User:FT2/SP1

POSSIBLE APPROACH
The community handles thousands of disputes a year. Most resolve, but many seem intractable. Users get frustrated, discouraged and angry, readers get poor information, megabytes of evidence are written, volunteer goodwill and time are wasted. After 11 years why isn't it any better?

Setting aside the simpler disputes, some disputes really are difficult:


 * Real world/strong feelings: - they reflect real-world issues with strong feelings
 * They are inherently subjective - "what is a mainstream view", "what would a balanced view look like", "is this fringe or not"
 * There is no "right" answer or all answers are highly divisive - naming disputes for example
 * They have attracted users or groups who have agendas or warring skills and are skilled at avoiding explicitly bad conduct
 * Toxicity/ownership - they get "owned" by a group, or disputing groups, or become "toxic".
 * Poor conduct feedback cycle - A cycle of poor conduct -> non-productive -> good editors driven away -> rewards tendentious and well-meaning non-encyclopedic editors -> more poor conduct (etc) and less likely to result in high standard decisions
 * Too little, too late - by the time they come to wide attention they are already a disaster zone.
 * Our dispute resolution system is fragile in some ways - it doesn't take many people to frustrate progress, we don't have formal structures to help reach difficult consensus, egregious bad conduct is needed to remove an editor from a page which takes time to prove and can be avoided with skill, we treat anyone with more than 10 edits as equal editors when their editing quality may widely differ, anyone can ask to reopen a debate... and reopen it, wearing out patience. It wasn't designed to handle these cases way back in 2001 - and at heart, it hasn't evolved much since then. (Our basic content dispute process is: discussion -> request more eyeballs -> sanctions for egregious conduct -> tire out "good" participants -> cross fingers that it magically resolves)

Wikipedia was started as a small project whose participants were online geeks, so rules could be simple and self evident. Our policies should work in theory but making them work in practice on the cutting edge of cases is notoriously hard... they simply weren't designed to anticipate these problems or a community on this scale.

Let's decide that we need to solve these. No excuses. Everyone here knows the frustration involved, so let's kick start some new thinking. What tools do we need in the arsenal to solve heavy disputes in a way that respects traditional approaches? What would such tools look like?

They should ideally draw on the wider community. They should respect our normal approaches and not fossilize content, nor create "weak points" for warring or censorship in future (content arbitration is weak this way). They should privilege editors willing to edit well, over those who can't or won't. They should ensure newcomers an equal chance to do well, if behaving productively. They should provide support for new dispute resolution methods which should be based as much as possible on consensus rather than some new "elite". They should not privilege admins (many non-admins are brilliant editors, some admins have POV or fairness issues). They should ensure productive debate in hard circumstances, hence much less patience with poor conduct but should not encourage free use of blocking. They should strategically target those features which edit warriors rely on to edit war, while having minimal impact on genuine good editorship. They should use tools lightly so we don't become "blocking happy" or bite people without a chance. Content resolution should be 100% transparent and on-wiki (there are no editor privacy issues for content). They should be robust, rely on social pressure and work mainly by good design, rather than by "enforcement" processes or a small "elite". They may respect experts but place faith in the wider community (experts can have agendas or POV like anyone else). They should be widely applicable and simple. Processes should be open to any user who shows they can edit well and in good faith. They should draw upon a wide pool of hundreds of users to ensure NPOV.

A half dozen enhancements exist that fit these requirements. Together they cover much of our outdated dispute resolution system. Two or three are radical changes to mindset that will take analysis to see how well they could help us across the board.

Over the next few weeks I'll be looking at future dispute resolution with a focus on actually improving our end product of good content in a series of op-eds. Some will be radical, some require leaps of trust, some will work "just because they will". I'll start by looking carefully at what doesn't work, what does and traps to avoid, so we can check our ideas stand true to our pillars. Users are encouraged to express interest in developing these ideas with the aim of proposing on-wiki trials - this is to have a go at real community-driven change, a starting point for people to decide we can improve it - not just an excuse to make noise in an echo chamber!

I'll start next week with "Disrupting the disruptors - an analysis of advanced edit warring", which will introduce two ideas: - Serious edit warring requires high presence and involvement, and so is itself very vulnerable in ways that don't affect anyone editing properly; and, just sometimes, our biggest problem is that conduct standards are upside down.

Catch you next week!

<!--

Teaser for week 2 + 3
... In the battle between "everyone can edit" and "high quality content" where do you stand?


 * (as often noted in business, schools and motivational studies, if you foster a sense of high standards and that everyone can attain them, people will often feel the desire to meet them. If you set no standards they won't. Having a "policy" is not the same as setting a standard or expectation.)

