created by new users who haven't learned all the complicated rules yet, and most of them probably don't know where else to go. Simply deleting their articles without suggesting alternate outlets seems to violate the spirit of WP:NOOB, and it probably makes some deletion debates unnecessarily heated. Moving someone's work is potentially much less threatening than destroying it. Therefore I would think part of not biting the newcomers would be to make a good-faith effort to find alternative outlets for their articles that do not meet Wikipedia's standards. Comments? --Teratornis 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't object to your idea, the scientist in my has to point out that you're making an assumption with regards to the content and intent of the articles that get deleted. I could just as easily say, "Most of them are probably spam and typos that deserve to be deleted immediately." So don't argue from such a shaky premise. Instead, just state a fundamental premise. For example: In the case of potentially useful content that is just not appropriate for this encyclopedia, instead of just deleting the content without comment, suggest to the contributor a more appropriate site. Wikimedia has many projects. —DragonHawk (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was sloppy not to explicitly mention the articles that can be speedily deleted (they implicitly fall into the complement of the "many" deleted articles I explicitly mentioned, and the complement of "many" could also be "many"). At the risk of hairsplitting, I could say the scientist in me doesn't see how I expressed an assumption about something by not mentioning it (see: Argument from silence), although by not mentioning the "speedies" I unwittingly tossed out a red herring (i.e., I made it plausible to assume I was not aware of the speedies). So let me partially make amends by specifying more clearly the class of deleted articles I'm talking about. Browsing through today's discussions on WP:AFD/T, I see several articles that could be transwikied, but few discussions in which anyone mentions that option. I've also seen several people ask "Why was my page deleted?" on the Help desk, as well as (inappropriately) on Wikipedia talk:Why was my page deleted?. While I have no scientifically valid statistical data to support my hunch, everything I have seen so far suggests that only in a small fraction of deletions where transwiki'ing is a valid option does anyone bring it up. Even if this is only 5% of total deletions, that's still a disservice to as many as 100 well-meaning editors per day, many of whom (I suspect) are simply new users who don't know about other wikis. (Even lots of experienced editors seem not to be very aware of other wikis.) When a well-meaning but naive newcomer spends hours editing an inappropriate article (bearing in mind that not only are they writing their new articles, but probably struggling to learn wikitext markup at the same time), they can feel hurt when their articles get deleted. Wikipedia is a charitable organization, and deleting someone's good-faith contributions without even mentioning the possibility of transwiki'ing does not seem charitable to me.
I'm speaking more about deletions of entire articles. There is also the matter of deleting unencyclopedic portions of otherwise encyclopedic articles. That sort of edit does not require any discussion beforehand; anyone can unilaterally delete portions of articles. Others can revert the deletions, possibly leading to edit warring. A peaceful resolution in some cases may be to transwiki the unencylopedic portions.
I get the sense that transwiki'ing is not used as often as it should be. Some people who contribute inappropriate content to Wikipedia might not do so if they were aware of appropriate wikis; and some editors who delete inappropriate content from Wikipedia do so without making any attempt to find suitable alternative wikis, or mention that possibility to their "victims." Therefore I am looking for appropriate places in the guidelines to mention this. It seems we can probably work something suitable into WP:NOOB, accounting for the obvious spam, vandalism, etc. that does not warrant a charitable response. --Teratornis 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DONTBITE

I added WP:DONTBITE because I think it is friendlier than WP:NOOB and WP:BITE, although the latter are easier to remember. For instance, one can say "Please WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE". Rjgodoy 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignorantia juris non excusat?

Someone in the talk page of WP:KEYSPAM raised that the mistreatment of so-called "vandals" and "anarchists" on the part of certain admins and editors was to be excused based on the legal principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat "ignorance of the law does not excuse".

Others (and I) believe this to violate both WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

However, since "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is indeed a legal principle highly esteemed in the western world, from which the bulk of the english wikipedia editors come, it is only natural that people would feel this principle applies.

So I think an explicit guideline with regards of the non-applicability of this principle is needed in both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. --Cerejota 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


The biggest problem with Wikipedia is it is not transparent - i.e. its processes are not easily accesible to newcomers, and there often are no links, explanation, or easy answers to how to do what one wants to do. It is not explained why some page is not editable, it is not linked to any way to do editing or request editing or request unprotection.

People just constantly delete or modify and it is like a big argument, except no one is listening to the other person.

It is no wonder users run into problems, because the main issue is the site is too confusing and has too many protocols that the average person is unlikely to either understand or be willing to research.

