Wikipedia:Editor review/Straw poll

I'm not sure what the poll was really asking, since a voluntary process can never become official. I'd suggest an appropriate venue for further discussion may be at WP:MFD. I have removed the proposal tag, the process gets usage and is linked to, so I think it has some validity. Those that choose to use it may find it a useful tool, other people are just as welcome to ignore it.Hiding Talk 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll
This was a straw poll to decide if Editor review should become an approved process.

Support
 * 1) Computerjoe 's talk  07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 07:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) ZeroTalk Lovely project.
 * 4) michael talk 07:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC) A great editor "peer review"
 * 5) Seems to be a good idea for feedback.  F e  tofs  Hello!
 * 6)  Con  D  e  m Talk 13:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Full Support. (^'-')^ Covington 17:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Full Support. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)\
 * 9) Support - Sue Anne 19:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support- As a former opposer, I have been convinced that this is a good idea. --Osbus 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I too originally had doubts, and still believe that the applicability of this review is somewhat limited, but it seems like a solid idea. --Danaman5 05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -support.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – nice idea – Gurch 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Better than voluntary desysopping and reapplying for adminship, ne? &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support; interesting idea; can possibly help editors to improve themselves -- ☆ TBC  ☆  08:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- constructive comments are always useful and if people have the time to make them they're much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageantUpdater (talk • contribs) ßlηguγΣη  | Have your say!!! - review me 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - This will be helpful to many editors. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per PageantUpdater. -- backburner001 17:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Gang sta  E  B   EA  22:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. A good process, which lets an editor know how well he's been performing, his shortcomings, what he should do next; somewhat like a peer review before the FAC.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(review me!) 09:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - This made me focus on what I am doing, made me more confident in what I am doing, and made me decide to fun for adminship.--Chris Griswold 07:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Total Oppose. This goes completely against wikipedia's idea of community which wants people contributing as a community. Questions like what is the article your are most proud of means that you as a sole person was the actor in the creation or the progress in the development of the article in question which in no way involves working with others and giving a hand in bringing projects to a higher level. It also focuses on how many edits were made thus showing individuality without even pointing out the kind of edits that were made. Lincher 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a standard RfA question. Computerjoe 's talk 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware of it, though I think it is biaised to think that contributions are of importance if you know that people will go for minor edits for a while (like stubbing or some other things) and then propose their name for adminship. It thus gives the impression that even a new WP user with 5k edits in his first month can already decide what he wants (by becoming an admin) and then stating articles as being theirs even though it is the communities' article. In fact, it is one thing that is discussed in the survey from Elian as being a big difference between de: and en: in de: being more community like and en: being openly appropriative of articles. Lincher 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Conditional oppose. This sort of page is useful only as long as there is a objective in mind, which gives the page focus and a benchmark against which reviewees may be critiqued.  I noticed a number of users who state that they just want a general review or who aren't particularly concerned with adminship.  As far as I can tell, they want to be judged as a "good editor", a range so broad that I don't know how you can give advice besides "don't be a vandal".  In fact, I see that responses to those users either get "You're great"s or a reviewer judges them as an potential admin.  I'm happy with anyone who makes useful edits, but that is entirely different from examining a candidate for adminship.  I also see in the archive that admins may also get a general review.  WP:PR and WP:GA have the benchmark of FA status against which to compare articles, even articles that aren't expected to go to FAC anytime soon, simply because FA is the commonly accepted pinnacle of articles.  I'm not sure adminship is the commonly accepted pinnacle of Wikipedianship and I don't see how there can be any benchmark against which to judge users besides adminship.  (A user spends most of her time fixing grammar and commenting on AFD? - Great job!  A user focuses on writing articles on Lithuanian pop music and creates a related WikiProject? - Great job!  A user focuses on vandal fighting and updated the DEFCON template? - Great job! etc ad nauseum)  This crucial difference between Peer review and Editor review is glossed over in the intro to the proposal.  