User:Ocaasi/The Wikipedia Game/Level 9

Are you ready? This mission you're going to deal with some of the challenges of working in a wiki-environment. Anyone can edit a wiki, and that makes them amazingly good at gathering lots of content, since everyone can contribute a little piece (or a big piece). Sometimes, however, two people will have different ideas about what to add or what to remove or how to say something. Let's see how Wikipedia deals with these situations.
 * Dialogue 1

Start out by going to the earth article. Here's a shortcut to get to it. Type in http://enwp.org/ARTICLENAME, but place the article name where it is capitalized. http://enwp.org/earth.
 * Dialogue 2


 * Action 1 - Load page from browser address

Whenever you visit an article, it's a good idea to check the talk page. Even if you don't see any obvious changes or if the article History hasn't changed, someone might have left a comment for discussion. Great editors use the talk page.
 * Dialogue 3

Click here to go to the talk page.
 * Action 2 - Highlight Discussion tab

I just want to say that I disagree with the recent changes to the article. It's too long now. And there's too much science and not enough pop culture. Who lives on earth and who is famous there? That's what I want to know. Also, all of these references are a bit much, don't you think? Does anyone disagree that Earth is a planet? I mean, really. It's right here, don't we know what it is? Duh. --SurelySam15
 * Message 1

Disagreements on Wikipedia can take all kinds of forms. Here's one that is a combination of length, focus, and format. The editor feels pretty confident about his position. What should you do?
 * Dialogue 4

The best advice in almost any situation on Wikipedia is to stay cool. We have a saying here that you should "focus on the content not the contributor", meaning that however you respond, it's best to leave out your opinion of the other person or their motivations. Editors are not all the same (and that's a good thing) but one thing that is the same is every editor is a person behind their username. Treat them in a civil way, a respectful way, even a kind way, to get the best results. So what should we do? Here are some steps.
 * Dialogue 5


 * Stay cool. Be clear and polite.  There's no point to getting flustered or angry.  If you're right, enough other editors should see your point.  And if you're wrong, getting annoyed won't help.
 * Break out the issues. Disputes that have many pieces are easier to handle one at a time.  Most discussions are simpler this way.
 * Write out your position. You have a position.  That's good.  What is it and why do you think it?
 * Get others opinions. Many people have specific knowledge and experience.  Use them for best results.
 * Read up on policy. Almost any issue has a policy or advice page on it.  Try to find out what the community approach is before assuming you are correct.
 * Build consensus. Get as many people as you can on the same page.  Sort out the remaining issues with a good compromise.

So there are three issues, length, focus, and references. Let's resolve each one. Now that you have gotten a clear head about things, think about your position. What do you think the length of an article should be? What do you think articles should focus on; how about this one? Do you really need references for everything? Now it's time to get other's opinions and read up on policy. There are a number of places where editors can get second, third, or 12th opinions. Here are a few:
 * Dialogue 6


 * The Help Desk: this is always a good starting point.
 * Noticeboards: these are places that editors gather to handle specific issues.
 * WikiProjects: these are groups that work on specific subjects. The groups often have active talk pages.
 * Editors you trust: you can always invite someone you've worked with before to help out. Try to ask people from both sides of an issue.

Let's try out a few of these. The basic idea is to leave people a note explaining the situation and ask them to comment. One good habit is to ask your questions in a neutral way, so that you can get an unbiased opinion back (Wikipedia is all about being neutral). Let's start at the help desk. You can get there by typing in Wikipedia Help Desk to the search bar. Note that if you just type in "Help Desk", you'll go to an encyclopedia article about them (don't worry, it has a friendly note pointing people who are looking for the Help Desk to the right place). Help pages and policy pages are not in 'article-space' but 'Wikipedia-space' or 'help space'. They're like different parts of town. Right now we're going to Help Town.
 * Dialogue 7

Type in Wikipedia Help Desk and click Enter
 * Action 3 - Highlight Search bar

You've been here before. To ask a question, click [new section] at the top. What do you want to ask?
 * Dialogue 8


 * Interface 1
 * This teenage dummy thinks we should have short articles on Brittany and Madonna with no references. What do you think?
 * I have a question about a comment about an article on the encyclopedia. Can you help?
 * I'm working on the Earth article and there's a talk page discussion about article length, article focus, and references. Where can I get some advice about these?


