User talk:Jwyllie

Your edits at Improvisational theatre
Greetings! Based on the information you posted above, please review the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. In particular, please ensure there is a consensus on the talk page before adding sections about organizations with which you are affiliated. If such additions are controversial then you should let someone else do them. I have removed the paragraph you added at Improvisational theatre, as it is unreferenced and appears to breach the COI guideline. If you feel it should be added, then please seek a consensus on the talk page for its addition first. Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Providing sources for information that is common knowledge to an expert can be a challenge for experts that are new to Wikipedia. The paragraph I removed contained links to the Canadian Improv Games and performing arts web pages of two schools. These are not particularly strong sources; what we would want here is a secondary source that discusses the use of improvisation in the classroom. Statements like Improvisation is practiced in the classroom more than all of it's other uses combined need to be sourced. As an expert in the field you have a lot to bring to the project and that is wonderful, but it does not give you any special ownership over any article. Please also review the section of policy on recruiting others to skirt around your COI as you alluded to on my talk page, as doing so would miss the point. If you want to discuss improvement to this article in particular, it may be best to continue the discussion at the article talk page as it will have better visibility to interested editors there.
 * Lastly and as a minor side note, your most recent revert on the article replaced a spelling error in the lead; please review individual edits by other editors rather than blanking them en masse. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I thought you told me to get others to cover content that I have a conflict of interest over, but then you warn me about recruiting others.  I feel like I'm stalemated.  I can't help it that I founded the largest improvisational festival in the world and that it is run in associated with Canada's National Arts Centre.  If I can't suggest that someone refer to it, then it goes unsaid.  Which leaves us in the peculiar position that an article on Improvisational drama doesn't refer to a major institution which has alumni who have won Oscars, Tonys, and Emmys, not to mention the Palmn D'or at Cannes.  If those who are involved with that institution and who know it best can't refer to it on Wikipedia, then only less informed people can.  This is strange. Jwyllie (talk)
 * I apologize that I made you feel that way, my goal was and is not to trap anyone. What should be avoided is asking people to join in a discussion that creates a false impression of consensus; this is different than asking colleagues to assist in improving an article. A common practice for editors contributing in areas with which they might have a conflict of interest is to post suggested changes on the talk page to give other editors a chance to have a look at the edits before they go live. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Saying that improvisation is a classroom activity is so obvious that it doesn't even need referencing. I added a couple of references because they are to leading schools. Would one need to reference that physics invokes the study of the motion of objects through space and time? I doubt it, but it would be useful information for someone who knows nothing about physics. I am an attorney and know all about referencing - but Wikipedia is not a legal brief. Common knowledge need not be referenced, but needs to be included for persons wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter of he page. Jwyllie (talk)

I have no idea how to "sandbox" anything. Would you please do the courtesy of putting my revised text wherever it needs to go for discussion. Thank you. Jwyllie (talk)
 * Of course. I started a new section at Talk:Improvisational_theatre. Incidentally, the definition of Physics is rather meticulously cited at the start of the page (personally, I think they might have overdone it). VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How does the content get moved from the "Sandbox" to the main article? I doubt too many people look at the Sandbox. I've used Wikipedia for years and never knew such a section existed.
 * The place I moved it is the article talk page, which exists to discuss improvements to a specific article. Moving it back to the article is a copy-paste operation (though to give credit to the authors the edit summary should mention that it was copied from the talk page). VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I still don't understand the process. If another user comes along and thinks it belongs in the article, can that one user put it back in and that's that? Also, is it improper for me to alert others who are knowledgeable about the subject matter to consider whether my text merits inclusion? Jwyllie (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since a two editors have expressed concern about the addition as it currently written, my suggestion would be to seek a consensus on the talk page and move it over once there is general agreement that it is ready for article space. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