This is a major problem and needs to be addressed, or this site will end up as some source run by a group of internal experts who understand it and not by the general public. Too often, the jargon is incomprehensible and the rules unclear.

What the devil is that about? Why can't this be simplified? If there are moderators or administrators, it should be much easier to find a way to contact them. If not, then what is a person to do?

69.181.188.254

I'm going to reply to you on your talk page. Please see User talk:69.181.188.254. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I replied to you below your answer.

69.181.188.254 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone understands the general rules, but I'm sure we can't make it judicial, especially if the information that is posted, hypothetically controversial, turns out to be true. This freedom is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia as a whole has done so well. I am not saying that rules are a bad thing, but ignorance of law can only occur if it is in a centralized format. It would take a lawyer to keep up with the dynamics of this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot24 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This section could benefit with some rewriting. It's heart is in the right place but it, like the rest of the guideline is so focused on existing editors and cautioning them not to bite that it doesn't address what the new comer should do. I maintain that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies only to how deviance from Wiki policy and guidelines is addressed but should not apply to whether or not it is addressed. Being a newcomer is an opportunity for learning and improvement, not a loophole usable for ignoring policy and guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I have wikilinked the numbered list of way not to bite to include relevant pages. This gives depth and interconnectness to the article--Cerejota 05:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Inserted link to case study

Please notice that I have inserted a link to A case study in the "See also" section. It is provided only as "food for thought". I am not assuming that people will share my opinion, but I believe that this case is quite interesting, in this context. Do you agree? Paolo.dL 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...Original research?

"So when their edits are deleted, they will often panic, start an edit war or leave Wikipedia because they mistakenly assume that hours of work have been irretrievably deleted." I didn't see any cites for any information in this article. Is there any research for this article (discounting original research and conjectures), or did someone just pull this out of his/her ass? Honestly, who the hell would panic just because a wikipedia edit they made was deleted. Do we really want people that unstable editing an encyclopedia article? But I digress. My point is this: wikipedia is so anti-original research (which I agree with), but here this policy has no research behind it whatsoever; if this article does contain actual research, it needs to be cited. --MKnight9989 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the sentence should be changed immediately, for instance by substituting the adverb "often" with "possibly", and "panic" with "get angry" or something like that. If somebody will be able to show with some data that the adverb "often" is correct in that sentence, they will be able to put it back. The verb "might" could be also used, but I am not sure about how: I do not know whether a sentence such as "when something occurs, someone might get angry" is syntactically correct or not. Paolo.dL 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This is actually quite common. I have seen users that have contributed five or six articles in a very short period of time and stop posting immediately after their first article was posted. There is no real "source" as defined by wikipedias reliable sources guidlines that will back this up. I don't know of any newspaper that would write about how wikipedians treat newcomers. So in this case, I believe WP:IAR may apply to the WP:NOR policy.Drew Smith 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is biting becoming more prevalent?

This example ([[1]]) was particularly disappointing to me. Whatever happended to the welcoming committee - seems like we have a 'let's see if there's a rule you've broken' committee now. Trollderella 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we are, unfortunately, likely to see more biting. As Wikipedia grows, even if the rate of biting remains the same, the total number of bites will increase. Plus, growth tends to be exponential, so by the same principle, the number of clueless newbies arriving will increase, while the number of experienced Wikipedians is not going to grow at the same rate. A discouraging thought, to be sure. • To help counter this, perhaps some sort of active campaign to be more welcoming is in order. I'd say it would be best to raise such issues over at the village pump, though, and not this one page. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea - I'll mention it there. Trollderella 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen my "open letter"? One of the comments (by Scrawlspacer) helps understanding the problem describing the points of view of both the newbies and the adiministrators. Also, the software (WikiMedia) is not perfect and some very small changes would spare automatically a lot of trouble and wasted time. Even in your example, if MediaWiki had automatically prevented the user from selecting an invalid user name (by recognizing a sequence of more than two identical letters), possibly he would have been able to complete his page and the page wouldn't have been removed. Several other examples are given in my open letter. Regards, Paolo.dL 14:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Boxes for newcomers and for non-biters

I found a box to be used by newcomers

using {{user Newcomer}}
but there is not one to be used by who believes in not bitting newcommers, so here it is:
{{User Nice to Newcomer}} in your page. It adds to Category:Wikipedians Nice to Newcomers
Vanished user 12:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Keep It Simple label is:


