Wikipedia:Editor review/Awadewit

Awadewit
I have been on Wikipedia for about ten months now. I spend most of my time editing articles but I also enjoy reviewing articles (at GAC, PR and FAC). I am not interested in becoming a vandal fighter or anything else - I really enjoy editing articles and think that is where my skills are most needed. Because I have relatively high standards for the contributions I submit to Wikipedia, I am frequently disappointed by the efforts of others. I would appreciate advice on how best to communicate my thoughts regarding how articles can be improved. As always, I am also eager to hear about how to improve the quality of the articles I edit as well. (I am not interested in adminship - I "just" want to use this review to become a better editor.) Awadewit | talk  06:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * This is not a comprehensive review of this user's edits, but a minor recommendation. When reviewing articles, try not to use wording that could be considered dismissive of other editors. Instead of saying, for instance, "The article could use a good copy editor," "The article could use a good copy edit," would suffice without seeming derogative. Beyond that, I appreciate the time, good insights, and academic quality writing this user lends to the project. Amerique dialectics 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I will word my comments more carefully in the future; you are right to point out those small but important distinctions in my language. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Awadewit is a top-notch editor who has created a number of great articles. You stated, "I am frequently disappointed by the efforts of others. I would appreciate advice on how best to communicate my thoughts regarding how articles can be improved." I would suggest that you don't become emotionally wrapped up in the work created by either yourself or others. One is able to control one's own life to a large degree; what others do, that is beyond one's control. Either way, step back from Wikipedia (or take a break) when you feel yourself getting emotionally tangled up here. In addition, when discussing edits and changes with other editors, use extremely polite language at all times b/c non-verbal internet communications lack the human contact which can soften one's criticism. As Amerique said, it is also good to criticize the edit, not the editor. However, also realize that editors frequently become personally involved with their edits. This means many editors will see an attack on their edits as an attack on them. To soften this, say up front that you aren't attacking them. Add in other polite language to ease the criticism. When criticizing parts of an article, praise those aspects of which are praiseworthy. Finally, as a disclaimer to this advice I should admit I've occasionally become emotionally involved with my edits and been less than polite with other editors. So take my advice for what it is--the words of an editor still striving to find my own balance here. Best,--Alabamaboy 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review me. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a passionate person so it is difficult for me not to become "emotionally wrapped up" in what I do - not just at wikipedia, either. I am constantly striving to be more calm. I will continue to work on this. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will also try to add more praise into my comments. That is something I always do when I comment on student papers - I should do it here as well (it is amazing how much is "interesting"). Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that I will also try to provide greater explanations of my criticisms when I first make them. I think that sometimes I assume that other editors will accept the assumptions behind my criticisms when, in fact, they are very far from doing so. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to say much here (it's like Michael Schumacher coming here to ask how he could improve his driving: drive more carefully would be beside the point), except that you are one of the most phenomenal editors on Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'd put you in my top group with user:Ghirlandajo, user:Giano, user:Halibutt, user:Piotrus, user:SandyGeorgia and user:Slim Virgin. Two things this group has in common: staggering high-quality productivity (though Halibutt and Ghirla have reduced their load) and a tendency to occasionally rub other users up the wrong way. To me the second is normal with anyone who has high standards and cares passionately about articles on Wikipedia and the accuracy of information. Although we have excellent academic users who do not get into arguments, it seems to me an inevitable consequence of a passionate belief in and endeavour towards high standards that it will alienate some users for whom the bar seems set too high. Tough on them, I say. High academic ability and meticulous care for accurate detail often comes with a highly strung temperament, of course. If that is the case with you, find a way of being kinder to yourself by not trying to control what you cannot control. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and nothing can ever be totally controlled.
