Wikipedia talk:Editor review

help!

i want to have another review but When i make another my first one pops up help! Parker1297 ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you've fixed the issue by creating Wikipedia:Editor_review/Parker1297_(2). Netalarm^talk 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested pilot program

User:Netalarm/Review exchange No real changes, aside from:

1. No limits on how many reviews an editor may request in a month.
2. An editor must review another editor before requesting a review.

Thoughts on this alternative? Please note that this is a proposed alternative, not a replacement. If people want a faster review, they can choose the alternative. If they don't bother waiting, they can go with the traditional system. Netalarm^talk 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is the new editors with just a few weeks experience can't offer the type of review a more experienced editor may want. But we could also split up the reviews by experience and you place your review in a section and review someone in your section with similar experience instead? Derild4921Review Me! 03:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, but how do we determine who goes where?. I was hoping that the experienced users would participate in the exchange, while the new users that are uncomfortable with reviewing other users can continue to use the old system. The one thing I would really like to see though is new users attempting to review other users. While their attempt may not be perfect, it's the effort that counts. We could always extend on their review. Furthermore, reviewing another editor is a good way to gain experience, since you're comparing yourself and looking at how other users interact. Netalarm^talk 03:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We could separate them by edit count and suggest to review people in some category below or equal to you, but have rule requiring for you to review a certain person. Derild4921Review Me! 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That would work too, so an alternate system would not be required. We could just require that all users that have a certain number of edits review another editor, but that idea has generally been frowned upon. However, times have changed, we we're now being flooded with requests from people who are fully capable of reviewing other users, yet are not doing so.

1.Require that all users with over (1000?) edits review another editor before their review is placed at editor review. All they have to do is make a genuine attempt.

Or

2.Require all users to review another editor. Again, all they have to do is make a genuine attempt. Thoughts? Netalarm^talk 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Experience based on edit count is a major fallacy on Wikipedia, I mean you can have 1000+ edits and still not be experienced. On Wikipedia experience is defined by a user's familiarity with policies and guidelines and the way the behind-the-scenes areas of Wikipedia work. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:57pm • 06:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So should we start giving exams before allowing people to request reviews? Hence the second option, which asks that all users seeking a review attempt to review another editor. If a new user is capable of normal editing and interacting with other users, he should be able to review another user, or at least attempt to do so. Netalarm^talk 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with allowing all users to attempt to review others, but I believe a contribution analysis would help determine which users are inexperienced and which users aren't. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:04pm • 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's going to make the process more subjective and ... problematic. We need clear guidelines on what should be done, not an individual analysis of every editor that requests a review. The edit count is often times good enough to measure experience in this case, since editors with a more edits will know what type of behavior is allowed and what type isn't. Wait... all users that have significant contributions to be reviewed should be experienced enough to review someone else, no? As always, we could always step in and help the newer users review. Netalarm^talk 07:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point now. I think we should make the ER process as interactive as a classroom for example. We help the new reviewers get their wings, tell them what they should be analysing when reviewing another user and so on and so forth. Basically, taking a brief look at the requesting user's contributions and then analysing some of the larger edits, instead of looking through every single edit (which is fine but might take a while for users with huge edit counts), looking for edit summary usage and participation in the various content and non-content centred areas of Wikipedia. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:13pm • 07:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. Just as the redesigned adopt-a-user program, this project also requires the active participation of both parties. You need people to request reviews and people to review. If people that requested reviews made an attempt to review someone (it doesn't even have to be good, just a attempt is all we're asking for), the system would be much better. Derild pointed out above that we may be able to require editors with a certain number of edits to review another user, but AA pointed out that edit counts aren't always an indicator of experience. So, should we simply require that all editors make an attempt to review someone else before they can request a review? Netalarm^talk 07:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that that would be beneficial in aiding new users progress, it would certainly teach new users a vital skill. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:29pm • 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal as a result of above discussion

• It is proposed that all editors requesting an editor review must make an attempt to review another editor before their review may be transcluded onto the main page.

