User:Dgray xplane

Hi there,

My name is Dave Gray and I am the founder and CEO of XPLANE. In 2010 I sold XPLANE to the Dachis Group and I am now an SVP Strategy at Dachis Group, a social business consultancy. My background:
 * I have eight years experience in journalism, working at major metropolitan newspapers
 * I taught for four years in the Visual Communications program at Washington University in St. Louis
 * I founded XPLANE in 1993.
 * I wrote a book on collaborative innovation practice, called Gamestorming.

Some general thoughts and observations on Wikipedia
1. I am coming to an understanding of how things work at Wikipedia, and I believe that generally the policies are pretty reasonable. However I believe that extensive outreach and education, both inside and outside Wikipedia, are called for. Many existing policies seem to be misinterpreted or misused. Some issues are hotly debated, yet cited as if they were law.

It seems to me that there is an inherent adversarial nature that is built into the system. I would like to see a Wikipedia that grows based on a dynamic of co-creation rather than debate.

How might we achieve this?

I am trying to determine how I might be able to contribute to, or maybe initiate, this kind of effort. Speaking as a newbie, one's introduction to Wikipedia can be extremely harsh. I see this as a system dynamic and not based on any evil intent. Most people seem to have good intentions at heart.

Thoughts on this are welcome on my talk page.

2. Good reading material for any Wikipedian would be the list of cognitive biases.

3. To a certain degree, I think Wikipedia is becoming a monopoly. It's becoming the world's online authority. A google search on almost any subject will confirm this. The rules change when you achieve this status -- just look at Microsoft for an example of how NOT to react. Just a thought -- interested in people's opinion on this.

4. If people with a potential conflict of interest can't speak on a topic, many professionals and practitioners (at least those who are ethical enough to disclose such conflicts!) will be excluded from conversations. I feel that having all voices participate is critical. Conflicts should of course be disclosed, and editors deemed to have a conflict should be held to the same standards as anyone else. The fact that Wikipedia can be easily edited by all should be enough to ensure neutrality.

5. How do we agree on what is "notable?" I "note" that this is a controversial topic and happen to find it fascinating. I don't have a good answer.

Wikipedia is full of video game titles and obscure references to all kinds of topics. Here's a quote from the article on the xBox:

Destruction Methods

* Throwing empty beer bottles at the piece of crap, after a big night. * Throw it off your 10 story deck and blame your neighbours for sucking bill gates' ass. * Dowse with petrol and set alight. (NOTE: There can never be enough petrol to cover the bastard)

Is this notable? Maybe. Notability is relative to the audience. I DO think there should be standards for notability. I also believe that even more important than standards is judgment. It requires people with good judgment to apply those standards fairly. This is part of my feeling that outreach and education is just as important as the policies themselves. People who don't understand policies can't apply them fairly.

6. I am glad (very glad!) there are people out there keeping Wikipedia spam-and-vandal-free but Wikipedians should also know that there are can also be casualties of "friendly fire" -- shot down by people who feel (legitimately) that they are protecting their territory.

7. I believe that when there is legitimate and reasonable disagreement that the benefit of the doubt should go toward inclusion rather than exclusion.

My beliefs
I believe:
 * Anyone should be welcome to contribute to any page, regardless of their affiliation or conflicts of interest, as long as they fully disclose any potential conflicts. I believe their contributions should be evaluated based on evaluation and discussion of the material and its merits, and not based on who they are.
 * One's history, expertise and experience -- and potential or demonstrated biases -- should be considered when evaluating material, but in and of themselves those things are not sufficient cause to dismiss the relevance of the material.
 * Anyone who has enough passion for a subject to write a Wikipedia article probably also has biases about it, whether they recognize their own biases or not. One of the most common biases is the Bias blind spot, or, the bias that "I have no bias."

Links
References/citations for articles I'm working on: User:Dgray xplane/references.

