Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Esperanza is now inactive. Please do not edit the contents of this page.This page is an archive. Discussion of the essay describing Wikipedia:Esperanza should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. To discuss any issues found in this archive, please direct any additional comments to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Good idea J. Let me join. Redwolf24 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Maybe make a member list. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Self-nominations

This looks great JC! The only thing I question is the self-nomination part. For instance, I personally would never nominate myself. But if I deserved it, I would be honored if someone else did. What if it was made so the nomination could be made either way? Just a thought. maltmomma 15:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, what if no one ever nominates you? I feel the same way you do and so do many others, by making self noms mandatory I hope to take away some of the reluctance of nomination yourself. There's no shame is nominating your self if there is no other way. -JCarriker 18:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

And there's always the option of: "Hey, JCarriker, you've been doing a great job; why not nominate yourself (since I can't nominate you)?" Call it "Self-nom with prodding." -- Essjay · Talk 18:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I can see the self-nom with prodding. I just don't want to exclude people who wouldn't nominate themselves. I wonder if Jimbo would allow Esperanza to have their "person of the week" featured on the main page? Food for thought. maltmomma 21:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Angela is a founding member, and she has the ear of the Almighty. If that's something we decide we want to do, then she would be my choice to go to to Jimbo. -- Essjay · Talk 04:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced highlighting individual users is a good idea. Ther are far too many that would go unrecognised in such a scheme, which is why I preferred the barnstar approach of recognising as many users as you like. Angela. 18:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The Featured Wikipedian plan is negotiable, but if it were to be implemented I don't think it should appear on the Main Page, but in Esperanza's space. I love barnstars, but their is a a problem with its system: you can't give yourself a barnstars and you can't ask for one— so sometimes the users who need the most encouragement have no way of higlighting or finding appreciation for their contributions. I'd like to hear more about Angela's concerns; we don't want a "solution" that is worse than the problem. -JCarriker 19:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would not be a good precedent if we attempt to explicitly or otherwise highlight individual users. I imagine people would question the integrity and neutrality of Esperanza should this occur. Why not try this instead? It seems clear that we wish to find a positive, creative way of recognizing users. How about this scheme? (See the "random lottery idea") just below --HappyCamper 03:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Random "lottery" idea

Let's take a step back for a moment and consider what Esperanza really is....(See another post I have added to the bottom of this page. I haven't added this yet)

Instead of highlighting users, why not have some sort of "lottery" instead?

1. Wikipedians add their name to Esparanza, and they suggest an article that they would like to see become a featured one. Should be something of general interest so that as many participants can take part as possible.
2. Every X number of days, we randomly chose a name from the list, and all the Esparanza people can help out editing the article to improve it.
3. In this way, we satisfy a few things simultaneously: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the services that Esparanza offers (I think) should supplement this - we can write articles as a gesture of thanks and recognition. Just imagine a featured article labeled with a tag that says: "This article was improved after our lucky Wikipedian won our monthly Esperanza draw. You can help out by joining Esperanza and ..." ...

This scheme is deliberately implicit and subtle in its recognition of users. What are your thoughts on this? --HappyCamper 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea a LOT. I'd like to see the sort of articles that could turn up. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldn't it be interesting just to see? I suppose the articles would be as random as those found in Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association? --HappyCamper 03:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

diplomacy vs authority/correction

Perhaps for the Esperanzians there would be a focus on using the language of negotiation rather than that of "I am always right"... I think I might join in! --Lisa 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that is part of the idea. Esperanza is not here to take sides and say something is "right" or "wrong". What it might say, is "In this situation, you might consider doing X, Y, Z"...So, it does not make decisions per se, but provides options so the Wikipedian can choose for themselves what is best to do. Granted, X, Y, Z might not be completely free of bias since its only a short list of options, but it is as practically neutral as possible (which I think is a good thing). --HappyCamper 03:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't just mean being neutral though. I observe that the most bitter arguments or edit wars involve users using language that is bound to incite the other user(s). Even "civil" language is often still harsh or cynical in it's meaning and designed to make the other user feel small rather than being at all constructive in building the encyclopaedia or building community here. Even admins seem to be guilty of this sometimes. I would really like to see Esperanza elect users to leadership positions in Esperanza who are known to be good at diplomacy and good at negotiation, regardless of their edit count or knowledge; people who specifically state they want to serve Esperanza allowing as little as possible for their political/religious/ethnic biases to affect their actions on behalf of Esperanza. Even though apparently Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy there is no harm in trying to make Wikipedia exemplary and ground-breaking in the way online collaboration happens! Lisa 13:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we help