Please note that this proposal simply requires an attempt, not an A+ review. A new user may simply attempt to review another user and their request will be transcluded. Reviewing another editor, as discussed above, is an excellent learning experience for new users since it exposes them to the editing styles of other users. Doing so would allow them to compare themselves and learn from others. Experienced editors (the vast majority of requesting editors) should have the capability to review users. But again, we're only looking for an attempt. If it is not sufficient, we could always extend on the review. Netalarm^talk 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sounds good, maybe write up a guide on how to review people for newer editors. Derild4921Review Me! 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It will encourage participation from new inexperienced users, it helps them progress through the learning curve and the skills they learn will help them later on in their "Wiki Career". —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:44pm • 10:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I agree that we need more reviewers and I think it's great that this proposal is attempting to improve things, I applaud the attempt, but I worry that forcing users to do a review will result in poor-quality reviews, done only in a quick reluctant manner only to satisfy the condition. I realize they should only 'attempt' to make a review but is that what you would really want if you were looking for a review? I know I would want an honest and substantial review.. doesn't have to be long.. just specific, and tailored to me. Yes, I think higher quality reviews is a better target to shoot for.. quality over quantity as they say. With all that said, I realize we'll be left with the status quo of more reviewees than volunteer reviewers, and that we can't always expect unpaid volunteers to devote 100% of their time and effort to anything, but that's a problem any volunteer driven process faces, and I just wanted to voice a different perspective. But I want to support the proposal, I just think we should word it as: "All editors requesting an editor review are strongly encouraged to make an attempt to review another editor before transcluding their review onto the main page", possibly followed by a brief explanation of why it's important to give back. -- œ^™ 06:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware that there will probably be users that quickly do a review that's on the lines of "You're doing good", but I don't believe that will be a major problem for a few reasons. First, a new guide has been created to provide new and inexperienced users with tips on how to create a review. If the user simply follows the guide, a good review should be produced. Second, it seems that the requesting users are all now experienced users that are capable of doing a detailed review. Those users have the potential to create a good review and will be under pressure to do so, since their review will be "on their Wikipedia record" so to speak. I'm not sure how to best go about this task, because if nothing is changed, we'll still have this growing backlog of people that are getting no feedback. We need to prevent "quickie" reviews - which may be done by the safety net. If a review is not sufficient, the "regular reviewers" will step up and complete one. Just a note, users are already "strongly encouraged" to review another editor. In fact, we've sent messages to users that have requested a review, but they have mostly just ignored it and not reviewed anyone. Netalarm^talk 06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If they aren't going to attempt a review then we remove the transclusion for their review until they do so, simple as that. Wikipedia is about being bold and participating, if someone is going to request a review and not bother to try and review someone else then they can STFU and GTFO. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:34am • 00:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a bit harsh. But perhaps we should go ahead with this proposal if for anything else than as a test run, to see how the numbers fare. I still have reservations though with the whole conditional-review model, I fear it goes against the spirit of freedom that is foundational to Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 00:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Eh, I honestly cannot think of any other way to even get this program on its feet. I think we would all rather there be no requirements like this, but that's really not compatible with what is going on. Should we do a test run for now and see how it impacts the system? If its a overall net positive, we can keep it, if not... we'll think of something - I hope. Netalarm^talk 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
          • No harm in trying it out. -- œ^™ 06:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
            • If something blows up, I propose we blame the Ancient Apparition for it :P. Netalarm^talk 06:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Second Proposal

• I propose that we make it absolutely clear that all users requesting a review should try and attempt reviewing another user and should they ignore any messages we send out about reviewing others, for say 2 weeks, we remove the transclusion for their review, i.e. if the bot is exclusion compliant we add a tag to that review page. In any case we should encourage participation on Wikipedia, so I don't think coercing others into reviewing is a good idea, it should be of their own choice but if they choose to ignore any messages sent out about reviewing others they've made it clear that they really don't care. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:54am • 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's important to note here that I have indeed sent out notices in the past asking those that request a review to review another user, but those notices have all been ignored. While I do not want to have to go down the route of forcing users to review another user before requesting their own review, I see no other viable alternative that will keep the system going. The people requesting reviews are all capable of reviewing someone else - so they should. As always, we can step up and fix the inadequate reviews. I think it is already absolutely clear, and the 2 week period creates more maintenance work. Netalarm^talk 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Guide

I've created a guide to reviewing here. At the moment it's a draft, I'm hoping for some refinements to be done BEFORE linking to it on the Editor review page. Any feedback would be appreciated/welcome. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:15pm • 11:15, December 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. I made a few minor grammatical changes. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about "editing by proxy"

User Barts1a is currently on a one-week block, but would like to have his edits reviewed. Is it appropriate for me to post that here, or should it wait until his block is over? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FWiW, I think he should "do the time" and then post the request for review himself. A week is not a long time. My 2 cents. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone get Wikitan, the maid, in here

It looks like whatever archiving process that cleans up this page appears to have gone defunct. Can we consider reviews that have at least one response closed (unless it's requested to remain open)? Reviews from October of Last year are kinda stale at this point. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)