W:NoBiteZone

{{WP:KIS/BeKind}}

JennyLen☤ 11:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

How about adding that new users shouldn't be swamped with upper case policy shortcuts? "Please read WP:NOR." is a real slap in the face compared with "Please read the Wikipedia policy on original research." Something in the form of "When talking to new users, consider piping all policy links" should about do it. —AldeBaer 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but where's the link for "piping"??? ;-) Paolo.dL 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:PIPE. —AldeBaer 17:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was joking. I meant to suggest:
  • When talking to new users, consider piping all policy links.
But I also suggest to add your comparison:
Paolo.dL 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My reply was tongue-in-cheek, partly because I understood the joke but didn't get the other part of what you were saying. Good idea though, that link should be in there. —AldeBaer 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree also to including the example. Now let's hear it from others. —AldeBaer 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I second (third? fourth? whatever) this. This is worth mentioning. Paolo.dL's comparison is a great example. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He blatantly plagiarised that example from me! —AldeBaer 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Whoever, whatever, it's a good idea.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion was quite different: I placed the full stop mark outside the quotation marks! :-) Paolo.dL 08:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad and thankful to stand corrected. —AldeBaer 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you! I was bitten and am definitely leaving the sandbox.

I would just like to shout out to user EricV for viciously accusing me of vandalism, because as a newcomer, I apparently didn't complete an edit properly.

I was visiting a page that had a link that looked like this:

jojpppjpsdofjosdfsd.ajsh

Okay, that was obviously not meant to be there, so I retyped the text I knew should be there. The link didn't connect properly, thus my mistake.

I no longer want to participate in this process because EricV's very harshly worded accusation still stings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.104.211 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I help you in any way? I couldn't quite understand your question. I'll be glad if you could rephrase it, please. Thanks! Puchiko 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I can explain. User:EricV89 must have gotten confused, and confused the very correct revertion that 147.9.104.211 (talk) made to be vandalism. User:EricV89 appears to also be a newbie. Fredsmith2 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you! I was bitten and I may be going too

If Wiki only wants the present members to contribute then say so. If no more members of this little club are wanted say so. OK Nyttend. Vic dood 21:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments are based upon my experiences, and research into the treatment of others.

Vic dood 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

After my treatment at the hands o a self proclaimed "rouge admin" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merope I am no longer going to bother trying to edit here. wikipedia is going to die with admins like that running the show.

Vic dood 21:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vic dood! Yes, I got a bit of critisism as well. I won't complain though because it is on a subject I am good at. Also, if you want to do some more editing, try the wikis at Wikia. They have specific subjects for wikis there and it is really good.

But don't leave Wikipedia! We need as many people as we can get! LB22 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am a newbie! I joined last month!

When I joined Wikipedia I was very enthusiastic about bringing my particular expertise to the project and I added a bunch of articles. But the caustic environment wore me down and this is the first time I've been here in many months. I never realized when I was just a consumer of Wikipedia how many cruel sharks roam these waters. I'm not talking in particular about how I was treated, but about the vicious atmosphere in general. And so many big frogs in small ponds! Jane Peppler (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes wikinerds who have read the rule book can be officious to newcomers, having said that where there are so many contributors there will always be the occasional disgruntled person who wants to be persistent beyond rationality.

Does this ever get enforced?

Is this only something that admins just think is a nice idea, or does it ever really get enforced? Fredsmith2 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the boilerplate: "This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Gutza T T+ 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that Wikipedia never enforces any of its Behavioral Guidelines, all of which include that boilerplate? Fredsmith2 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that it doesn't. In any conflict between a Wikipedia regular and a newbie I've seen, the regular always wins. If they've been unnecessarily harsh, they can always defend themselves by saying "Well, look at all the dumb newbie things they were doing. I had to set them straight." I've even encountered an admin who thinks that the rule doesn't apply to newbies who violate a policy (which would make it about equivalent to saying "Don't randomly yell at newbies out of the blue for no reason").
Wikipedia needs more people -- particularly admins -- who are willing to take the side of newbies, mistakes and all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So, seriously, nothing is in place to tell a long-term user that they need to work with the newbies? Fredsmith2 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's their talk page; that's pretty much the definition of where you go when you need to tell someone something. I'll also offer to help talk to the person if you get blown off. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I once saw a new user being bitten, and an experienced user criticizing the new user, but failing to use the {{unsigned}} template incorrectly. When another user referred to this guideline, a fourth user started criticizing the third! --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had to log out of my wikipedia account to do this because User:Acroterion has been blocking me from editing pages ever since the first day I was on wikipeda (during march 2011) and nothing has been done about it since! I typed in my user page and talk page carefully. If I got something wrong (other than my user pages are redlinked, User:Acroterion is to blame. --User:Sonicball (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.134.122 (talk)
The way in which Wikipedia regulars seem to treat newbies is precisely the reason why I will never contribute to Wikipedia, either by adding new content or financially, by donating money. I just find the social climate here to be too cliquey and arrogant. I am an expert in my field and dislike being treated like an idiot. - Julia 95.89.35.44 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Humourus?

