User:Fox/Virtual classroom/Coaching

= Coaching =

General assignments
Hi everyone! In this section are general assignments for you to complete, to avoid having to repeat them over for each of you. Of course, you can stll expect to receive individualized assignments.


 * If you aren't yet completely familiar with proofreading and copy-editing, be sure to read those articles. Hone these skills.  And be sure to read How to copy-edit too.
 * Participate in VC Lesson #1. Tell us about the interfaces you use. Note that there are 2 sections: be sure to explain both your external interface and your internal interface.
 * Create a workshop page for yourself, for example  User:your username/Workshop . After doing so, put the link to it at the top of your user page and talk page so that you can access it easily.
 * Your workshop is an all-purpose link page that you can use for just about anything. You can use it to store your task list of articles you want to work on or create, organize the links to the pages in your userspace, jot down ideas on various projects, store your purge buttons and other controls, etc. See my workshop as an example.
 * Drag this link to your browser toolbar. Then rename it to "EC" (edit counter).  In addition to this, copy the link to your workshop.
 * Until you are extremely familiar with them, you should spend some time out of each of your Wikipedia edit sessions studying the following pages and every page linked-to from them (especially the pages presented in the navigation bars across the top of each page). They will help you immensely in finding your way around Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community:
 * Contents
 * Community Portal
 * Help:Contents
 * The same goes for the menus on the sidebar, and the submenus linked from there. Explore each link and each command until you know exactly where each one goes and what each one does.  Spend extra time on "Special pages", because it has a lot of items - but the most useful one there is "All pages".

Main classroom discussion area
Hi everyone. The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading.  This is also the secton to suggest new topics of discussions. Don't be shy, just add another subheading for whichever issue you think we should discuss! There's also a question and answer section further down the page.

Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading
Please share your observations and opinions below about how Wikipedia is evolving and changing over time, for better or for worse....

One thing I've noticed over the past few months is the proliferation of tags, like citation and reference tags, and other "what's wrong with this article" tags. Concerning citation tags, the push for verfication has intensified, but the general approach of those doing the pushing seems to be to tag articles and then delete the unreferenced material if nobody else adds citations, rather than tracking down references themselves.

At the same time, at Wikipedia's front end, new users are cordially welcomed and encouraged to just jump in and edit Wikipedia, with very little mention or guidance concerning references. Little do they know that their material is subject to removal if they don't cite sources.

The two above efforts are working at cross-purposes -- one creates content, and the other deletes it. I see this as an incredible waste of resources. What do you think should be done about it?

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's turning into a downward spiral. There should be more emphasis on sourcing on the edit page. Where it says "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*."; there should be another sentence after the second that links to WP:Reliable sources. I think that may help.


 * This is, however, why I love working the GA project so much. It's a great opportunity to improve the encyclopedia by improving articles that are already of a good quality... for the most part. I'm not so great at writing articles, but I am so great at tweaking them. The little things are what I really enjoy. So finding sources, formatting them and such is something I like to do, and I think the encyclopedia would benefit from more editors that enjoy that... WikiGnomes. Lara ♥Love 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll just go ahead and admit that I've been adding alot of those templates. But I'm not deleting stuff!  Must be some deletionist wikignomes doing that around here...somewhere.  I generally only remove myself what I consider to be unencyclopedic, and I'm happy to search for cites for hard science, if asked (I like to be motivated!).  I agree that there should be some kind of emphasis in the edit page or the welcome template about noting where your information comes from.  If you are considering deleting a piece of info from an article, I have seen in the past that leaving a polite request to those who work on the article often resolves the issue quickly.  Someguy1221 10:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just references new users are unaware of, but Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Not asserting notability is a speedy deletion criteria, and a significant chunk of articles on AfD are there because of lack of notability, yet new users don't get so much as a mention that Wikipedia has notability criteria or a link to WP:N. LyrlTalk C 17:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've noticed serious cases of biting newcomers. (eg. here) Many of our experienced users don't give a damn about newcomers and are blocking without any warning users less than 10 mins after they create an account for having bad usernames or constantly giving vandalism warnings for making good faith edits to "thier" articles just because the newcomer isn't familiar with policy so they can get away with it (Fortunatly, people on the help desk make up for all this) - Pheonix15 14:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad some one has flagged this tagging and template  craze  up for discussion. A tag  or template doesn't generally in practice, really inform  the editors of anything they did not already know,  or anything that they would have expanded on already -if they had the time to add more, or a personal sense of competence in tackling that particular detail not yet finished.
 * Also, adding the template then seems to guarantee, that no one will make good the short coming, (I guess editors feel subconsciously, that they now if they  add anything it will be inspected minutely and given marks out out of ten for every one else to see).