How do we bring their problems to us? Do we just post here? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 15:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately through a message board, perhaps several desiginated for specific problems like isolation or work overload. -JCarriker 15:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

So make user talk:JCarriker/Esperanza/message board? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 15:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Not quite, we're only in the formation stages we only have a provisial government and have not drafted a charter. When the charter is complete Esperanza will be moved to Wikipedia:Esperanza Association so all of the boards will appear in the wikipedia space, just like the Association of Members Advocates and the various Wikiprojects. However, the more you and other users post on this page and ask questions and propose/debate ideas- the faster a charter can be drafted and ratified. In other words, we don't have the framework to solve problems yet as an organization, but if you have one please let us know it could be valuable in shaping the charter and maybe some of the users watching this page can help even before Esperanza is complete. -JCarriker 15:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No, but thanks for the responce. My only proposal is an idea if how we might propose the problems needing solving. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Then please post it so others can review it. Thanks. -JCarriker 16:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

How to present problems

Here is my proposal for how to presnet problems. The future wikipedia page would have a sub page for posting problems. The talk page would be for discussing Esperanza itself. The sub page would have several sections, one for problems with another user, one for problems with having a lot of work, (more on that one later), one or two more for various specific problems, and one for a problem that doesn't fit in any category. Each section would have a sub-section for people willing to help, in the overworked category, a place for people interested on helping out with that area. Members could put anything there from comforting words to a way to deal with the problem at hand. Improvements, opinions etc. to this idea are greatly appreciated. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 16:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this the possibility of an IRC channel; if you're overworked, or just otherwise stressed, you could sign on for an uplifting word or a stressbusting chat. -- Essjay · Talk 04:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Except I can't get on IRC for some reason, I asked at WP:HD, but noone answered. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 04:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think you both have excellent suggestions, but I feel I should point out that Esperanza is not meant to solve conflicts between users or NPOV article issues their are already formats for these problems. I believe that creating sub-page message boards categorized by problem and IRC are definately worth doing. -JCarriker 07:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Under what circumstances should these boards be used? After all, I'm not sure if we would want everyone to edit them. Also, as they are public, it would ultimately modulate what is being said, which might not necessarily be a good thing. I think these message boards should be deleted once they have served their purpose if they are used. --HappyCamper 03:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Hello! May I ask whether this is related to the "Kindness Campaign" located at WP:KC? How does one help out with this endeavour? --HappyCamper 03:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While we firmly support the kindness campaign we are dedicated to pooling the resources, talents, and desires, of our membership to help solve our memberships problems and meet their needs. We are still working out exactly how and what we are going to do, but you can help by asking questions and making suggestions here and by adding your name to the membership list you can benefit from it as well. -JCarriker 07:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've added my name to the list. I think I'd like to stay around and help out with this project. This is just starting and I think its future direction would benefit greatly from more dialogue. --HappyCamper 14:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

On the idea of pooling resources, I have had some successes using the "Wikipedians in..." category for getting help and opinions, and I encourage people who don't fit a current "Category:Wikipedians in..." to either make or have a relevant Category made for them. Maybe this philosophy could be incorporated into Esperanza? I think it's entirely compatible. Alf ^melmac 11:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Some efforts to direct newbies towards like-minded users or users in their city/state/country might be nice. Perhaps KC already does this -- not sure. Certainly for my case, I think getting connected with a few Wikipedians in my locality made me feel like I had people who I could go to and ask questions. Lisa 13:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Some ideas just to get started and get a feel for what people want this to become...

The impression I get from reading the existing philosophy of the Esperanza group is that it is a serious attempt to foster an alternative support mechanism for editors of Wikipedia.

Should this be the case, is Esparanza intended to supplement or complement other alternatives, such as WP:MC? The distinction is subtle, but I think worthwhile to consider. I would like to see Esparanza as an alternative service which complements WP:MC. The reason is as follows:

From my perspective, Wikipedia seems to lack a perceptively friendly, approachable organization which allows users to voice their concerns and frustrations without fear of reprecussions from the community. I imagine that the strength and success of Esparanza would be based on its ability to circumvent this fear. An impartial, ethical, mediative service is needed on Wikipedia to help alleviate stresses associated with editing articles and fighting vandalism. WP:MC is good, but in some ways it is associated with arbitration, and there are many situations where this may actually have less of a positive impact than intended.