The first pic looks houmourus!

--PwnersRule (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)PwnersRule

P.S Im new i joined yesterday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnersRule (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and what is this, Uncyclopedia? No way!

--PwnersRule (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)PwnersRule

Do you have a point to make here? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiLawyering

Directive 9 under How to avoid being a "biter" explains "Avoid WikiLawyering" essentially as writing in wiki shorthand. I think this should say "Avoid jargon" instead. The term WikiLawyering has implications of bad faith, gaming the system, and such; I don't think that is what is meant in this guideline. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I changed "WikiLawyering" to "Wikipedia jargon". Since I have had a few years experience, you are free to bite. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just newcomers

What about changing things just a little here so we don't bite the old timers either. Everyone has the potential to not understand or be completely aware of all the rules. The same courtesy we apply to newcomers should apply to all editors. Jeepday (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's always WP:CIVIL. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Newcomers to articles

This guideline talks kinda condescendingly about newcomers (the teddybear ear-biting picture included). Not all newcomers are timid/ranting intuitionless web users, so I think they deserve a better tone.

Also, this guideline is useful for dealing with newcomers *to an article*. Sometimes, veteran wikipedians stumble into a controversial topic and get (wrongly) pounced upon. This guideline applies there too, so the content of this guideline shouldn't always assume the newcomer is new to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Newbies are being treated like babies

I can see that in the article you are treating the newbies like babies,. Like I've seen the comment above me, please, wouldn't it be better to use a different tone in this article?. It sounds quite "annoying" when you read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MXER (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the tone. I fixed the intro, and some of the body, but quickly realised that this guideline suffers from "too long; didn't read". Someone'll have to trim it. --Gronky (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article has a simple point, mostly contained in the name. At the moment it repeats 'be nice to newbies' too many times, and indeed is condescending.Earthlyreason (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia structurally hostile to newcomers

I think biting newcomers is not the result of bad faith or insensitivity, but the growth of Wikipedia's policies into monstrous size and overwhelming complexity. Only veteran users master the policies and are prompt to use them against violators (like lawyers master the bureaucracy of government and law -- hence, WikiLawyering). This myriad of policies is what's making Wikipedia structurally hostile to newcomers.

There are no really-short policy summary or only-bare-essentials how-to guide for newcomers who just want to make a small contribution but don't know how to edit, don't know what is acceptable, and don't want to dig deeper into Wikipedia's world -- they just want to add a simple paragraph, right now and without going through any unnecessary or uninteresting policy or how-to articles. 89.139.206.215 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but do you have a solution in mind? We have a few pages that attempt to summarize Wikipedia's policies, but they can't cover everything, and some veterans are apt to bite newbies the first time they violate even a lesser-known policy or guideline. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Worse, there's no shortage of veteran editors of particular articles/topics that pounce on contributors (including other veterans) who are newcomers to that article/topic. Pointing to old consensus and telling people to read the archives is very offputting. I don't think summarising policy is the solution. I think we need to better spread the message that when someone makes an imperfect or mildly negative contribution, the first thing to do is not revert, but talk (and then the newcomer might revisit their edit, or revert their own edit, or you might have to still revert the edit). --Gronky (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In the case you describe, "talk" sometimes takes the form of telling the newcomer to the article to shut up and go away (politely at first). Even in your example, you don't leave room for the possibility that a good faith discussion reveals that the newcomer is correct, and the contribution valid. Of course, that makes all the longtime editors of the article look bad, so yes, it never happens. Blackworm (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me the point is this: no one can be expected to know all of Wikipedia's policies in the short term, so simply reply to a newcomer in the same way that you yourself would want to be spoken to after making a good-faith edit. --KSnortum (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've barely read any of this post, only saw the part about no real welcome page with useful links etc. This gave me a great idea. I am going to try to make a new, more in depth welcome page, which at the same time, can be used as a reference card. If anyone wants to help, hit me up on my talk page(seeing as this is a brand new idea I haven't dedicated a page to it yet.)Drew Smith 06:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Got the thing done. Going to suggest it at the appropriate place. Feel free to take a look though. User:Drew R. Smith/WelcomeDrew Smith 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I ABSOLUTELY agree with the original statment about Wikipedia being "hostile" to newcomers due to its enormity. I've been around for a few years now and I STILL don't understand the structure, and I am forever reading the How-to's. I must say, however, that I LOVE this particular article and really appreciate the tone. I wish more experienced users would read this article and adhere to its suggestions. Asturnut (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Line Between Biting