 * You have hit the nail on the head - I am a control-freak. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, an important part of "not criticizing the editor, but the edit" is saving yourself also from excessive self-criticism. Remarks like this one border on a NPA violation against one of WP's best editors. You might have to blocked if you keep this up. Amerique dialectics 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So my advice is just: keep doing what you're doing, but don't waste your time on aggressive users or users with low standards. Concentrate on areas where you know you can have an effect, and desist in those where you find you are banging your head up against a brick wall. Learn to retreat from battles that are impossible to win: fight to the last only on the articles closest to your heart. If people attack your work, ignore them except where you think they have a point (you are very smart in realising when a criticism is valid). Insofar as you have to answer hostile criticism at FAC, etc., (friendly criticism is a different thing and you handle it perfectly) quietly state where you have edited to take valid points into account and blandly pass over mistaken or offensive comments with something like "I disagree on that one". Never edit war: wait a while before removing bad edits, and most times the editor won't even notice. Keep writing those articles. And please keep reviewing: you are the best reviewer on Wikipedia, as far as I know.qp10qp 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is so funny! I am known in my department as the person who is always saying, "Well, I disagree..." (apparently I am not too inhibited when it comes to challenging other people's views). I will import that style to wikipedia and see if it works. Thanks for the suggestion. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliments and suggestions. Awadewit | talk  12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much help I'll be here, since I have similar problems with other editors (don't we all?) I've been impressed with your growing ability to laugh at things. At first I thought you were a little too serious sometimes, but that seems to be slowly changing. I view wikipedia as something fun. I don't get paid for it, so I might as well have fun doing it. It's good to take it seriously, of course. I just try to see it as fun and exciting to take on the serious challenge of creating this encyclopedia. If you ever want to turn away from head-banging, feel free to work with me on my nominations for GA, as you already do so generously. I used to have to wait weeks to get a GA review... Wrad 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have definitely been trying to insert more humor into my postings. I'm glad that my efforts have been successful. I may not be funny, but at least I can be a little more light-hearted. I would like to work together on articles - I often feel that I am toiling away alone. One of the best parts of wikipedia is supposed to be that you share the workload with others. I would like to do that more often. Awadewit | talk  09:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! I also prefer working with other editors, usually. If you're a control freak, though, it has its own drawbacks. What I like to do is alternate. I'll have a couple of projects of my own to go to when I want to get on my own, and then work on a wikiproject collaboration or something when I'm tired of being alone. It seems to be a good balance and relieves stress. Wrad 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have unconsciously adopted that very tactic myself. Awadewit | talk  02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * More advice than review, I think - try to keep things in perspective. Remember that this whole project, the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, can't possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. It is, of course, wonderful when after a week of multiple editors arguing over just the right way to phrase a sentence, we finally find the right one; but don't forget that any given moment a bored ten year old can come along and replace that whole carefully crafted sentence -- nay, the whole article -- with "Fred is gay", and often does! :-) We restore that sort of thing quickly, of course, and the Wikipedia is now the first place most of the Internet goes to for information, and the largest and most thorough encyclopedia of all human history, and still doubling every year, and so forth, and so on ... but I recommend remembering something as basic as that to keep a sense of perspective. Finally, as everyone above my note here writes, you're good. I only know half the names on Qp10qp's list, but you are actually quite a bit more civil than a number of them. I can sense a sort of roiling boil in your writing at times, when the must-have-correct-spacing-around-dashes crowd gets to you, but you rarely let it out in the form of outright vituperation. I'll trust you if you say you don't want adminship, but if you ever feel you do, and believe you have a way of dealing with the frustrations, drop me a note, and I'll be honored to nominate you. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you - combining all of these helpful tips is going to make me a much better editor. I hope that in the future I can keep the roiling limited to my own apartment rather than letting it spill it out into wikipedia! Awadewit | talk  21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say that you're an oddity here: an energetic, scrupulous editor with whom I often found myself getting into arguments. That was probably my fault to a considerable extent, and although this is an editor review of you and not me, you are welcome to use this opportunity to point out my failings if you wish. I don't want to dredge through your edits (or mine), but I do remember that what irritated me a lot were two discrete points. First, you'd interpose your own responses within my longer (and stupid?) comments in talk pages. I don't suppose there's any rule against this, and I also don't see much wrong with it -- until some third party responds to the responses and matters proceed from there, whereupon it's hard to keep track of who said what and when. If you really need to do this, go ahead and do it; but do try to avoid it where possible. Secondly, your interpretation of "NOR" seemed extreme in (apparently) outlawing such enterprises as OPAC searches: I did take the trouble to reread "NOR" and was unconvinced by your interpretation, which I hope you have since tempered. Those points aside, you're commendably keen both to digest good sources and not to cite dubious sources, and you're an excellent writer. I did have a quick look at some of your recent edits and they're very good, notably your handling of the unpleasant chore of failing a GA candidate. So keep it up! -- Hoary 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for breaking up your comments. I guess I thought I was making the threads easier to follow by responding to you point by point, but I don't think it worked out that way. I will avoid doing that in the future. Thanks for point that out. That is certainly easy to fix!