 * I also certainly get the impression that editors are beginning to use the as an excuse to come back a few days later and remove whatever runs counter to their belief's.  This can included editor that are quite open in that they belong to a competing area of same  field, and so on and so on, (the ancient Greeks had a saying  for displays of this type of jealousy which translates as  potter against potter).  Yet, other editors being able to point out the need for citations can be so very useful for oversights -( and I can make quite a few) but they tend to be frequent contributors to the same article and thus posses  some well informed insight and know what needs cit'ing and what is best left to be explained on a related article.


 * Templates to point out to the reader (for whom the articles are created for in the first place) may benefit from a template that points out that the article is connected to a 'current event' but even then – the current event in question is probably why they are looking it up in WP in the first place. Others tags and templates just seem to encourage edit wars. As soon as someone tags any article to suggest it might be biased, or contains information  mainly on one country (even when the editor adding the template is in a county which has produced no material on the subject any way).  Or another bad habit is to remove text that gives equal weight when WP policy states equal weight is  unnecessary. It seem crazy to start deleting text because there is too much of it. I suspect some good editors are just giving up because other editor are now using tags and template to get them do write the article they way they want to see it, at the expense of the other editors having their work constantly deleted if they don't. (although I must admit some editor on both sides, on  some articles  seem to enjoy this battle of wits, even when the article is of no significance.)( see for example Stephen_Barrett).
 * There are many articles I would like to add information to because I have it at my finger tips, but  just don't bother if there is wikilawmaking going on – the good thing about WP is there is always plenty of other articles to edit.--Aspro 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the points being raised, but I don't see a problem with, as shown below:
 * == Welcome! ==