Last night I reported a serial spammer for both re-creating spam page and using socks to do it. In the closure of the sock case the closing admin, finding the socks to be "obvious socks", asked me to be less biting to the newbies in my use of templates. I'm assuming that the admin was referencing my use of only warning templates on the sock accounts after the puppeteer had be warned. I'm wondering where the line should actually fall on biting "newbies" in cases like this. As the system currently works you can't in good faith report a user for blocking without a proper warning, so if you don't use an appropriate warning level it could lead to further vandalism... that seems to butt heads with the idea of biting the newbies. Does anyone have any thoughts on situations like this? Is it acceptable to place only warning templates on obvious sock puppets? I'd love to hear the popular take on this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know your case, but the closing admin could have been making a general comment. I'm no newbie, but I sure find it frustrating when someone talks to me by putting a template on my talk page. If I get the words of a human, I don't feel so bad. I know I can talk with this person. If I get a template, I'm wondering if it was a person or a bot, and I'm wondering if the person will read my reply. And I'm wondering if my future contributions to wikipedia articles and talk pages will also get automated critical responses. A template tells me that there is someone who knows the rules better than I do and that they couldn't be bother actually talking to me.
For obvious socks, sure a template is fine, but I guess by the time an accounts sockiness has become obvious, there will probably have been a human contact before the template contact. So I guess a good rule would be that for the first contact, don't use a template. For subsequent contact, a template may indeed be fine - it's a judgement call for you as to how obvious the sockiness is. --Gronky (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question:

Can newcomers bite themselves?Mashedpotatowithsomegravy (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a sarcastic question, then you should go bite yourself. However, if you are being serious, I have never heard of it happening. I'm sure it's possible, but I would suspect it would be in an ironic, "oh what a dummy I am, its right here!" kind of way.Drew Smith 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Mashedpotatowithsomegravy! Yes, newcomers can by mistake bite themselves, let's say they make an edit, then suddenly feel ashamed over the edit and berates themself heavily, calling themselves evil names, and promising themselves that they shall never do that again. It is rare, but it happens. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Newcomers and advertising

It's quite common than newcomers write a page which ends up sounding like blatant self promotion, especially if the topic of the article is about something very obscure. These editors end up upset after their articles are deleted and probably leave Wikipedia editing for good. Meanwhile, Wikipedia doesn't get any information about the topic in question.

What's a better way to deal with newcomers who don't realise the problem Wikipedia has with spam without scaring them off? Joshua (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

hello i am new to wikipedia do not bite me !! [[Image:RCPatroller Badge.png]] (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No-bite template

I, myself a newcomer, have created a template for new users. Template:I'm a new user! Wikiert (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Two Points

Two things come to mind about the mis-understandings in the wiki world.

Point 1: Start Easy ... Link To Detailed Policy. I can see a newbie being a bit overwhelmed with rules, do this, sign that, don't delete this, POV that, not notable this, 5 pillars that, assume good faith ... well ... anyway I could go on for a while, but most of you know what I mean. To be honest I "read" for 3 years before even attempting to edit (last month). Maybe some short page that just says in simple layman terms the things new editors need to know.

  • 1. Be Nice to the other editors.
  • 2. Don't edit someone ELSE's text on the talk/discussion pages.
  • 3. Assume other editors are nice too - even if you don't agree with them, or they have a sense of humor you don't understand.
  • 4. And don't revert more than once without explaining why, or more than 3 times in any given day.

Point 2: Communication - Text vs. Face To Face. While I've seen a lot of arguments over a POV or a technical issue, it seems by far that most of the wars end with someone admitting in some form or another "I didn't know". After years of chat rooms, blogs, forums, IM's and various other eCommunication I can safely say that while technology can be great in many areas, it does lack a certain personal touch. We can't see "WHO" is on the other end of (in this case) an edit. It may be a 12 year old girl who has grown out of webkinz and getting her feet wet in "Information Dissemination" - or it could be a 60 year old Vet taking his (or her) first IT shot at trying to leave some of the years of knowledge to those who follow. We can't see the smile on someone's face as they type a cute (albeit sarcastic) reply. We can't see the 12+ hours of frustration on an administrators face as he/she tries keep vandals at bay, and keep the information relevant and tidy. We see the words that are written, and all too often jump to the wrong conclusions. Perhaps I'm lucky in that I have spent part of my life in both worlds ... both the old fashioned talk to a person face to face, and the wonderful new world of IT "type it now, it's on the web forever with a key stroke". We can't know the experience level, the background, the age, or even the issues that are most passionate to the person who is reading what we write. I honestly feel that 80 - 90% of the people here are trying to make things better. I know I've only been editing here a month, but I'd just ask that ALL editors (new and experienced alike) remember that there is no voice inflection in the written word. We all have information and experience to share with the world. Perhaps we are not all as eloquent as Abe Lincoln, as inventive as Ben Franklin, as well schooled as a Harvard English professor, or as ... well .. you get the point.