... Human nature is pervasive. Our approaches should harness human nature rather than fight it. I'll be looking next week at some of the self-perpetuating feedback cycles which support disputes and non-resolution, and ask what more productive feedback cycles exist that we might want to deliberately nurture instead.

Concept
While AGF and BITE are important, isn't there something wrong when users can have 300 edits and still not understand the basics of Wikipedia approaches? Don't core editors have better things to do than re-explain, tiring themselves out trying to coax editors of considerable experience to adopt project norms even after 6 months?

Perhaps we should aim to actively develop editorial approaches and skills. Maybe we should recognize and publicly notice those who routinely show them, to try and foster it widely, or else find ways to minimize the issues caused by those who - even after a long time - can't or don't.

If we want good quality content, and we also want a wiki that anyone can edit, surely there's a "quid pro quo" - those wishing to edit imply make a tacit commitment to learn our ways over time, if they want their voice given full weight, and if they (with others) don't or can't, then they should be urged to do so in some way, and it shouldn't be established as a massive drag on the work of those who do make the effort.


 * Disclosure - cites are by way of example only [to consider this aspect. Screenshot?]

Other material

 * FT2
 * During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned.


 * We didn't consider breaking up the projects, but we did feel that the concept of subject-related collaboration (ie WikiProjects) were not being used to best advantage. We considered it could help the project if WikiProjects were accessible between different wikis, so that users would more commonly work with others on a topic area and gain from doing so. Specifically we thought about the advantages of global WikiProjects. By way of example, a global MilHist WikiProject would allow all editors with an interest in Military History to collaborate across different wikis. It would give users editing in that field in small wikis access to the resources, information, collaborative support of those on larger projects and users on larger projects access to knowledge from countries they might not cover well for lack of knowledge. It would mean that sources could be located in foreign languages (including English sources which are "foreign" on most wikis by definition). Users who might feel isolated could find peers on other projects in the same field. Knowledge could better flow between wikis to the benefit of smaller projects needing help.  users who might be the only ones focusing on a topic area on a smaller wiki could be part of a larger collaboration on that subject with users from other cultures rather than isolated.  It would also mean that experts who did not want to argue with trolls, high school editors or POV warriors could have a more clear role where they could help, providing responses and reviewing articles as requested, within the topic area WikiProject, where trolling is unlikely. (To clarify one point,  the concept is one of collaborative editorship and support across projects, we rejected any kind of control over articles or wikis, nor overriding local WikiProjects)


 * The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good quality material, and act well, across the board. If that's what we want then let's find ways to develop and encourage it.  At the moment adminship is granted following a searching process but there is no equivalent for editors who seek recognition as competent and consistently good quality editors.  If there were some way to communally recognize such users (call them "proven editors" lacking a better term) it would have some immense advantages.  Right now every editor who is autoconfirmed but doesn't write FA's is pretty much in the same category of editorship. Newcomers can't distinguish those who edit well and those not shown to edit well. Users should be helped to improve themselves as editors - setting some kind of formal recognition they can achieve will help focus that. Recognition becomes something all good-faith users aspire to, and once acquired they will not want to lose it by poor editing or poor conduct.  So it locks in our goals as a community (good editors) and aligns them with a personal motive.


 * The aim is to make recognition of this kind very widespread within the community and to actively coach and encourage uptake and success -- a recognition routinely won by many editors who have been active for over a year or so. It means that one can see easily in an article history which edits were made by users the community recognizes as proven editors and one can focus on other edits for issues. It encourages holders to act to the standards expected and encourages others to seek that recognition for themselves, and therefore to learn to be better editors.  In edit wars it provides a bias towards endorsement of probably better edits. In the case of massively disputed topics such as ethnic wars it provides a dispute resolution tool - editing might be restricted for a time to those editors considered "proven" by the community. Finally it is egalitarian (or at least as much so as anything on the wikis) -- it is a recognition anyone can achieve from the community by editing and behaving well, and anyone can lose by editing or behaving to a visibly poor standard. It carries no formal powers, but by peer pressure alone encourages improvement generally.


 * Two ideas.


 * SlimVirgin


 * This is a good idea, but your first and second paragraphs contradict themselves somewhat. If "proven editor" were a status people had to strive for, and really didn't want to lose, it couldn't be something awarded routinely to anyone active for over a year. We have lots of people active for over a year who are very poor editors. They currently have no reason to improve themselves, because so long as they don't engage in behavioral problems their status continues uninterrupted.