Hello, Fox/Virtual classroom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
 * However, in a template by the Welcoming Committee, you can add a personal message, which is quite useful. Yes, verification should be somewhere. But as to what Aspro said, there is plenty of truth to that. But what if the person looking wasn't interested in the event? Anyhow, though, I recommend a drive to eliminate all un-useful tags. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's been an active editor and administrator for 3+ years, I think it is ridiculous that the way we edit articles on Wikipedia hasn't changed substantially at all in that period, yet the state of Wikipedia itself has changed completely. Frankly, Wikipedia doesn't need causal contributors any more. We have every important subject covered and then some. What we are in desperate need for are real editors and fact checkers (by "editor" I mean something similar to a book or newspaper editor). We need to implement some form of approved versions and we probably need to semi-protect all of our featured articles, so that they don't require constant effort to keep them from slipping back into mediocrity. Every year a higher and higher percentage of Wikipedia edits are edits that are immediately reverted for one reason or another. This isn't because we're all reversion-crazy and love to spend all of our free time reverting other people's edits. It's because most Wikipedia articles are in a fairly acceptable state (at least as far as amount of information) so edits made by Wikipedia tourists generally aren't that useful (especially because they are rarely backed up with citations). This religious adherence to allowing anyone to edit anything is eventually going to have to evolve into something a bit more structured if we're ever going to take Wikipedia to the next level (a reliable encyclopedia). How about "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit if they are willing to provide a source"? Kaldari 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec. I haven't read the immediate above yet) References, citations, and similar tags are very useful for informing readers what is wrong with a particular article, section, or sentence.  A way of informing users who enjoy using Wikipeda as a source of information (God forbid) that one or more Wikipedians don't think this article can be trusted.  As for the actual deletion of unreferenced but otherwise encyclopedic information, I typically don't remove unless it appears that more than one Wikipedian thinks it should go.  Someguy1221 21:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that people emphasis on edit count too much in everywhere, particularly mainspace edits in RfA. Many never look at contributions that indirectly improve overall Wikipedia (ie WikiProjects, portals, drives, images, etc.). They forgot these activities also improve Wikipedia in a way. Also, it takes thousands of edits to establish you a good chance for a successful RfA, but requires just one bad move to send you to hell even if that happened years ago. There should be some kind of merit system so that you can be bold editing without any fear. OhanaUnited  Talk page  22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering myself, with all these tags all over, how long something with a tag is supposed to stay. The meaning of life article was a perfect example: half of the article was eligible for erasure. Smokizzy (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (In response to Kaldari above) "newspaper editor", "semi-protect all of our featured articles", "approved versions"? Hmmm. Sounds a lot like a bureaucracy and less like a wiki. I'm particularly shocked that an administrator believes all FA's should be semi-protected; that's a violation of the protection policy, plus it's WP:BITEy and not assuming good faith, as it's assuming that all unregistered and new editors are incompetent enough to contribute to an article. I have experience working with unregistered editors, and let me tell you, some make articles of far better quality than many established editors. It's almost a crime to deny them the ability to contribute to a free (as in liberty) encyclopedia. If you don't like the way Wikipedia is, go edit Conservapedia or Citizendium. --Boricua  e ddie  16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My basic point is that most unregistered and new editors are not capable of substantially improving articles that are already at FA quality. I don't want to deny anyone the ability to contribute, but there needs to be a balance between exposing our best material to the whims of the anonymous hordes and maintaining our identity as an open wiki. Ultimately, what is more important? Having high quality reliable information or being able to use the slogan "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Citizendium, however, has it totally backwards. If you're not completely open at least in the beginning stages of article development, who's going to bother contributing? Wikipedia doesn't have a lack-of-contributors problem, however. Quite the opposite. Why is it so wrong to try to achieve a more sane balance? Kaldari 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take the point that the majority of new editors will not really be able to contribute substantially to articles because so many articles are complete. However, there are huge chunks of information out there that are either not included in the encyclopedia or are underdeveloped. The Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject outlines large areas of knowledge where Wikipedia is deficient. Perhaps we should be raising the profile of these 'missing' areas in our welcome messages and encouraging new editors to work on those. --Sepa 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Sepa is on to a good idea there. It can still be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit... we just need to add the qualifier 'if; together with some 'specific tasks' for the newbie, (and 'Countering systematic bias' kinda covers the lot).
 * WP has been a success because most productive editors come  to WP with a good working concept of an encyclopaedia already formed in their minds. They do not -on the whole- need to get involved with WP policy until they come up against a seventh grade ignoramus who thinks anything goes; etc., etc., etc.
 * Also, in the welcoming spiel, maybe there ought to be the motto  Engage brain before engaging fingers on keyboard – could you, if asked, explain how your edit will improve the article 'before' you make each contribution?.--Aspro 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above thread is reminiscent of the "stable versions" discussions, kept for historical interest at Stable versions, Stable versions now, and Why stable versions. I agree with Sepa that our welcome wagon should be better coordinated with our firing squad.  Too much policy up front may be overwhelming, but the absolute essentials should be covered.  There is definitely a purge of unsourced material going on - the essence of Wikipedia has changed in this regard, and newcomers need to be informed of the current essence.  The article meaning of life is a good example of the purge, as it got hit hard - it could take weeks to rebuild it.  But meaning of life is fortunate because it is being rebuilt.  But how many articles that have been extensively trimmed have editors dedicated to rebuilding them?  How much of Wikipedia's actual content is getting buried and lost forever in article histories?
 * One major benefit of being a wiki and open to all new edits is that the encyclopedia can be kept up to date as the world changes. The price of course is that articles are subject to general degradation due to crappy edits, vandalism, etc. which increases the amount of continuous maintenance required.
 * The "engage brain" motto above may seem silly, but how many people just dive in without any forethought at all? Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on going through Wikipedia's tutorial or that plus an overview of what Wikipedia does not need.  We've got plenty of pages and programs competing for editors' attention, directing them all over the place.  Maybe because of this inundation, we don't really point new users in the right direction very effectively.  Yet.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Stable versions" idea has evolved into Flagged revisions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "engage brain" motto above may seem silly, but how many people just dive in without any forethought at all? Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on going through Wikipedia's tutorial or that plus an overview of what Wikipedia does not need.  We've got plenty of pages and programs competing for editors' attention, directing them all over the place.  Maybe because of this inundation, we don't really point new users in the right direction very effectively.  Yet.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Stable versions" idea has evolved into Flagged revisions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that one of Wikipedia's major problems is the process through which users become administrators. Currently, in order for an RfA to pass, the user tends to require several thousand edits, several months of experience, and, in many cases, a featured article promotion. That is a pile of nonsense. For example, in my RfA, the comments opposing my promotion were almost identical to the arguments listed on Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. Most users who run for adminship are probably unlikely to abuse the tools. If we were to simply promote almost every user who requested adminship, simply running through a quick check of the user's edits first, it would be unlikely to cause much damage. The few bad promotions could be rapidly undone, and the good promotions wouldn't cause damage. Although I do consider that to not be a good idea, I think that RfA should be more like AfD; that is, promotion is based on the value of the arguments presented for/against the user than on the number. Currently, several oppose votes based solely on the user's age can outweigh a support vote with a paragraph or more of well-reasoned text explaining how a user would make a good admin. For example, in my RfA, I may have passed had I not mentioned my age on my userpage. That is clearly at least a minor sign of problems with the adminship system. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well stated. I agree that RfA needs improvement, but I disagree that closing them like AfDs would be of any help.  The best way to reform RfA is to become involved with it.  Maybe we should write a page called "How to pass RfA with zero stress".  Among other things it could point out not to post your age on your user page.  :) And "Don't vote on anything, and don't revert anyone, until after you are an admin."  But my favorite is: "Don't spruce up your user page or your signature until after you've passed RfA."  :)  I've been objected to because of my colorful signature, for my "over engineered" user page, and because I'm a meta-editor (I work in the "other" namespaces a lot).  I'm pretty amazed at some of the objections posted on there.  Another one that really gets me is when they vote against you simply because you reply to objections, but if you respond to the subject of an objection in the comment section of your RfA, there's no objection to doing that. :-)  What a maze.  The Transhumanist 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to closing them like AfDs, you're probably right. I was just thinking that it might be better if, rather than passing or failing based on the number of support or oppose votes, you passed or failed based on the quality of the arguments. Currently (theoretically), a user could fail RfA just because a lot of users voted against said user for some nonsensical reason (e.g. because they're only in sixth grade, even though Ilyanep isn't that much older, and he's an admin). I mostly failed my RfA due to the Fruit Brute AfD, which wasn't all that bad, since it made the article better! Bart133 (t) (c) 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