 * I think that my interpretation of WP:OR is stricter than many other editors, but the policy itself is written quite strictly. I think that most people simply don't follow it. The bit about synthesis, for example, is actually quite restrictive. However, I have actually been encouraged to violate that aspect of the policy. I think that perhaps I should have my own little interpretation for myself that I am comfortable with but not necessarily apply as strict a standard to other people's work - what do you think? Awadewit | talk  10:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, no apologies, please. (With all the apologies, this starts to look like a hangover from the Cultural Revolution.) I've quickly skimread "OR", and I still don't see it. In a nutshell, Content should not be synthesized to advance a position (emphasis mine), and I think this fairly represents the longer text. However, a major problem with the latter is that it's little more than a single, awkward and convoluted example. The censured "OR" version starts If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources... suggesting that Jones was arguing against an obviously irrelevant allegation that he hadn't consulted them. But what's probably meant was If Jones's claim that he merely consulted the original sources... And this is just the very first clause; the problems don't end there. You're working on a PhD thesis, meaning that you've completed papers that qualified to get into the doctoral program; you know what's what, so trust your judgement. -- Hoary 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but my interpretation of the policy rests upon the assumption that you cannot synthesize two pieces of information without making a claim. I don't believe it is possible for anyone to synthesize without injecting their own views into the synthesis. But this discussion could fast get quite philosophical and I know that we both largely agree on what a reliable source is and we both believe that wikipedia articles should be based on those sources, so I am loath to start speculating about the impossibilities of NPOV and whatnot. :) Awadewit | talk  10:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only encountered you through my two GACs, but it gave me enough of an idea of what you were like that, I immediatley thought of you when I was looking at the list of FAs earlier today and saw Vindication and the Mary Wollstonecraft articles up there. When an editor has to choose which FAs to mention as the articles they are most proud of, it says a lot about the quality of that editor's contributions. Please don't let anyone talk you into to going for admin. Your contributions both as an editor and as someone who strives for a high quality of article in reviews are far too valuable, for you to be lured away into wasting your wikitime on the admin grind and resolving other people's disputes. And you work on intellectually respectable subjects too. There is no harm in people writing on fun subjects, but for Wikipedia to gain any real respect as a rival to other encyclopaedias, it has to cover the works of 19th century feminists, their proto-anarchist novelist husbands, gothic novelist daughters and poet son-in-laws at least as deeply as the characters in collectible card-games.--Peter cohen 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! At this point, I am far from being tempted by the vaunted powers of adminship. :) I like researching, writing, and reviewing too much. Let me know if you want to collaborate on any of those "meaty" topics that wikipedia needs to become respectable - it is easier to address them thoroughly with more than one editor! Awadewit | talk  22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of works by that particular family I have copies of Frankenstein and Caleb Williams at home which I probably last read over ten years ago. I'm sure that I have some anarcho stuff somewhere that discusses William Godwin, but I don't have much else about them and don't really want to break into researching something so new to me. I'm also intending my next big wiki work to be operatic. We're at the moment doing an article grading exercise at WP:Wagner. Once that's over, I'm hoping to encourage people there into some collaborative work getting the Bs to GA etc. I have quite a few books on the Ring Cycle at home and therefore am well set up for work on that. At the same time I want to follow up on your encouraging words and continue to move Troilus up the ranks. Once I've finished with him, then there's the potential for working on something related that will use the reference works I've already acquired for Troilus. Cressida, the Trojan War in medieval literature, or a specific work, perhaps Troilus and Criseyde might be suitable. Or, I could follow your example and look for some synergy with my own research and go for social work or mental health articles. Any of that take your fancy?--Peter cohen 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So many tempting options. Caleb Williams would be a much smaller undertaking than any of the rest and I have a good bibliography for that. The Ring Cycle is obviously an important page that should be done well - if you have read a lot on that, perhaps I could a read a few books and work mostly on the prose or something like that? I'm also drawn to Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, of course. A shockingly stubby page. Let me know what you think. I am currently in the middle of a rewrite of the Jane Austen page, but after that is over in a few months, I can dedicate myself to a new project. Awadewit | talk  04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I am particularly proud of Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Sarah Trimmer; to write these literary biographies, I had to combine a lot of different kinds of research and I was happy that the result was still a coherent article. I am also proud of Original Stories from Real Life because I managed not to insert my own opinion into the article (quite difficult, as I am currently writing about the book and have very strong views on it). Finally, I was happy with how I managed to explain the nuances of Mary Wollstonecraft's views on women in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * I am usually involved in reviewing conflicts (see here for an example), although I have been involved in editing conflicts as well (see here for an example and here for an ongoing example). Because I believe so strongly in the value of good scholarship, I tend to get into disputes with others over the quality of their research. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time convincing others that their articles lack the rigor necessary for Wikipedia to really be a top-notch encyclopedia. This is the aspect of my participation that most needs to be improved - I am a blunt, straight-forward person and apparently this style doesn't work very well on Wikipedia. I have tried various strategies to correct this problem, such as imagining editors are students (that simply resulted in condescension, I think) and taking time off during debates (that failed to suppress my roiling emotions). At this point, I want to retreat from reviewing and only write because of how frustrating the process has become. However, I do think that I have a valuable perspective to provide and would like to find an effective way of sharing it.
 * I am usually involved in reviewing conflicts (see here for an example), although I have been involved in editing conflicts as well (see here for an example and here for an ongoing example). Because I believe so strongly in the value of good scholarship, I tend to get into disputes with others over the quality of their research. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time convincing others that their articles lack the rigor necessary for Wikipedia to really be a top-notch encyclopedia. This is the aspect of my participation that most needs to be improved - I am a blunt, straight-forward person and apparently this style doesn't work very well on Wikipedia. I have tried various strategies to correct this problem, such as imagining editors are students (that simply resulted in condescension, I think) and taking time off during debates (that failed to suppress my roiling emotions). At this point, I want to retreat from reviewing and only write because of how frustrating the process has become. However, I do think that I have a valuable perspective to provide and would like to find an effective way of sharing it.