- Special:Getting Started. It is a list of articles in obvious trouble that even beginners can fix. I've found some instances where the articles are so bad they really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. Editing these articles results in a tag branding the editor as a "beginner getting started," but you can avoid that by copying and pasting the URL of the articles listed there.
- "STiki", a really great counter-vandalism tool, crated by the awesome, brilliant software maven Andrew G. West. Every Wikipedian should spend a few minutes a day using this.
- Various studies of vandalism. Is it just bored kids or something more?
Why paid editing is not 'our problem'
Conflict-of-interest policies are difficult area for reputable publishers. I don't think we can realistically expect to crowdsource a functional, coherent COI policy. It needs to be imposed by the Foundation, according to how seriously the issue is taken. Right now, we produce highly-viewed and (inexplicably) trusted medical content with no COI policy, which is a recipe for disaster. It's going to blow up on us - whether it's people from drug companies editing to promote their products, or editors associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement hyping the purported health benefits of their product... this is a huge credibility hit waiting to happen.
One can argue that the credibility hit has already happened. Wikipedia's paid editing problem has already received substantial negative publicity and the problem isn't going anywhere.
However, paid editing is not "our" (unpaid editors') problem. It is a reputational issue for Wikipedia as a whole.
Individual editors, who are mostly anonymous, do not have "reputations" in the real world that are hurt by Wikipedia's surrender to paid editing. Even those who use their real names are unlikely to put "Wikipedia volunteer" on their business cards, and are unlikely to have their livelihoods affected in any way by paid editing. It is, at the most, an annoying aspect of a hobby.
The few persons who work for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are the only people who are negatively impacted, in a real-world sense, by paid editing. Their reputations are soiled, their livelihoods are put in jeopardy by any decline in contributions or damage to Wikipedia's reputation and the value of its brand.
It is also a problem for the PR industry:
As a practice, PR has come a long way in recent years, in terms of the value placed on it and its legitimacy. This is in a large part due to measurable results (web traffic, shares, etc.), but there are still many firms and individuals bringing the industry down, hanging on like dead weight. I think it’s time to cut them loose and make the barrier for entry more difficult. Not only is it wrong to abuse the Wikipedia platform for personal gains, then fight back when asked to stop, it’s unwise.
Furthermore, it’s idealistic to think that firms like Wiki-PR are only using Wikipedia to ensure accuracy, while resisting the temptation to write favorable, dishonest pages for their clients. These kinds of practices will come back to bite our industry in the form of heightened public distrust.
It is, in other words, their problem.
An interesting rejoinder from an external website:
The WMF is going to have The (Unpaid) Faithful do their work for them like they always do, so saying "it's the WMF's problem" is like saying it's the government's problem when the country is attacked. If it's a problem at all, then it's everyone's problem, regardless of whose responsibility it is to deal with it.
IMO it would be a much more interesting (and useful?) discussion to speculate on what would happen if they made such a change and were then sued for having done it, particularly if the complainant had really deep pockets.
But either way, I'm sure The Faithful wouldn't mind taking on yet another hard-rule responsibility if the Foundation changes the ToS. They would naturally see it as another weapon to use against other users, and hey, more weapons = more game-points = more fun!
I disagree with the last paragraph, as the "community" has shown no interest in enacting paid editing rules.
Awards & recognition
|Teahouse First Birthday Badge|
|Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
- --Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|First place winner of the 2013 Wikipedia apple coring contest!!!|
|It is so good to work with you at the BP article. I hope you stick around. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)|
|Mind the Gap Award|
|For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)|
The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
Congratulations, Coretheapple! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|The Original Barnstar|
|An old school barnstar for an old school defense of old school values at Jimbotalk. Don't be afraid to think outside of the box, sometimes the most effective course of action is an enforceable compromise. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)|
|On 12 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joan McCracken, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Broadway actress Joan McCracken was one of the models for Truman Capote's fictional Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan McCracken. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
|On 19 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Kidd, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that choreographer Michael Kidd initially rejected working on his most famous movie, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), saying "We'd be laughed out of the house"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Kidd. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|Your common sense approach is refreshing. Keep up the good work!!! Atsme (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)|
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
|Congratulations, Coretheapple! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.
We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
|On 2 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LeRoy Prinz, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that LeRoy Prinz, who staged dances in dozens of Hollywood movies in the 1930s and 1940s, was more an "idea man" than a choreographer, using simple steps and dance routines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LeRoy Prinz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
To do list
LeRoy Prinz No article on this important (though hack) Hollywood choreographer?
- Agnes deMille Requires expansion.
Michael Kidd ditto, even more (thanks to my efforts, the mediocre hack Prinz has a longer article than the brilliant Kidd. Oh no!!)
- College musical
- Murder of Barbara Gibbons (son falsely accused, big murder case in Conn., 1970s)
- Ray McDonald (actor) Notable actor/dancer of the 1940s
- Dance Me a Song notable Broadway flop.
- Get more involved in the DYK and Good Article process. Apparently it's considered good manners.