 * If we could create a carrot -- "proven editor" or whatever we call it -- that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, it would give people something to aim for other than adminship. But there would have to be a real improvement in their editing, not just "you've shown that you're not a complete idiot," otherwise it's patronizing and worthless.


 * Yaroslav


 * This was also a part of the discussion of the Quality Taskforce/Strategy mentioned earlier by FT2 in this thread. One of the ideas of getting the "trusted editor" status, whatever it means and whatever are the criteria to get it (if I remember correctly, we never came down to such details) was that these trusted editors can resolve disputed related to content (POV etc), whereas the arbcom role is to resolve conflicts between users. These are two different issues and require two different (possibly overlapping) sorts of arbitrators: to fix the POV or BLP issue one has to be experienced in writing Wikipedia articles, whereas to solve for instance a personal conflict one has to be a good mediator but not necessarily a good article writer.


 * FT2 (to SV)
 * The contradiction resolves in that "routinely" means "commonly" not "automatically". Your 2nd paragraph says it -- a carrot that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, and which passed the scrutiny of the community as good quality editor activity, not just non-idiocy.


 * Many newcomers (POV warriors, trolls etc) wouldn't care but the kind of users we want to see more of and nurture, would care. We could provide a route and coaching, so that most users who cared to try, would be able to gain that community recognition after some time (I've suggested typically after a year).


 * FT2 (to Andre Engles)


 * Q: First, let me apologize beforehand for sounding too cynical, but I have many years of experience with Wikipedia, and I have seen many attempts to deal with trolls, POV pushers and otherwise substandard editors (I even initiated one or two myself), and I have not seen a sign of any of them actually working.


 * Efforts are incremental. This isn't aiming to "deal with trolls" per se, but to improve the quality of the editorial community as editors. Right now we leave people to themselves, and possible benefits that could be gained from recognizing accomplished proven editors aren't gained. The conclusion was that if this is given a leg-up, then it will have positive effects on other areas including issues of poor editing. Most approaches to improvement are narrow-focus, they fix a specific issue. This one tries the flip side: - if general quality increases and we recognize the users that we believe won't POV war or be biased and will act well even on difficult subjects, then we have ways to approach disputed areas that we didn't have before and we could remotivate and encourage users who got fed up, as well as providing something positive for people to aim to once they get "into" editing.


 * Q: Why would a newcomer be supposed to care about that? Does it matter whether my article gets edited by a 'good' editor or by a 'bad' editor? Am I supposed to revert a bad editor but leave a good editor alone if he makes the same edit? Or should I better leave the edits of the bad editor alone, because he's probably a troll who will chase me away if I revert him? Even more so - the 'bad' editor may be an excellent editor who just has not yet had the time to prove him- or herself.


 * Newcomers care because they look for easy ways to identify users who can help them, or whose advice in discussions is more reliable. If I have a technical problem my first issue as a newcomer is "who of all these mass of people should I ask? Who might know? Whose answers on policy are more likely accurate? It makes it easier for informal coaching to take place (user can post "I see you are experienced here, I have a question" or can I come back to you if I need more help") Making participants of proven quality easier to identify, helps in other areas of life. There is every reason to expect it is helpful here.


 * There is a big difference between "not yet proven" and "bad", so your last point isn't an issue. A means to formally recognize such users does not mean others are "bad" any more than the existence of a "junior swimmer's" badge for children means all other children can't swim. Given users don't seem to have a problem with reverting admins, I think they wouldn't have a problem reverting any other user :)


 * Q: Currently [heavily warred] pages tend to be locked to all but admins. That doesn't work either - people just keep on their fighting on the talk page until someone gives up, after which the page is unlocked and their opponent can declare their victory on the page. Or the fight simply moves to the next page.


 * Yes. Now imagine we had 3000 users whom the community has scrutinized their editing and conduct and feels they act well and edit well across the board. We don't have to lock down the article to admins, we can restrict editing to any of those 3000 users, and anyone else who wishes to edit can seek community recognition and then do so as well. The editing is then open, but undertaken by users who have proven they know how to cite, discuss, seek NPOV, etc. Give it 3 or 6 months the article (or topic area) will probably be in good order and can tentatively be unrestricted again.


 * [This is about] very severe "mass participation" edit wars such as ethnic topics in mind here, where we have tried for years to bring good editing. We don't have any solution. This could help. It means that instead of locking articles down to admins (who mustn't edit anything contentious), or snails pace development, we can restrict it to proven editors of which we have thousands, and anyone gaining that recognition can join them. The article stays open, but poor conduct and mis-citing or tendentiousness vanishes - because any "proven" editor who does act up will be in a peer group of users who are overwhelmingly good quality, proven, who know bad conduct when they see it, and know how to deal with it appropriately.


