User:The Little Platoon

"'Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.' — Jimmy Wales"I am a very junior staffer working in the Australia political space. Which is not to say I'm young, just that I am new at this. Anyway, that's what I'm doing now, who knows what I'll do in the future. I'll definitely do some more study, probably in history, which I love. To declare my politics, I have been a Labor supporter, though, more recently I have come to respect the conservative position. I'm not interested in right wing cranks who want to give tax breaks to the rich. But I am interested in anyone who wants to keep the classical idea of freedom alive. I like the ideas of those leaders who want to bring life to the best institutions, even the ones who've let us down badly in recent years, like corporations such as banks, churches, charities, our defence forces. Anyway. Back to politics. I've looked at a lot of the articles on Australian MPs, both state and federal, from all sides, and I feel that the quality is really, really poor. The level of sledging is just shocking. That goes for Labor, Liberal, Green. I think it's sad. I've met some of these people, from the left and the right, and you know what, generally they're good people, trying to make the country work better. Then you read the article about that leader and it's just a list of things that some other person doesn't like. There's no sense of that person's story, what they're really about. I honestly think this hurts our democracy. People's mistakes should be there, if they're important, but they should be seen in the context of what they're doing. We need to know what our representatives and leaders are actually about. This is essential for a working democracy. Constant mis-representation of our representatives is what those enemies of democracy get up to. I plan to fix up problems when I see them. I've taken a good look at the guidelines WP has and what I'm going to do is declare that, at this point, I do receive a salary from my work in Australian politics. I don't plan to declare a particular politician because I move around a lot, for one thing, and often I'll be writing about people who I don't work for, or who are even on the other side of the political fence. I believe if I keep to the principles, like the Neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability, then what I contribute will be valuable. It will definitely be an improvement. I also plan to work on leaders from overseas. I feel like this moment of time is some kind of turning point for democracy. Not just here in Australia, but across the world. It's only through our alliances with other democracies — particularly in the US and the UK, but also Germany, Canada, New Zealand and the Pacific Nations — that our democracy here will have any kind of chance.

Witch-hunts, sources, notability and collaboration
For some time I edited alone. Pretty isolating. I thought about maybe connecting with some other people and discovered that wiki actually encourages collaborations. So, I set up one informal meetup, which, again wiki encourages. We had a dozen or so of these mostly on zoom, but some met in person too. I really enjoyed them, especially the sudden diversity of topics I was part of from Czech-Australian high-jumpers to humanitarian missions in Iraq. I'm a strong inclusionist, so I love seeing articles grow with all kinds of information. But when we started helping one another on people in politics, things took a sudden, chilling turn. First came the mass deletions from one wiki editor. Then the undoing of material for lack of notability or the use of primary sources (concepts that, it turns out, the hostile editor didn't understand, more on that below). Then came the frightening report — me and the other editors had come under a sock puppet investigation. This went for nearly a month. It's an awful feeling. The sense of being accused of either controlling others or of somehow inventing others. It really frightened some of the less experienced editors and I'm not sure they will get involved in wiki again, which is terrifically sad. Wiki openly admits that the number of active editors is declining, and there's a particular problem with keeping young women involved — as many don't care to weather the abuse of hostile editors. It’s good to challenge deletionists as they are the ones who put off new editors. I experienced the entire process as something very close to a witch hunt, which I have now discovered actually does happen from time to time here. Fortunately, due to some very thoughtful work by wiki admins, the case against me, and against each of the other editors was thrown out, which you can read about here if you care to. The conclusion of it all was receiving a strong encouragement from the admin clerk for me, and this loose collection of editors to "continue editing with us despite this incident" and that "the accusation of sockpuppetry should not be held against you." I've learned a lot through the experience, which, if you're newish around here, you could benefit from below. Some of it's about meetups, some of it is about content and editing. I offer for your consideration:

It is absolutely okay to

 * 1) Be a steward of a given topic. It is good to have a “sincere personal interest in the subject matter.” That is fine. Just as long as you don’t become an advocate, a promoter or feel like you own it.
 * 2) Invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, particularly on a talk page by tagging them. Indeed, it “is completely okay to notify editors but, “keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions…. it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” Wiki suggests that if there is a discussion on a talk page, that you tag:
 * 3) * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * 4) * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * 5) * Editors known for expertise in the field
 * 6) * Editors who have asked to be kept informed
 * 7) Meet up with editors in person or any way you like. One of the wiki documents puts it this way: “Anyone can organize a Wikimedia meetup. Although it helps to plan a bit and have some awareness of how Wikipedia works, no one needs permission to have a meetup and there is no requirement for anyone to have a meetup in a certain way.” They are not required to be public. Collaborating on articles is likewise encouraged.
 * 8) Use primary sources in an article. They can be used to establish what someone has said, but they can’t be used to support a general point. Wiki says “primary sources are acceptable for establishing particular facts when worded properly to maintain a WP:NPOV.”
 * 9) Use material and images that themselves are not especially notable, so long as they are supporting a notable subject, that is, the article overall has to be about someone or something that’s notable. Which is to say notability guidelines do not limit content within an article.
 * 10) Call out domineering, harassing editors who sound like they're right across the policies, using legalese language, but are actually exaggerating policies to support their own deletionist intentions. Hostile and disruptive editors are known to take up the resources of admin tribunals, such as sock puppet investigations, purely as a means of personal attack. Don't be intimidated. Familiarise yourself with the important principles, don't freak out, don't bite back, make your case, and trust the process. Also, don't be worried if an antagonistic editor stays on the lurk. Unfortunately sophisticated trolls exist on wikipedia. On the upside, the vast majority of editors are balanced, caring, thoughtful people; there are lots of good people to work alongside to improve articles everywhere.

It is absolutely not okay to

 * 1) Start tagging people on a talk page and invite only people favourable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. (Honestly, I need to check myself with this one.)
 * 2) It is not okay for me or anyone else to instruct or ask another editor to make a given argument, write a certain argument or to give support. Ever.
 * 3) Engage in disruptive editing, which is any pattern that “disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.”
 * 4) To forum shop - that’s when someone raises an issue on successive discussion pages until they get the result they want. (My sense is it’s okay to tag on an article’s talk page, and on a relevant project page.)

So that's it for now. Valuable lessons that I will take into the future. And, I'm already starting to work with other editors again. Honestly, it's how it should be. Finding people who are passionate about improving articles and finding ways to support that.