 →Dust  Rider →  21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cancelled comment wrong section  →Dust  Rider →  17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Participants' coaching pages:
Each participant here has a subpage, listed below, upon which to receive assignments and advice, and where to complete assignments and ask questions.


 * Dagadt
 * D.M.N.
 * Juliancolton
 * Phoenix-wiki
 * Ravichandar84
 * Redmarkviolinist
 * Vox Rationis
 * WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden (WBOSITG), aka User:Garden, aka User:Foxj

Coaches' coaching pages (you get to coach us! If you see an area in which we can improve, we really want to know.):
 * LaraLove (graduated, admin)
 * Smokizzy
 * JodyB (admin)
 * Dweller (graduated, admin)
 * The Transhumanist (originator)

Archives:
 * AGK (formerly Anthony cfc, graduated, admin)
 * The Rambling Man (formerly budgiekiller, graduated, admin)
 * E (formerly Extranet, graduated, admin)
 * AMK152 (passing through)
 * Luckyluke (withdrew)
 * Cometstyles (withdrew)
 * SMcCandlish (inactive)
 * Jasz (inactive)
 * Nol888 (inactive)
 * Symode09 (inactive)
 * Someguy1221 (withdrew, rejoined, went inactive)
 * Bart133 (inactive)
 * Laleena (inactive)
 * Wikihermit (had his userpage deleted, left Wikipedia)
 * Auroranorth (userpage deleted, exercised right to vanish)
 * Bushcarrot (inactive)
 * Johnny Au (inactive)

In a perfect world...
Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.

Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA standards? What standards?
The reality is that participants in RfA can and do post almost anything you can imagine as the reasons for their votes. Some don't post any reason at all. Many vote based on misconceptions or to further a personal agenda. Many just vote the way others do, in the so-called "pile-on" fashion. And many vote based upon a customized personal standard.

The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.

The last chart on Requests for adminship/Standards shows how Wikipedia's article base is growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted. Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait.

Fortunately, RfA is the only place on Wikipedia that personal attacks are allowed. But it is unfortunate that they are allowed at all.  Th e Tr ans hu  man  ist   02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pick a mentor. Pick two!
Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins.  Th e Tr ans hu  man  ist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A great idea! I'm doing this right now. I knew there was a page out there like this but had never accessed it. These people are de facto mentors just by their example. I think I am going to make assignments to students to peruse these pages and offer up some of their findings for discussion.  Jody B talk 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)