One other though, why not allow the community who knows about a subject matter to do the editorial policing? In thus case, I can't imagine that anyone involved in the field of improvisation would have any concern with the text I added. We all have dozens, if not a hundred, books on our shelves about improvisation in the classroom. The seminal text, Viola Spolin's "Improvisation for the Theater" was a book written for teachers. It was her work that led to the creation of modern American improvisation, through the work if her son Paul Sills and David Shepherd. Every improvisational performer has taken classroom improvisation. Major comedy theaters like The Second City, IO, and the Upright Citizens Brigade RELY on classrooms fir revenue generation and talent development. Improv in the classroom is the Foundation of improvisation, an entry on improv that does not refer to improv in the classroom, but allows for a paragraph on improv and television (which is uncommon and largely insignificant, is an entry that is flawed. Jwyllie (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, policies like WP:OWN can change over time (they didn't create themselves, after all), but Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a pretty core value that is not likely to change substantially. On a practical note, vetting editors to attempt to only allow subject matter experts to edit certain articles is something of a perennial suggestion that tends to gain little traction with the overall community.
 * However, there are hundreds of "Wiki Projects" that are formed by volunteers with shared interest (and of course varied levels of academic credentials); and these groups tend to take on much of the workload for improving articles in their area of interest. The group at WikiProject Theatre may be one of interest to you, as might WikiProject Education.
 * It sounds like you have access to some great sources that could be of use at Improvisational theatre; that article is not very well referenced right now. A source on Wikipedia of course does not have to contain a web link; you could provide a secondary reference from a book just by adding the citation between the tags. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An idea for a new article
Based on your background an after looking around for an ideal location for a broader discussion on improv education. It seems like there is a noticeable lack of coverage of theatre education in general. Would you consider starting an article at Theatre education? It pretty clearly it a topic that is missing an article here. I would be happy to help with the technical side of developing the article (ie wikifying). Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have a broad enough knowledge about theatre education, but I know someone with an MFA in theatre education and I will try to see if he can do it; his name is Michael Golding of Los Angeles MFA from the leading program at NYU). Jwyllie (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: help
There is no hierarchy of editors. There are, however, rules which experienced editors have learned to manipulate - sometimes to excess. My advice is to talk everything out on the talk pages. (sigh) If you think democracy is messy, try anarchy. -Dhodges (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I see you're a fellow Carleton grad. Yes, B.Com. In 1980 and M.A. in Pub. Amin. In 1981. I also taught as a Sessional Lecturer for 15 or more years. Jwyllie (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC) when were you there? 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. You might want to put your bio on your user page, I already have my bio at the top of this page - should it go somewhere else? Jwyllie (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still a little unclear about process. For example, there is a discussion about creating an article having regard to Theatre in the Classroom or Theatre Education. Who decides who the first contributor should be? Why does it appear to me (and I'm not referring to you) that some "experienced editors" jump right into the middle of something, make substantive, not merel beditorial, changes without discussion? Some of these "experienced editors" seem to feel that they can decide what is or is not significant in an article even though they have no experience or knowledge of the actual subject matter - and they make such changes with an implied attitude that they know best and they are quick to refer to anyone who changes their work as "vandals". I've seen this type of behavior and don't know how to handle it. Can you give me some insight into how these types of issues can be resolved? Also, I have had an "experienced" editor tell me that the opinion of a Ph.D physicist on a matter of physics has no more weight than would my uninformed, uneducated opinion on the same matter - yet, the "experienced editor's" opinion does seem to matter more than anyone else's. I find it all confusing. I've read as much of the Wikipedia policies as I could find and it seems to me that editors can easily misuse the policies to support their own opinions and, in effect, make their opinions worth more than the opinions of others. Please help me understand this mysterious Wiki world - I've just retired and would like to put some quality time into Wikipedia, but without the frustrations that I have raised in this paragraph. Thanks for any help you can give me. If you'd prefer to do so off the record, just send me an email. Jwyllie (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave the "helpme", as this requires a longer response than I have time to give now, and I am sure others will have something to say, but here are two remarks:
 * The basic Wikipedia process is explained at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - if you see a change you think would improve the encyclopedia, be WP:BOLD and make it. If it is then reverted, do not just re-revert, which can lead to an edit war; discuss it on the talk page and try to reach a WP:Consensus with other editors. If you cannot reach a consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes.
 * There is another encyclopedia project, Citizendium, which (as I understand it) has gone down the route of giving a superior status to "experts" but, for whatever reason, it has not taken off.
 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you JohnCD - that's helpful. For arguments sake, suppose the dispute in that one editor says it's red and another editor says it's blue. Then comments are posted on the talk page, some in favor of red, some blue. Should one of the editors be bold and insert his color into the article or should it then go to dispute resolution? Who resolves the dispute and on what basis? Jwyllie (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A factual question like that should be able to be settled by an appeal to reliable source; if they disagree one option (sometimes used with show-biz ladies' dates of birth), is to omit the information; another is on the lines of "Some authorities say blue, some red" (with citations). But I guess you are referring to less clear-cut issues.


 * If the information is not yet in the article, unless there is a clear consensus against him an editor (which means no more than "user") could insert his preferred version and say he was being BOLD. Another could reasonably revert him saying "there is no consensus for this yet." The important thing is to try, in good faith, to reach agreement in discussion. Edit-warring is forbidden, because it ends with an article in the form preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior: there is a strictly-enforced rule against making more than three reverts in 24 hours, see WP:3RR, a "bright-line" rule to which "but I was right" is no defence. In extreme cases a request can be made at WP:RFPP for a page to be protected from editing until consensus is achieved on the talk page: it is recognised that the version protected will probably be WP:The wrong version, at least in someone's view, but protection is not intended to be permanent.


 * For how to resolve disputes, see WP:Dispute resolution and, particularly, the box at the right side of WP:Dispute resolution requests which lists things to try.


 * Things are rather less formal here than you seem to think - for instance, your question "Who decides who the first contributor should be?" doesn't really have any answer - the first person who is has the interest and time to make an article will do it, then others will join in. I suppose there might be a discussion on some other talk page where somebody says "I'm busy till next week, why don't you start an article and I will join in then", but there is no formal process. Similarly, no rule about when somebody should first add "Red" or "Blue" to an article - the important rule is, don't edit-war.


