Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Issues

Things causing damage to the editorial climate

 * Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.
 * See Wikipedia talk:First contact for an example.


 * Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.
 * One is a closing. The other, an opening.


 * Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
 * Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and that, at times, it can get messy.
 * Sarcasm.
 * Sarcasm rarely works in RL. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.


 * Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.
 * Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.


 * The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.
 * The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20' pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.


 * Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.
 * The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands".


 * Not enough praise for a new editors' hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are "clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles."
 * Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor).