User:Lsi john/3O suggestions

3O
Could you give me feedback on my response here? Talk:University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike

Thanks. Lsi john 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems I have my writing hat on today, so extensive comments are yours:

Format
The format in the way RfC does it like "Comments by Involved editors in favour", "Comments by Involved editors opposed" and "Comments by uninvolved editors" is generally note done in Third Opinions, and I would advise against using it except in cases where editors relentlessly personally attack each other, worse than anything ever seen on the LGAT talk page. That is because:
 * Third Opinion allows low-profile and simple disputes to be listed easily. Requiring sections to be made increases formality.
 * Third Opinion is for two editors only. Sometimes more are allowed, if it is clear two editors are the main involved parties. A section for each position is redundant, and increases formality.
 * A third opinion usually is one opinion only, and not multiple, and most of the cases are 'solved' after the third opinion is given. A section for further uninvolved editors is redundant, and increases formality.
 * Increased formality is a bad thing™, because it increases the threshold for editors to list a dispute for 3O. They will instead not list it at all, and the dispute will remain unsolved. Editors looking for a formal solution are better off with RfC anyway.

Meta-opinion

 * What to do with horrible discussions and unstructured arguments? I agree with you that it is very difficult to read some discussions. I have found a good solution in telling the involved users that their formatting did not aid their points, presenting a good example with the third opinion itself. See for example my 3O at Talk:Gender_studies, and notice how the previously horribly structured editor writes a neat list of arguments below. If there is no structure in a discussion, introduce it yourself in your third opinion, by summarizing and listing the other's arguments.
 * State explicitly what your answer to the question is, if it is a different answer than what might be expected. Your explicitly stated on the talk page that you "are not qualified to 'pick' the better/more accurate/less biased version", but this was exactly what was asked, and I usually stick to the question. Note that I think your answer was good in this case, but I'll get to that later. Your answer to the question "keep the unsourced material or not?" was "keep it, but add fact tags". Place the answer as such in the text - add it at the beginning (I usually add a summary at the beginning) and/or at the end (.. with these arguments, I arrive at the conclusion that: ..).
 * People usually need something to work with when an article is listed for Third Opinion. Place all proposals and suggestions at the end, especially unrelated ones. ("find sources for unrelated section Y" is a popular one in third opinions I write) In your example, the "place fact tags" suggestion could have been written right after the main body, and the "label the references" suggestion, as a relatively unrelated proposal, could have gone after that.

Arguments

 * Do not weaken your own statements on purpose. You do this on numerous places, and it generally does not aid your point. This is not a good habit to have. Examples, with alternative, positive statements in italics behind them, with comments behind that.
 * "I, for one, am not qualified to 'pick' [...]" - "No one can pick ..." - unnecessary, simply.
 * "For my convenience" - "For article readability ..." - are the editors involved likely to care about your convenience? No, they care about the article, as shown by their dispute over what they believe to be the best way to write it. Even if it is for your own convenience, it might be better to just state that it is for the good of the article, or just write that you have done so per policy. Policies and good articles are better reasons for doing things than convenience.
 * "Technically I should not have done this without a consensus, and anyone is welcome to revert those edits." - "I have been WP:BOLD and ... " - if anyone disagrees, they can read the bold page (or know it already) and revert per the guidelines on that page. Stating that you are being bold is better than stating that you are not following the guidelines, and that you invite others to undo your own edits.
 * "I'm not familiar with locating archived copies of news reports, but the Herald links need to be corrected." - "The Herald links need to be corrected." - the least important in this list, but still, for the sake of pointing out the habit, I listed it. Why you should state that you are not familiar with that process? An involved editor might do that as an excuse for not making the edit himself, but in a third opinion, it is not necessary.
 * "Though it is allowed ..." - Remove. WP:IAR technically allows anything, so this is no news.
 * "The opinions expressed are solely my own." - Remove. Do not do general disclaimer-like statements like this. Be the argument - either stand for it, or do not write it. There is no legal reason, too. Wikipedia has a general disclaimer for that.


 * The structure is quite clear, though could be improved, as outlined in the previous section.
 * The question - RS vs OR.
 * I have changed the sources ...
 * Improvement over deletion -> tag it.
 * Archived newspaper articles ...
 * Deletion is not polite.


 * A better structure would be:
 * The question - RS vs OR.
 * Improvement over deletion.
 * Deletion is not polite.
 * Improvement can be stimulated by tagging.
 * References changes & newspaper archives.


 * The last could also be at the very top, depending on your style.
 * Both arguments (improve, don't delete; deletion is not polite) are solid.
 * You did miss, however, a point: WP:POINT, no pun intended. This was mentioned in the discussion between the editors involved just above your Third Opinion. As this was the only good point user Stephan Schultz had (his citation of WP:BLP was invalid, another thing you could have mentioned), it would have balanced the 3O a bit. A good argument here would have been, "However, if information is trying to lead the reader to a desired conclusion, deletion may be preferable over placing fact tags, because the text does not only violate RS then, but also NPOV."

Conclusion
Well written, but room for improvement. It is good to see that I can help others by sharing my experience with debating techniques.

Do not take the above too literal, and do not edit your opinion afterwards, that is bad form. I look forward to seeing more third opinions by your hand.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.. for all of the above.


 * I assume by "don't edit your opinion afterwards", you mean don't run back and fix it based on your suggestions here, but move forward and improve next time. As opposed to fixing a spelling mistake or something? Or do you mean.. do it once, and if you mess it up... too bad - should have used spell check. ?


 * The disclaimer at the bottom, wasn't intended to be lawyeresque, it was more that someone else could come along and give an entirely different set of suggestions and that I wasn't representing any official 3O group. I'm new to giving 3O and didn't want to be presumptions. I assume I'm welcome to give 3O, but I'm not sure if there is an official group or if just anyone can pop in and answer one.


 * Maybe its just the group I've been editing around.... I'm gun-shy after being smacked down so many times by some editors.


 * thanks again. Peace in God. Lsi john 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing spelling is all right, but I meant don't implement my suggestions indeed.
 * You can pop in and answer one :) - more is better. It is what I did, at least. Do not worry about being presumptuous.
 * --User:Krator (t c) 23:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about removing those unused 'overly formatted' sections? :) Lsi john 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be a good exception then. --User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)