Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply/Riggr Mortis




 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful Online Ambassador application.

Welcome to the team, Riggr! Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Riggr Mortis

 * 1) Why do you want to be a Wikipedia Ambassador?
 * I want to be an Ambassador to promote and coordinate useful contributions to Wikipedia articles and encourage new editors. I want to use my experience to productively guide others through our increasingly complex system, and be a windbreak of sorts against the full thrust of Wikipedia's vast set of rules as new editors acclimate to the pressure system. :-)


 * 1) In three sentences or less, summarize your involvement with Wikimedia projects.
 * I have edited the English Wikipedia since 2006 under my current account and User:Outriggr (I changed names around 2009/2010 after an abandoned period of "retirement" :-). In my answers to these questions, all references to my activity include my work in both accounts combined. I have also edited Commons occasionally.


 * 1) Please indicate a few articles to which you have made significant content contributions. (e.g. DYK, GA, FA, major revisions/expansions/copyedits).
 * Featured articles: Ulysses (poem). Good articles: Auguste Rodin, The Nightmare, In Praise of Limestone. DYK: yes. User:Outriggr has a list of articles I've created or expanded (and—cough—the requisite barnstar collection). While I rarely participate in FA/GA/DYK processes now, I remain familiar with them. I would hope to provide some context and realistic expectations about these processes, where they are mentioned in syllabi. Here's a diff of me performing a basic wikification/copyedit of a student article (after the fact), showing my interest in the effort.


 * 1) How have you been involved with welcoming and helping new users on Wikipedia?
 * Yes, on a number of occasions I have welcomed/helped new users, participated at the Tea House , and dealt with Articles for Creation (AfC) . The Ambassador program interests me precisely because it appears to be a topic- and content-focused version of this activity. Which is to say that I find the potential for new encyclopedic content arising from this project much more interesting and important than the average content being contributed by AfC, for example. (Yep, that's a judgment. Don't run away yet!)


 * 1) What do you see as the most important ways we could welcome newcomers or help new users become active contributors?
 * Treat them like people (uh, well, they are, but on Wikipedia in 2012 this does need to be emphasized :-). Be personable, don't use templates to communicate, and encourage new users' natural desire to contribute in the areas in which they work with "do"s rather than "don't"s. Avoid the insider–outsider dichotomies that are sometimes employed by longtime editors with very, shall we say, formalistic, approaches that entail almost impossibly high policy familiarity of people who are new to a system. Treat them as customers, even if they aren't. Do not reduce the interaction to a blizzard of Wikipedia policy lingo. People will be gradually introduced to, and learn, important policy during this process. Wikipedia does not die because a non-ideal reference is used or an article has a bit too much of an "essay" tone. (I mean, look around!)


 * 1) Have you had major conflicts with other editors? Blocks or bans? Involvement in arbitration? Feel free to offer context, if necessary.
 * No major conflicts; no blocks, bans, or arbitration involvement. A few minor disagreements over edit reversions, etc., like anyone else, and frankly I can empathize with new users because it is usually the form that the conflict takes (i.e. the lack of communication, the templating, etc.) rather than the substance that bothers me.
 * This is as good a place as any to add a disclaimer: my talk-page interactions with wiki acquaintances these days may appear odd, impenetrable, sarcastic, critical of Wikipedia, etc. I hope it is obvious from the quality of my answers and interest in this program that I will not communicate that way with people I don't "know". I view this application as a promise to act 'professionally' and non-emotively with people new to Wikipedia.
 * Besides, at the end of the day, the distinction between "new" and "established" editors is a convenient, if natural, fiction that our better selves would do well to forget about. Wikipedia was originally set up, by an optimistic estimate, as an experiment in leveling the playing field between "insiders" and "outsiders". If many Wikipedians now think in those terms it is mostly the result of the natural human tendency, but it remains a worthy philosophical goal to fight that tendency, and again, that's why I'm applying here.
 * I have already witnessed, in past iterations of this program, a tendency for students to be unresponsive to ambassadors (or anyone!). While I would find that frustrating, I'm prepared for it, and if I can improve even a few outcomes, then it's interesting.


 * 1) How often do you edit Wikipedia and check in on ongoing discussions?  Will you be available regularly for at least two hours per week, in your role as a mentor?
 * Yes—even if I appear to edit not-so-much now, I check Wikipedia daily and my involvement would increase if I could find an area to contribute, such as this program, that seemed more holistically valuable than the wiki-gnoming I mostly do now.


 * 1) How would you make sure your students were not violating Copyright laws?
 * I know that this has been an important concern in past iterations of the project. I recognize the importance of not violating copyright and of not "closely paraphrasing". As a matter of principle, I must say that the wording of this question is a bit simplistic. To the extent that this question should not be addressed to a teacher, here's my answer. I can't "make sure" of anything; I can review contributions for text that seems copy-pasted and out of context (and I have good text analysis skills), and inform editors of policies about copyright and what plagiarism and close paraphrasing are. I could check a reference, if available, through WP:RX or otherwise. I would delete infringing text from Wikipedia using the processes we have. This is a complex structural (on Wikipedia) and human problem and I can say that I'm not ignorant of it.


 * 1) If one of your students had an issue with Copyright Violation how would resolve it?
 * This is a sensitive area, and as I remember User:SandyGeorgia pointing out, a Wikipedia volunteer is put in an uncomfortable position if they are expected to publicly accuse a specific person of plagiarism (etc.). I agree with this observation. Clearly I would attempt to address the finding with the student without a bunch of accompanying drama; if a student using an apparent real name as a username appeared to plagiarize, I might try emailing them (if available) about the problem first. I would remove the offending material from Wikipedia using mechanisms available at Copyvio. In the big picture, there are a number of domains in which a copyright violation needs to be addressed: the human, the ethical, the technical. I see the Online Ambassador being able to successfully manage with technical aspect and attempting to educate and communicate with the student; I do not see the OA taking it upon themselves to wave their arms and use moral language. Surely this role belongs to someone else in the "pod".


 * 1) In your _own_ words describe what Copyright Violation is.
 * Copying of (for Wikipedia's purposes) text from a work in copyright
 * a) whose content has not been released under an "open license" compatible with Wikipedia's
 * b) and not attributing it to that work; or attributing it to the source but beyond the bounds of fair use.


 * 1) What else should we know about you that is relevant to being a Wikipedia Ambassador?
 * I think I've covered it. My reasons for applying are to ideally witness Wikipedia improve in areas that interest me, and to help new editors figure out how to do that. Strategically, I think such endeavors as the Education Project are one of the English Wikipedia's best hopes in reviving the core encyclopedism underlying this project.

Endorsements
(2 Endorsements are needed for online ambassador approval).
 * Support Extensive knowledge of Wikipedia and its processes. Statements in nomination indicate the right motivation for becoming an OA.  As the candidate mentioned, talk page archives do contain some fairly colourful conversations, but I trust Riggr Mortis to adjust cynicism levels while engaging with newbies.  And Riggr copyedited the nomination template (!).  The Interior  (Talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. RM would be a great addition to the ambassador ranks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I do not see any issues. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously, per the above.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)