XPLANE article under construction: User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE

Articles I want to write: User:Dgray_xplane/ProcessMapping

Bios I intend to write:

User:Dgray_xplane/RobertHorn

User:Dgray_xplane/JayCross

User:Dgray_xplane/MichaelDoyle

User:Dgray_xplane/HowtoMakeMeetingsWork

Q&A with Wikipedians: User:Dgray xplane/Q&A

Tips for newbies
Wikipedia is a very large site and navigating it can be complex and confusing. I am beginning to compile a few tips for newbies, based on my own practical experience:

1. Make yourself aware of the difference between a policy, a guideline and an essay.

2. If you don't like a policy, don't be afraid to get involved in policy discussions.

3. Wikipedia policy says "be bold." At least for now, in the current environment, I say "be wary." Be aware that in many people's minds, Wikipedia is under attack.

Many Wikipedians have legitimate concerns that people are using Wikipedia as an advertising or self-promotion platform, and others are just pure vandals. Links to social/community sites like Myspace and Blogspot are especially suspect. Also, be aware that Wikipedia is crawling with "patrollers" who see their job as the protection Wikipedia from intruders. Patrollers are recognized as valuable contributors; for many younger people it can be one of the only ways they can contribute, because their experience in other matters is limited.

Just be careful and realize that any edit to a page may put you in the crosshairs as a potential Vandal. By editing a page, you bring it to the "top of the stack."

4. In addition to "patrollers," who see it as their duty to protect Wikipedia's borders, there are others who see their duty to protect the "heart" or spirit of Wikipedia. They have broadly differing opinions but generally are more concerned with Wikipedia's mission, which requires respect and participation from the world at large. I have found this group to be very helpful and genuinely interested in getting newbies up to speed and participating. They seem to be more understanding of newbies than the patrollers. Of course they may not agree with you but even then they are especially worth listening to.

5. If you see this: ''This A-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by ''. [[Category:B stubs] and it's a subject you care about, be careful about adding anything. New adds are carefully watched by patrollers. If they suspect you of being a Vandal, any edit may provoke an unequal and opposite reaction. Your attempt to help may result in the entire article being deleted.

6. Wikipedia policy says "assume good faith." I say, again (at least for now), "be wary." If you're new, you are not necessarily on a level playing field with established Wikipedians. It's easy to violate ettiquette and policy unintentionally, and not all Wikipedians will not recognize that your stumbling is unintentional. There are many good people who are prepared to help you learn the ropes and help you make articles that are fit for Wikipedia. Don't give up.

7. I pays to remember that most Wikipedia editors and admins who have been around for awhile have bigger problems than you! :)

Links that may be helpful:

User page

User:Uncle G/On notability

User:Gamaliel/Tips

User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable

Notability

What Wikipedia is not

Words of wisdom

Search engine test

List of ways to verify notability of articles

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

User:Daduzi/Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Vanispamcruftisement

Civility

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability

External links

Quotes that I like
"Yes - if reliable sources mention something trivial in passing, it could still be deleted for non-notability. Note, however, that if several reliable sources write non-trivial articles specifically about something, that generally makes it notable. User:AnonEMouse 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) "

"The primary criterion for notability, that applies in all fields, is that an article's subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." User:Uncle G

XPLANE
Hi, thanks for your comments on my userpage. The reason I became involved is because I believe that the article had merit. I have seen *many* articles suffer deletion, and it disturbs me. You'll note that my comments were based on the fact that the admin who proposed deletion did not demonstrate knowledge of the topic, which is the crux of my issues with deletionist policies and processes. It's a timesink, too, which is hardly justifiable in my opinion. That said, articles do need policing.

I'd get involved in trying to change deletion policy to be a bit more user friendly and a lot less argumentative, but I honestly don't have the time. A lot of 'senior admin politics' does seem to happen, and I don't have time for such timesinks either. :-) I'd rather be editing, contributing and generally enjoying community knowledge.

Congratulations on saving this one. --TaranRampersad 05:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)