I've seen new users put off when they get told that "It doesn't matter if it's true, only if documentation can be verified" Good heavens - when you put it that shortly, it sounds like "It depends on what is, is". But I digress. We readers have even seen (that discussion tab is GREAT) administrators battle with one another. "Be Bold, Ignore All Rules and go forth and edit" - whoa ... wait a second, where is the citation, can you verify it? Original Research? ... don't even get me started on that one. It often seems that the community its self can't decide whether to "include" or "limit" what should be here. There are admins who spend the better part of their time simply deleting. Granted, there is plenty out there that does need to be deleted, but maybe the 'deletionists' and the 'inclusionists' could swap roles for a week, just to get a taste of how the other half lives. But, I guess that's another topic better left for a blog than the whole "Don't Bite the newbies" article.

Keep it simple, and assume it's your grandmother or grandson on the other end of what you are writing. The better we censor ourselves the less the ISSUE of censorship and edit reverts will even come up.

I guess it's too late to make a long story short; but it would be helpful if there were just one or two pages that addressed those two points. Briefly and in language that a 12 year old can understand, but clearly enough an 80 year old can appreciate. Point new users to those two pages first, and include links at the end to all the policy pages, 5 pillars, NPOV, etc. that is needed to keep the organization running smoothly. New users don't need to be flooded with page after page of policy right off the bat. They will get there, and they will learn. If you are here as an editor, you are bound to pick up on the finer points over time.

Thank You for your time, and I hope everyone has an enjoyable holiday season regardless of how you acknowledge it. Ched Davis (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AFDing new user's article two minutes after article creation.

Hello,

Would it be BITEy to nominate a new user's article for deletion in only two minutes after creation? An example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Adams (Game Developer), where the nominator misled the first several users with a weak rationale into voting for delete before eventually being kept once the real information came in. In this example, we were lucky to see the new user contribute to the discussion to get things in order. Usually we are not so lucky. User:Cabe6403 also agreed that this was a form of WP:BITE.

I feel that failing to give a new user's article a chance, especially less than five minutes, heavily discourages new users from continuing to edit Wikipedia. All it takes is a giant red template on a new user's article and a looming box on their user talk page, and they're gone forever.

I'd appreciate your opinions on this, as WP:BITE does not cover this at all. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be an abundance of delete happy and revert happy folks anymore. It give the impression that we're hanging a sign on Wikipedia that says "No longer accepting new members". I don't know if it's a way to drive up edit counts or what the mentality is, but it (deleting and speedy delete) seems to be rampant anymore. "Be Bold" should be more than lip-service. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff that needs to be deleted either .. spam, vandalism, etc. I'm a new editor as well, and have felt offended on a few occasions, but I struggle onward. When a new editor gets all the "nn", "COI", and pointed to policy and guideline pages during the first couple edits, it can be taken as "I'm not wanted here" ... and they move on. I think more effort should be taken to befriend new editors and help introduce them to community. It may take a bit more time, effort, and typing - but I think it would benefit the community in the long run. There are editors who do nothing but go through the site and delete and tag. While this is a necessary function, those editors should be encouraged by admins to actually contribute to the community. If early Wikipedians had exhibited this kind of behavior, there would be nothing here. Transportation would have been speedy deleted as nn, not resourced. (No offense Jimbo). We definitely need to be encouraging to new editors, and "Be Bold" should be more than an off-the-cuff, lip-service, comment. As always ... IMHO Ched (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, too. I tried bringing this up a couple of times (most recently here), but I've become tired of the discussions that only look at our rule book and the narrow outcome for one particular article, without seeing the big picture and appreciating that we depend on people. One thing I do to mitigate the problem is post messages like "Please don't be discouraged" on the newbies' pages. — Sebastian 17:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Newcomers and dispute resolution