 * Q: Again, forgive me if I sound too cynical, but I do get the feeling that such a system might well be a nice thing to have, but would be as effective in promoting good editing behaviour as a Barnstar.


 * Not quite. A barnstar means one person, somewhere, wanted to say "well done". It doesn't mean the user's work generally or their conduct generally is good quality, that they generally edit neutrally or cite well, or treat others well, or that the wider community has reached agreement they are of proven competence and approach. Once you have that, you can do good things like motivate and coach newcomers, provide goals to head to, or develop new dispute handling methods. If you can draw on a pool of a few thousand users whose capability and appropriate behavior can largely be assumed.


 * FT2 (clarifying)


 * To clarify/correct this - the idea was not that they can be "given the role of" resolving disputes. Rather, their conduct in helping (as ordinary editors) to resolve disputes, can be relied upon. They will follow (as editors) dispute resolution, focus on project-related issues, look at the topic neutrally, ask about policy related issues, be fair and courteous, etc.


 * SLimVirgin


 * It's an excellent idea. It could make a huge difference to the quality of content; and it would give editors a tangible way of improving their editing and having something to show for it, which might encourage them to stay too.


 * FT2


 * To comment on the issue of "ways to improve the project", which slightly diverges from the main topic:


 * Indeed, much has been tried on poor editing, but from a very narrow class of solutions. We've tried to improve detection (bots, patrols), improve support and guidance (more focused and effective policies and information pages), more effective intervention against problem editors (mentorship, sanctions, restrictions), etc. They work and also fail to an extent.


 * In all this some key points are lost:


 * A pure focus on problem reduction won't solve the problem. You need to both reduce the scope and impact of problems, and also increase the scope and impact of positive things. Focusing on dealing with poor editors and ignoring improvment of the general editing environment miss a big part of any layered solution. Look for catalysing reactions, feedback that tends to impact positively and foster other positive changes in turn. In the strategy discussions we recognized the result would be a document that would not be widely read compared to the size of our readership or editorship communities. So we asked what kind of changes might have a significant impact despite that. Inevitably they were ones that just by existing, catalysed other benefits in turn. One of the major questions we found was simply this:  how do we encourage individual editors to want to be better editors?  This is a critical question. The classical answer includes providing recognition. In business it's success bonuses, at school it's grades, here it might be community recognition of being a proven editor (or whatever term is used). Once you have that, a lot follows, because recognition is one of the strongest motivators. Students who want something for their resume, casual editors who decide they want it to tell their parents or friends, users who want to feel they have recognition from the community they edit with - everyone gains. If you have recognition you tend to want to live up to it. If a significant number of your peers have it then you want it too (and will put effort into it). If you have received recognition as someone who is a level headed editor this also tends to demotivate poor editorship, you're aware others will see you as someone who edits well. People often try to live up to favorable expectations.


 * If we want a quality project we need quality editing. Aside from questions of how we coach and support newcomers, setting a tangible target that anyone who wishes to and applies themselves can reach in a reasonable time, is a mental stimulus and engages all kinds of goodness. It would mean a lot to many people as a personal achievement, and is best seen in that light. I see that as the main outcome. It may (probably will) help in handling edit wars, but its primary purpose is to motivate, support, encourage, and foster, those who join us in good faith and want to help.


 * Wikimedia is built on peer collaboration and a belief in our users (most of them anyway!) If we believe most users want to do well, then that's the key, as it has been all along, Give users a tangible way to do it better. Make "doing well" a goal that people want to achieve.


 * FT2


 * I revisited Wikipedia as a newcomer to test the idea and newcomer experiences a year ago and didn't really see that. What I did experience was that it was complicated and that was discouraging. Part of the issue is that standards are stricter and quality expectations are such that newcomers are less likely to edit appropriately first time round, and therefore some kind of support or inculturation is needed that wasn't in 2004 - 05. Some knowledge is needed before (or as) you "edit this page" whereas before intuition was enough. Our approach to new joiners has not updated to reflect the fact that "just get on with it and find your own way" is no longer appropriate.


 * Specifically, we aim to encourage groups who are not net geeks, and therefore need a different kind of support and induction, and at the same time the project has got more quality conscious and there are more policies affecting what may and may not be done than there were in 2004 - 05.


 * Both of these argue that our means of inducting joiners is hopelessly out of date, and it is this which causes newcomers to leave or be discouraged; what is perceived and sometimes described as a hostile environment is mostly a reflection of the divergence it involves.

-->