 * Action 4 - Insert comment into text box

Good choice! Never personally attack another editor, even if they have said a pretty boneheaded thing. There are ways to handle rude editors, but don't become one of them is the best tip I can give you. Also, make sure you give people enough information to respond right away. Tell them what article you're working on, where discussion is happening, and what it's about. Then ask for something specific.
 * Dialogue 9

Now sign ( ~ ) your comment, leave an edit summary ("Help on Earth"), Preview, and Save
 * Dialogue 10


 * Action 10 - show preview and save

Okay, it's been a while. Let's add this page to our watchlist and then check to see if anyone has responded. (You could also visit the page again or reload it in your browser).
 * Dialgoue 11

Click here to see changes to the articles you're following.
 * Action 11 - Highlight Watchlist link


 * Action 11 - Load Watchlist
 * (diff | hist) . . Help:Help Desk‎; 16:42 . . (+462) . . NeverSleepsAWink‎ (talk | contribs) (reply to {Username}, where to look)

Click on the Help:Help Desk link to go to the page.
 * Dialogue 12

Click here to go to the help desk page.
 * Action 12 - Highlight link in Watchlist

{Username}. Thanks for bringing your question here. It's always good to ask. Hope this helps. If you want more advice you can ask at the Manual of Style Talk page, the NPOV noticeboard, or the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Sweet dreams! --NeverSleepsAWink
 * Message 2
 * The issue of length is handled by our Manual of Style (MOS); articles should be long enough to cover all major topics in an article, but not so long they are hard to read or would be better split into pieces.
 * The issue of article focus is handled by our Neutral Point of View policy; articles should focus on the aspects of a subject which get the most attention in the best sources.  Articles should only focus on popular culture if it's an article specifically about that topic or person.  On Earth it's best to focus on the science, since the best sources do too.
 * The issue of references is handled by our Verifiability policy. It says that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must have a citation to back it up from a published, reliable source.  Very obvious plain facts like 'water freezes into ice' don't need a reference, but everything else can have one.

Well, that was a great response. Okay, it sounds like the article should be long enough to cover each major area, and it should not be about popular culture, since there are other articles about that. And references are a good thing to add, definitely. Do you want to ask for another opinion on one of the talk pages or noticeboards? Maybe if SurelySam still doesn't agree. Let's go back and write him a response. To get there, search for Earth in the search box or use http://enwp.org/Earth.
 * Dialogue 13

Search or type the URL to return to earth
 * Action 13 - Highlight Search box and browser address bar

Click on the discussion link.
 * Dialogue 14

Click here
 * Action 14 - Highlight Discussion link

To respond, click the [Edit] link in the section. Let's write back.
 * Dialogue 15


 * Interface 2
 * Ha, ha, you were wrong!
 * I got some answers at the help desk and they said I'm right.
 * I asked at the Help Desk and they pointed me to the Manual of Style, NPOV, and Verification policies. We should focus on all major aspects of a subject but leave pop culture for other articles.  And references are important, but I agree we don't need to cite even the most obvious things.  What do you think?

Good choice! It's never a good idea to rub a dispute in someone's face. It makes them feel like they lost and these are editors you want to help and encourage. Also, you'll likely run into them later and want to keep things positive. And whenever you say something you want to try and back it up with details and an explanation. This helps everyone get to consensus faster. Put the comment through with an edit summary ("feedback from Help Desk"), Preview and Save.
 * Dialogue 15


 * Action 15 - Show preview and Save

We've already added Earth to the watchlist and any time you add an article it watches the talk page too. Check the watchlist to see if you've gotten a response.
 * Dialogue 16

Click here to check for recent responses.
 * Action 16 - Hightlight Watchlist link


 * Action 17 - Load updated Watchlist

Well that was fast! Looks like SurelySam wrote back. Let's go to the page to see his response.
 * Dialogue 17

Click here to check the response
 * Action 18 - Highlight article talk page link in watchlist entry

Okay. I think I understand now. I'm used to reading shorter articles but I agree we should mention the big subjects. It just gets a little hard for me, ya know? It will be sad not to read about more celebrity gossip--there's a lot of it on Earth--but I guess I can find another place to read about it. [Sigh]. I'll be okay. I guess I wasn't totally clear before about references. I agree we should cite the important scientific details just not the ones that are so obvious they're like duh. So we agree! Have a fun day!! --SurelySam15
 * Message 3

Oh, that feels better. It's always nice to come to consensus. Sometimes it just takes a few editors to give their opinions and discuss the issues to reach a good understanding or compromise. So all is well on Earth! Next mission we'll turn our eyes to style and format and make this article really professional looking, up to standards. I'll see you there. Hey, let's just take a peak at the Earth article one more time. It's nice to see our work, isn't it?
 * Dialgoue 18

Click here to go to the article
 * Action 19 - Highlight Read tab


 * Action 20 - Load updated (vandalized article)

What? What happened to all of our work?
 * Dialogue 19


 * Action 21 - Break or continue