I dont understand what is the problem with my article which was approved and posted by Wiki staff. a user keeps deleting my links but not explaining anything to me where i can understand. Instead he keeps biting me and reverting my article links without explaining why and I feel he is very hostile and harrassing and threating to delete my article although it has been approved and posted by Wiki staff. At this post my links keep getting deleted by this user. Also there informations which are inaccurate in some of the information that is linked to the Choctaw Nation of Florida article and other articles too but they have not researched the information instead deleted my information without first discussion.67.235.129.179 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with this addition. It notes a likely negative consequence of quickly pointing a new user toward dispute resolution. I would actually go further and note that such a pointer is one way that newcomers can get mixed up in discussing potential changes to policy, as touched on at Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_newcomers. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out appropriate policies is not wrong, nor should we suggest otherwise.
WP:DR covers discussing issues with others. Why would we want to advise editors not to refer to it, then point out that these editors should instead be discussing matters between themselves?
Myself, I point editors to WLU's excellent overview of Wikipedia for newbies. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"WP:DR covers discussing issues with others." Yes, but if someone is already trying to do that with you, pointing them to WP:DR is in effect telling them to try something else. For a new user, this may create the impression that normal discussion is useless. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Pointing editors to relevant policies and guidelines is always recommended. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The main point of my edit was that if you feel that outside help is needed in dealing with a newcomer, you should be the one to first request it. If a newcomer attempts to discuss something and is quickly told to try dispute resolution, they may get the impression that normal discussion is useless. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
PSWG1920, would you have some examples for when this actually was a problem, or is this only a theoretical consideration? — Sebastian 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I sort of felt as though that was a problem for me as a new user. Though when I went back and looked at the particular occurrence I was thinking of it didn't quite happen that way. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

I have marked this policy with the copyedit template as it requires revision. Currently, there are numerous spelling errors and erroneous references. In addition, the policy lacks cohesion in certain sections.Smallman12q (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, links to suggestive userboxes and templates should be added to this policy.Smallman12q (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • first sentence...change the focus from neg to pos... Will do.--Buster7 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I took a stab at replacing "he or she" with the genderless pronoun, "they" ... there were about a half dozen instances. :-) Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I took a stab at tidying up. I hope that's alright. Feel free to change back anything I mangled.Merpin (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Good job, Merpin … it reminded me to italicize i.e., e.g., and etc., something about which I am usually pretty anal, but which I apparently overlooked during my edits last week. :-) — 138.88.32.143 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for doing that; I hadn't realized they had to be italicized. :) Merpin (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Failed?

Just take a look at User_talk:Boyhere. What happened to the welcoming community we used to be? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I must say i've noticed some of the older wiki users (sometimes gangs of sorts) seem to treat articles they have written as sort of "their turf", and don't react kindly to anyone (old or new) try to edit or make a point. I've already had some bad times here and i've only had an account one month. Though i'm still learning how to converse via the keyboard these people have not been remotely understanding. Ahh well, keep calm and carry on i guess.--English Bobby (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

must you follow?

your basically following what i do now. Again, it's to bring up matters and that article is a bit contreversial. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Difficult" to "Impossible"

Wag more, bark less,
Don't bite.

In the sentence " It is difficult for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing," I changed the word "difficult" to "impossible." Considering that we have over 100 pages of policies and guidelines, and the word "completely" is used, I consider "impossible" to be a simple statement of fact. BTW I have a little reminder that some of us might want to use on the right. Smallbones (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have been a member at Wikipedia for over two years now, and I still feel like a "newbie". For example there was a discussion and vote about an article deletion in which I wanted to participate, but could not figure out how one can vote. I know it is all documented somewhere, but I can't take the time to search for and read all the policies and still find the time to contribute. :-)Ottawahitech (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How

How To Get It on Your Talk Page

Hello, good day! This is Belugaboy535136. I was wondering how you get the "PLEASE DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS" on your talk page. Thank you and warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Addition to 'How to avoid being a "biter"'

  • a majority of article edits are vandalism. If a person has violated one of the 'principals', they were in their own intent trying to make things better. People rarely talk to vandals (anonymous ip's are aren't worth talking to). It can be disconcerting to see hundreds of vandal edits go by and then something a newbie adds isn't sourced properly becomes chastised. This is probably embodied in 'assume good faith'. Bpringlemeir (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed 12th Step for "How to avoid being a 'biter'"

Change title to "How to avoid being a 'biter:' A Twelve Step Program"

Add: 12. If you feel like your head is going to explode if you don't say something, feel free to vent on the talk page here, but don't name names.

The foregoing, though humorously phrased, is proposed seriously.

Here's my vent: I've been doing some patrolling of {{hangon}}'s of speedy deletion tags at Category:Contested_candidates_for_speedy_deletion, 99% of which are on newly-created articles by newcomers. The CSD tags all say:

If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add {{hangon}} directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page.

