User:Rjgibb/Essay

An editorial viewpoint (or thoughts on the FAC)

Having been around Wikipedia for a few years now, I recently had a coming of age in submitting articles for scrutinisation at the Good Article and later, Featured Article, candidate processes. The resulting discussions were an eye-opener, so much so that I decided to write a short essay, perhaps as a personal debrief to the process, but also because it seems that it's what editors of a certain level of self-perceived experience seem to do. Taking my cue from one of the finer examples of user page writing exhibited by Wetman I'll plunge forth.

It doubtless takes all sorts to contribute to a project like this. I won't attempt to categorise all and sundry but, of the more prolific and useful editors out there, they probably fall into three broad areas: the raw content providers, the wiki gnomes and the guardians of MOS. I guess I always saw myself as a content provider&mdash;someone who had an interest in something or saw something that wasn't adequately treated and simply barrelled in, providing as much sourced text as I could and assuming that other editors would, over time, hone the article into a fine piece of work. That suited me, still does in fact. I genuinely believe that much of the lack of content in Wikipedia is because it takes a lot longer to read, source and write about a subject than it does to correct typos, add a few Wiki tags or make your voice heard in a debate buried somewhere on a project page. There simply aren't enough people being bold. But I'll return to that shortly.

The second grouping are, for the most part, appreciated and uncontroversial. Most Wikipedians will be glad to see a bot pass by, or a familiar username picking up that rogue typo, or the incorrect ref tag, or deleting the white space... I shan't dwell on their contributions which are janitorial in the main, except to thank them&mdash;not least since many of "my" articles look a whole lot better for their efforts.

The final group are perhaps the inspiration for this piece. Steer clear of peer review or substantive scrutiny and you won't have had much to do with them. They congregate in the project pages for the most part and, so far as I can tell, rarely traverse the principal content without being prompted. Editors in this category really only collaborate to define the rules (AKA "guidelines" or "manuals") to which you and I must adhere when writing articles. Rules that are scarcely enforced until you step forward, emboldened by a kind comment from a passing editor that your article is rather good. At that stage beware. While I do not speak entirely from experience (I escaped somewhat lightly, others have been fatally mauled) your heartfelt prose will be pulled this way and that by usernames concealing experienced and professional-level copy editors together with pseudo-academics, officious bystanders and grammatical pedants. A sensible, thorough proof read is one thing, a treatise on archaic noun clause phrasing is another. Consider the readers; leaving the lofty aspirations of the project aside, the main users of Wikipedia appear to be the Google generation - folk who want a quick answer to a question or a trail head for a subject they're interested in. It seems entirely disproportionate therefore to dwell in the minutiae when a rather thin James Cook has had barely a sniff from Australian or New Zealand editors (let alone Brits) despite being of "top importance" to their respective Wikiprojects for well over a year. Instead what we lack in meaningful encyclopaedic content we more than make up for in what is (together with its epic Talk page) possibly the most comprehensive international treatment of modern writing styles in the English language. Cross it at your peril.

In practice what this means is that when an editor takes their pride and joy to review, they are much more likely to be subjected to finger-pointing and jeering than they are to appreciation for what they bring. I certainly do not ask that fellow editors bow down in deference to those of us who have worked hard to research, summarise and present our material but instead that they review such articles with perspective and optimism. Thus, it seems that while we have the rather twee village pump we also retain the village stocks in FAC, GAC and AfD, where wiki yeomen and self-appointed naysayers gather to mock the apparently afflicted, heretic or scoundrel. Again, speaking not entirely from my own experience (since there is enough evidence from even a cursory flick through the aforementioned review pages) there is little more withering and condescending in the project than being informed by another anonymous editor (perhaps with dubious credentials) that your prose is imbecilic or that its numerous errors of syntax or stylistic flaws have exhausted their patience. We are frequently asked to consider our readers, perhaps we might also take time to consider our project colleagues. It takes so much more to write a few hundred words of verifiable content than it does to denigrate that same piece of work with a patronising curt bullet point on the misuse of the serial comma or the hyphenation of a multi-adverbial phrase.

I consider this process extremely detrimental to the project. In losing, or perhaps never having, the capacity for genuinely constructive criticism, Wikipedia has doubtless scared off a number of worthwhile contributors. Like magpies, many editors (me included) have found themselves attracted to the bright shiny object that is a FA star or a GA acknowledgement. However it is for many a fool's gold as they find themselves humiliated and dismissed. Without the combined help of a number of copy editors, the almost-certain loss of some key content and the near-sterilisation of your beloved article it simply won't make the grade in these reviews.

But note, I do not wish to prescribe a preferred editorial behaviour. Consider instead what you value and enjoy on Wikipedia and make your own judgment about how you want to contribute. Regardless of how my current FAC progresses I shall revert to my previous modus operandi, quietly and unassumedly adding those things that interest me into the melting pot and, if others choose to add seasoning, that's just fine by me.

(Sydney, Australia, January 2008)