 * A word about being accused of vandalism. As you may imagine, there is a lot of vandalism, and it is surprising to me that Wikipedia survives at all on an anyone-can-edit basis, with new edits at the rate of about one a second and new articles at one a minute. The reason it does is that there are enough people prepared to put time and effort into (informal) "New Page Patrol" and "Recent Changes Patrol"; also that most established articles are "watched" by experienced editors (you can put any article on your "watch list" so that on clicking "My watchlist" you can see if it has been changed in the last few days). Vandalism to most articles is therefore reverted quickly: this can be a problem if a new author makes a well-intentioned change which is taken for vandalism. The best way to avoid this is (a) to use informative edit summaries, which most vandals do not (b) to explain major changes on the article talk page, or if they may be controversial to propose them there first. If there is no disagreement, an article change with edit summary "see talk" is unlikely to be treated as vandalism. If you are accused of vandalism, reply explaining your edit, and all should be well. "Communicate" is the First Commandment.


 * Human nature brings two problems to the vandal-defence and article watching systems: the first-line defenders, overwhelmed by the tide of rubbish and the small number of pearls in it, can get into a mode where they think "How can I get rid of this" rather than "could this be improved." That can mean a well-intentioned newcomer feeling rebuffed; the administrators who review deletion proposals have to watch for this and spend time educating newer patrollers. Also the editors watching an established article may become proprietorial, contrary to WP:OWN, and unwilling to accept change, which can often mean a newly-arrived expert feeling he is being brushed off by WP:Randy from Boise, but once again communication should help with resolution.


 * One short question here, JohnCD: you use the word "administrators" - is that a term of art, that is, are there persons designated as Administators and, if so, who are they - or are the words administator, editor, contributor and user interchangeable?  Jwyllie (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "User", "editor" and "contributor" are interchangeable terms, though there is a distinction between registered users and unregistered "IPs", identified only by their Internet address, who are not able to create articles though they can edit them. "Administrators" are trusted users who have been given some extra technical abilities, notably to delete, undelete and protect pages, and to block and unblock other users. The role is described at WP:Administrators. It is not supervisory so much as janitorial - the admins' emblem is a mop - and they do not have any special say as regards content. There are about 1,500, only about half of whom are active (the burn-out rate is quite high).


 * (Technical tip: the way to indent text is to put one or more colon characters at the beginning of a paragraph. Leading spaces make the layout go funny.) JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your point about the PhD physicist - the anonymity of editing here means that one cannot check out people's claims to be experts; also, the fundamental principles of WP:Verifiability from reliable sources and WP:No original research mean that the expert's views will not be accepted just because he says so: where the expert should have an advantage is a knowledge of the reliable sources in his field. It's true that knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and processes give established editors an advantage in discussions, and that incoming experts often feel unappreciated - this is a known problem, see WP:Expert retention and User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur. Any ideas to help it would be appreciated.


 * A rambling reply, I'm afraid, but "I did not have time to make it shorter". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your concerns that the process can be messy. While there are advantages to a non-hierarchical organization, this is one of the down sides. Let me give you my take on your "red/blue" question, with an emphasis that it is my take, and others may have a different take. If one editor thinks it is red, it is acceptable (following Wikipedia::BRD) for the first editor to boldly add that it is red. If that editor added the statement without a cite to a reliable source, a second editor could revert or could add a citation needed template and wait a bit to see what happens. Let's assume that the first editor does have a source. Then the second editor has a source supporting blue. The the second editor is completely justified in reverting red (but not adding blue) and going to the talk page to discuss.


 * Once both cites are on the talk page, a few outcomes could occur. Some of which are::
 * An editor points out that the cite supporting red doesn't really support red, it was misunderstood. Everyone agrees, blue is added with a cite
 * Vice versa, in which the red removal is reversed and added again
 * One cite supports red (or blue) but investigation reveals that the cite is not truly a reliable source
 * Editors find 10 cites that support red, one that supports blue, and some of the cites supporting red specifically discuss the lone cite supporting blue, with an explanation of why it is flawed. While it is reasonable to then leave red in the article, in some circumstances, this is intruding on WP:OR so we have to be careful
 * Editors may reach a conclusion that there are, indeed reliable sources supporting red and blue. The answer is not to simply count them, but to add to the article "there is controversy over the color with some sources supporting red, and others blue".


 * Obviously, I haven't exhausted the possibilities, but this gives a flavor of the intended results.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have turned off the "helpme" tag, as you have had two longish answers and nobody else seems inclined to chip in at present: if you need more, please add another tag at the bottom of this page with your question. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Credit for the "Welcome Menu" set of links
Greetings! I just noticed that you give me credit for compiling a set of internal links on your user page. This is incorrect; the actual list of users that created this compilation can be found here. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Call for Carleton University's Campus Ambassador
Hello,

My name is Andrew. I'm the Regional Ambassador for the Canada Education Program. The goal of this program is to engage students and professors in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. A professor from Carleton University, which you indicated your affiliation with the university through your userbox, is participating in the program for Fall 2012 semester. We're seeking campus ambassadors, which we currently don't have for Carleton University, who are available on-campus to help students. If you're interested (or have any other questions), please leave a message on my talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)