There needs to be a clear sense of the parameters of this mechanism, i.e. all reviewees are being judged as potential admins, and a willigness to enforce those parameters against those outside of them. If there are no such parameters or nobody is willing to be the meanie who says "Sorry, we don't do those kind of reviews", then I oppose this proposal being identified as an actual process or mechanism. - BanyanTree 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with BanyanTree here. Although I still support, the usefulness of the editor review would be greatly increased by having some parameters by which to judge candidates. This could be done in a similar way to RFA, but without the discussion about the total number of edits, for example. The problem comes when editors come up for review who have no intention of running for admin, and so don't even want, for example, a good spread of different kinds of edits. The kind of review they want, though, could be laid out in an opening statement by the user being reviewed. As it is, I think editor review could be very useful. With parameters set out (perhaps one set for those someday going for an RfA, and others for those not), it could be even more useful. Con D  e  m Talk 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had my review up for almost a week and I only got one review. Maybe it has something to do with specifying parameters that I want to be reviewed on. Those who asked for blanket reviews got theirs more quickly. (^'-')^ Covington 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It has. I started the review of your contribs last week (because you had fewer edits than the rest) and left it after five minutes because I had no idea what to review. Tintin (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I also don't see any way a user could be judged as a good contributor other than as someone who is not a vandal. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose It is fine as a pseduo informal thing as it is now, but making it a process is instruction creep. I'm also deeply worried that it will become yet another hurdle that admin candidates are forced to jump through. JoshuaZ 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Conditional oppose per BanyanTree and ConDem. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  08:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly Oppose. My feeling is that conscientious editors should probably be more concerned with quality of work they're doing today than how they're "generally doing" in the community according to outside assessment. Granted, it's good to be polite, follow policy, and not behave in an autocratic fashion when editing, but I'm concerned this sends the wrong message about the importance of an editor's public persona. Also, I think it's fair to point out that criteria we user to evaluate adminstrators for the most part don't apply to the average user. Admins need to be committed, experienced, well-balanced, and exceptionally level-headed on issues of dispute resolution. Ordinary editors may want to be well-liked in the community, but their only real responsibility is to be courteous to others and to leave articles that they've worked on in better condition than they found them in.  So what if someone only contributes material every other Friday, has never worked on a wikiproject, and has only three edits in the Wikipedia namespace? If the work that person has done is good, he or she is a good editor, even if they're completely unknown in the community.  --Lee Bailey 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I haven't heard a reason to make this an approved process. I just don't see a clear an specific purpose for this.  --Rob 01:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per JoshuaZ. Kimchi.sg 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per JoshuaZ as well. Kuki ni [[Image:Flag of Hawaii.svg|30px]] 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per JoshuaZ. I don't mind this as an informal thing, preferably occurring on the talk pages of editors asking for help; I do object to idea that this is a proposed "process," as that is likely to lead to instruction-creep, and an expectation that this become a prerequisite for RfA.  Also, I think most of the editors thoughtful enough to request review probably only need to be told that they're doing a good job.  For editors with more serious troubles, mentorship already exists, and is much more helpful that the brief assessment that would happen here. Xoloz 00:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose: for some of the resons above: could end up becoming a requirement for RfA and and it's not clear why this should be official anyway. Actually, it's not even clear to me why we should put so much emphasis on judging editors. - Liberatore(T) 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per instruction creep comments, I like this the way it is as an informal what do you think of me process. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose: Don't ask me why. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. If someone wanted to know whether they were ready for adminship, I would much rather they were bold and filed a request for adminship. Failing that, you can go to someone you know and trust and ask 'I'm thinking of applying for adminship, do you think I'm ready' (which is the accepted way of dropping a hint for a nomination). For all other purposes, if you're not subject to any RfCs or RfARs, your talk page contains more thank yous than warning templates, and people are generally nice to you, then you're probably doing alright. There's no need for an official or even 'part of culture' process to formalise that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Steals time better spent elsewhere. It's institutionalised boasting, if you will. Azate 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, per JoshuaZ. DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 04:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose User talk pages are more appropriate place for this. Good editors don't need this and both Good and Bad editors won't care about it.  We don't need more Wikipedia processes, and this one seems to waste more time than the potential it has to improve Wikipedia. Pedant 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Needs more traffic, but good process. More questions for the candidate also would be useful.
