User:Art LaPella/Is this criticism constructive?

This article might judge you too harshly. It was written for all critics of Did You Know and the rest of the Main Page. It wasn't written with your specific comments in mind. Perhaps this article shouldn't even be mentioned until after a critic has ignored a more straightforward invitation to volunteer.

"Did you know" and the rest of the Main Page is often criticized for typos and similar simple problems. Some of that criticism is constructive. Some of that criticism is unconstructive. How can we tell the difference?

Examples of constructive criticism (if submitted on a relevant talk page)

 * "At Did You Know on the Main Page, in the third item, 'occured' should be spelled 'occurred'." (Assume the criticizer isn't an administrator, so he can't fix the Main Page himself.)
 * "Almost every time I look at 'In the news' articles, I find basic errors in grammar. How can I help prevent that problem?"
 * "There are too many typos in Did You Know articles. I think the Did You Know rules should specify an extra review process before a nomination can be approved."
 * "I didn't approve that for the Main Page because it links to the Foo article, which needs a thorough copyedit." (But simply copyediting is usually easier than talking about it.)
 * "I think the Main Page should be one-third its existing size. That would give reviewers more time to find mistakes."
 * "Maybe if Main Page typo patrollers had to be elected like Arbitrators, they could get more status and therefore get more volunteers."
 * "Did You Know has a chronic typo problem. Wouldn't it be better to just eliminate Did You Know? We could make the Featured Article summary longer to fill up the empty space."

Examples of unconstructive criticism

 * "There's another misspelling on the Main Page. Can't you guys show some professionalism?"
 * "Almost every time I look at 'In the news' articles, I find basic errors in grammar. When are you going to get serious?"
 * "There are too many typos in Did You Know articles. It makes the whole project look ridiculous."
 * "Why do you guys even bother printing a Main Page if you can't get it right?"
 * "You're the people who crap on the Main Page, so you're the ones who should wipe it up."

How to tell the difference
I know, it's obvious, but the point isn't getting through. So what's the difference between the examples above? The likely result of a constructive criticism is that Wikipedia will be improved. The likely result of an unconstructive criticism is that the criticizer hopes to find an easy way to look important without having to work for it.

For instance, those who work on the Main Page have already thought about typos. They don't need to be reminded that the Main Page would be better without typos. And they don't need to be reminded that Wikipedia would be better without Main Page typos. They don't need to be told they should fix typos (unless you're identifying a specific typo). They already thought of that.

For instance, if you think there should be more attention to Main Page quality, the most obvious solution is to volunteer. If that isn't the most obvious solution, then you're probably here to look important, not to get anything fixed. Did you think we would suddenly redouble our efforts toward quality because you told us to? We already thought of that, and we have already decided how much of our time we choose to volunteer to Wikipedia, and talking to you about it is a distraction and a morale-killer, not an inducement.

For instance, if you think parts of the Main Page should be eliminated to raise the quality level, then a constructive criticizer would have thought through details like similar quality problems throughout the page and in any imaginable alternative, and like how the new Main Page would be arranged. An unconstructive criticizer would put the emphasis on denouncing mistakes, not how to get them fixed.

Typical repetitive discussion (exaggerated for clarity and amusement)
'''Today's Did You Know is a disgrace! There were typos in every article I clicked!'''


 * Glad you volunteered! Those articles aren't protected, so I assume you fixed them.

That crap should be cleaned up before it ever gets to the Main Page!


 * Glad you volunteered! See WP:Did you know/Proofreading to proofread Did You Know, or WP:FAQ/Main Page to proofread the rest of the Main Page.

'''I did not volunteer! I just want you to clean it up!'''


 * I have already thought of that, and I have already decided how much time I wanted to volunteer for that goal. How much time have you volunteered?

'''No, I don't just mean you. Why don't you find people to clean up this mess?'''


 * I just found you! Glad you volunteered!

'''I did not volunteer! I mean, find someone ELSE to clean up this mess!'''


 * Glad you volunteered! I hereby appoint you Chief Proofreader Finder!

'''For the last time, I DID NOT VOLUNTEER! I just want you to clean it up!


 * Oh, sorry. I keep confusing people who want to help with people who want to look important without helping.

'''And what's that supposed to mean??! I am helping! I'm helping by telling you to clean up this mess!!!'''


 * Actually, we already have enough sidewalk superintendents. Setting an example is the best management style, so when are you going to help us fix it?

You put that crap on the Main Page; it's your job to clean it up!!!!


 * Well no, it's not my job at all; it's my hobby.

It doesn't have enough quality to deserve space on the Main Page!!!


 * Nice speech, but are you proposing an alternative?

Hell yes I'm proposing an alternative, if you won't fix it you need to get someone who will!!!


 * Glad you volun-

GOD DAMN IT, I MEAN FIND SOMEBODY ELSE!!!


 * You're right. There's a squad of copyeditors waiting for years in my basement, waiting for the chance to fix everything. Now that you've found the right swear word, they will joyfully leap into action. NOT!