(Boldface in original.) What I find, continuously, is the tag can be anywhere on the page, and sometimes on the talk page, and the explanation can show up just about anywhere. After seeing this done wrong by newbies again and again, I just want to type:

HOW THE @#$%&* DO YOU EXPECT TO WRITE A VIABLE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WHEN YOU CANT EVEN FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE DELETION TEMPLATE? JUST WHAT PART OF "DIRECTLY BELOW" AND "ON ITS TALK PAGE" ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING, MORON?!?!?!

But I don't, of course, do that.

Whew, I'm glad I got that out. Now I won't have to take a WikiBreak. Please forgive the WikiChat. Sheepishly, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You think this is so obvious. But actually, it isn't. The look of a Wikipedia page, when you're new and trying to add/edit/fix, is confusing. I did not understand about talk pages and history pages etc. when I started. Don't call me a moron. Jane Peppler (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Biting promoters

How do people feel about biting newcomers that have joined Wikipedia to promote something they are closely connected to? I think that we should at least try to persuade them to play by the rules. For example, if a newcomer creates an article about something which seems to be notable, but is written in a promotional style I think the user should be asked to find some better sources to establish the notability and provide some more balanced coverage. If the newcomer then fails to follow the guidance then it becomes more appropriate to start deleting articles and so on.

However, some experienced editors obviously don’t agree with this, as evidenced by a conversation I had yesterday. I can appreciate that if you are dealing with a lot of promoters it can wear you down and you just want to block the lot of them, but I think we should generally try to follow WP:BITE in the first instance.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those folks who join Wikipedia to promote something specific generally aren't going to stick around to write or edit additional articles. I think for the most part, trying to persuade them to follow the rules is a moot point. When I find an article that is obviously written by someone with a vested interest, I just edit the article as best I can to bring it up to Wiki standards. I always hope that others will follow behind me and help along the process, particularly if they have knowledge of the subject.Asturnut (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
That response makes sense in the context you describe. In the context I was concerned about, someone had gone to the bother of submitting the page they created to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, which suggests to me that they may play by the rules if informed of them. An admin then deleted the article and blocked the user's account, which is very bitey. Yaris678 (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Yaris. Where did assume good faith go? Lova Falk talk 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
People can change, too. How many of the most established or most productive users first started out here as an SPA, or determined to set one specific issue "right"? If a new editor appears to be promotional but not wildly spammy (ie. it's likely that they're a reasonable human being who may respond to feedback), I think the first response, if possible, should be to outline the rules and offer the possibility of productive contribution. bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion from a newcomer

Hi, I'm a 3 weeks old newbie here (edited a few times before I got an account, too). I hope I'm posting this in the right place! I was wondering if there are any processes for getting feedback from new users? By definition, the people who end up discussing these ideas are those who've survived the scary first few weeks. If it doesn't exist, it would be great to give a questionnaire or survey to a random selection of new accounts, to see what new users find helpful and what they find the most confusing or off-putting.

Personally, I've had two off-putting experiences in my first three weeks, which I think are in fact minor and normal occurences, but seemed off-putting to a newbie because I didn't understand the culture.

  • A user suggested my first article be merged into another, half an hour after it was created. To me it seemed (wrongly I now realise) like a direct criticism that my article wasn't good enough to be an article. At the time it had very little content because I was still working on it. I think regular editors forget just how slow editing can be for newbies - you write a couple of sentences, spend ages working out how to do a piped link, then try something out in the sandbox, then try to add a citation, then go make a snack, then preview it and find it looks weird, so then have to add an extra line between the paragraphs..... So I'm worried that speedy tagging, and especially speedy deletion, can underestimate how long an editor might take to make their article the way they want it.
  • I tried to improve the lead of a well established article (electron), spent a few hours trying to write a better lead, and then had my edit immediately reverted. I was really annoyed and felt like all my work had been for nothing. Luckily, by this point I knew how to contact the talk page of the editor who reverted it, and ended up having a discussion. But I wonder if this sort of thing makes a lot of new editors just give up and leave?

I don't know if my experiences are typical or not. But I do think that there are a lot of ways that wikipedia can be off-putting to newbies. I think these are things that an experienced editor might never even consider as off-putting. And I think the best way to be aware of these issues, so newcomer-friendly policy can be shaped, is to ask the newbies themselves about their experiences, maybe in the form of a survey. But I don't know how to set that up yet! What do you think?--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I think it sounds like an excellent idea. –Whitehorse1 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers/Archive_2&oldid=1143247559"