 * What is an approved process ? Tintin (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's meant by "approved process" either. Approved by who? Process for what? It's moving along just fine, which seems as "approved" as it's going to get. In any case, have there been any objections to ER that would necessitate this straw poll?  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're doing this straw poll toremove the proposed banner from the page, and to be able to advertise it more... Other than that, it's really already approved.  F e  tofs  Hello! 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New Proposal
Would you all be okay if this wasn't an official process: but just a part of culture? Computerjoe 's talk 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Neutral
 * 1) Computerjoe 's talk 07:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  F e  tofs  Hello! 15:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Gang  sta  E  B   EA  22:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Cynical 12:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) AdamBiswanger1 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Since this isn't a guideline or rule, there is no reason this should ever become "official." This is a possible useful tool for self-growth and should never be anything more.  Perhaps a good idea.... but I can't imagine why we'd want to require people to use it...  So basicly what I'm saying is.. I support the idea, but only as a tool. ---J.S (t|c) 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) Nope or in other words Oppose -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 07:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Computerjoe 's talk 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if they make this not official, but part of Wikipedia culture, then if one goes badly, or nobody comments, they would be considered a bad editor. On the other hand, let me think about it and I might change to support. But, you can't really "vote to make something part of culture". It has to happen on its own. Just like barnstars, there was no vote to make them "part of culture", but they became popular on their own. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise, this is just an attempt to see if there's general support if it was not a process. Computerjoe 's talk 09:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole purpose is to improve your editing. This is a place for self-requested peer critique. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL should definitely still apply, but for anything else I say that the editor asked for it and should have the honest truth. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Still Oppose. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the general sentiment of editors offering other editors helpful advice, but I still think the criteria for adminship are not relevant to the average user. Being bold is an important part of Wikipedian culture. Not everyone should behave as if they're running for office. -- Lee Bailey 06:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This seems to be about building a community rather than writing an encyclopedia --Henrygb 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? ER aims to provide editors with feedback to assist them in building a better encyclopedia. Computerjoe 's talk 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I may offer a related thought? It's the idea of putting the emphasis on the editor and not the edits that troubles me. If a person thinks their edits are being critically examined, great; they are, and that's what makes Wikipedia work. But if a person thinks they're being evaluated as a person, they're liable to worry about silly things. I realize this project's point is to evalutate editors on the basis of edits, but it's very possible this process will be misinterpreted by some, especially new editors, and younger editors (of which we have quite a few). If you examine the social structure of those major online communties that aren't building an excyclopedia, you see strong tendancies towards cliquishness, fawning, and otherwise "friendly" enforcements of social hierarchies dominated by veteran members and strong personalities. Is it such a stretch that certain members might carry some of these habits over from other online experiences? What happens when the percieved pressure to be "good" editor and live up to adminstrative standards starts causing otherwise good Wikipedians to worry about being "seen around Wikipedia" and percieved in a positive light? Does that lead to better edits, or just more timid edits, more voting with the consensus, more voting in favor of featured articles rather than raising criticism, more making wiki-friends and giving out wiki-cookies than offering critical dissent when dissent is called for? I realize this may sound like an exaggerated concern, but anyone who think's there's not tremendous social pressure in Wikipedia at times has probably never had to be the lone dissenting voice in a consensus building discussion. It would help if this project made a point of only responding to specific edits, which each reviewer picking out two or three representative edits they want to say something about the quality of, and avoided blanket statments like "I've seen Jimbo around, and he's always friendly and nice and makes quality edits on subjects related to fish in Wikiproject:Fish which I am also a member of". But even with those restrictions, it would be difficult to guarantee that this still wouldn't be interpreted the wrong way. Wikipedia maintains a delicate balance of social influences as it is; the benefits of this process probably aren't significant enough to tamper with that. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I haven't found the process to be particularly useful; right now, there is a huge list of people waiting for even a rudimentary review, and no one taking time to do it. Most people seem to have better things to do, and most editors don't seem to warrant a serious look at their overall performance unless they are applying for adminship. If you ask me, I say nuke the whole thing.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this is what user pages are for. Barnstars were great until there was a committee to organise them, cultural stuff should just grow naturally not be institutionalized.  If I want to know if an editor is a good editor I'll decide for myself. Pedant 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)