At the moment, I sort of think of Esparanza as a counselling service for Wikipedians. A group of trusted, well grounded Wikipedians willing to listen, and allow users to voice their concerns. It is a neutral, impartal organization which does not take a stand. It focuses on what is rather than what should be. It serves only to ask the right questions at the right time, to listen, and to contemplate and reflect. Wikipedian "A" approaching Esparanza for help should understand necessarily that the process helps only to clarify "A"s thoughts. Essentially, I think it is important that Esperanza allows a Wikipedian to say something like "Esperanza is something that helped me figure out what I want to do on Wikipedia. It gave me an opportunity to express my thoughts and feelings, and I feel better and more refreshed now that someone has heard me." ... et cetera. Only there is a slight problem with this scheme...in what sense should Esparanza be transparent? I certainly would not begin to voice my concerns if it is made entirely public. I'd rather do it through private channels such as through e-mail. Esperanza should be discrete - No user should ever have to know that another has approached Esperanza for help. There has to be some sort of very well grounded trust for this to work. Esperanza is a long term strategy, and I suspect it will take quite a while before something substantial is built up. We are certainly building from the ground up!

However, before we even contemplate on taking on cases, I think there are some things that need to be done first. Perhaps draw up a number of case studies, a situation perhaps, and then analyse where the conflict is, how it can be mediated. Not only would this serve to illustrate how Esperanza operates, it would also give its members a chance to really thoroughly understand Wikipedia-driven conflicts, and how to mediate them. We need to build confidence in ourselves that we can handle such a diverse group of problems. I think it would be good to propose questions for a mock conflict-situation. Suppose we draw up a mock edit war conflict. Then we can ask questions like "Why might Wikipedian A consider statement X offensive?", "How could statement X be rephrased by Wikipedian B so that a more positive interaction results?". It may even be worthwhile to comment on the ethics of certain actions. "Is it ethical for an administrator to protect a page that he or she is working on?" Of course, these are all examples. Draw up a case study of things that occur often on Wikipedia. How does one handle a deletion request that is borderline? What about dealing with vandalism? What about abrasive editors? Et cetera...

I don't really know what is needed for the group at the moment. As I have just jumped in, it is entirely possible that I have misinterpreted what this is all about. So, please consider this as just a set of ideas to get some dialogue started. Nothing is definitive. In the end, it is very possible that Esparanza would be very different from the suggestions here. Anyway, please feel free to comment! --HappyCamper 00:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The voicing concerns part is a great idea. Also rememmber we will not pay attention to users complaining about POV disputes. Hey another thing I was thinking of is allowing people to ask questions, i.e. reference desk style questions, but you know without getting lost. That page is like 300KB and it can be hard to find things. Anywho, I still express my support in having Wikipedian of the Week. I don't think people would mind so much not being one as cmon, theres 600,000 wikipedians... Anywho I should sign before I say something stupid ;) By the way Happy, nice to see you don't have hard feelings against me after that RfA <.< (which I voted neutral for the record!!) Redwolf24 (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, where'd this come from?! This last bit is certainly news to me. I was sincere when I wrote ...do anything you feel appropriate to convey your thoughts on this nomination.... Hmmm...well the RFA was in the recent past and if something is still on your mind leave a message on my talk page or send me an e-mail if you want to talk about this more. We can talk about it there if you like, this page is for Esperenza stuff. :-) --HappyCamper 12:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, this wasn't my understanding. I understood it to be a project related to individuals, not to relations between individuals. What I mean is, I understood our focus to be on stopping A from leaving over what B said, rather than worrying about improving relations between A & B, admonishing B, or having anything to do with B at all unless B approaches us as well.

My understanding was that "Esperanza cases" would be more on the level of: "Someone (whether "someone" was identified or not) said something that has made me want to leave. Help me Esperanza! At that point, members of the Esperanza Association (EA) would swoop into action to discuss the situation with that person, and reassure them that they are a valued contributor and that someone on Wikipedia notices them and cares. Our response would be "Please don't leave. You've done such good work. We need you." rather than "Don't worry, I'll go tell B off for you" or even "Don't worry, we'll get you and B together and work this out." The conflicts aren't our concern, it's the feelings caused by the conflicts.

In addition, I understood part of the function to be distributing workload. As in, A, who is in the middle of a mass-recategorization, comes to us incredibly stressed because 10,000 articles need to be recat-d, and EA members who have the time go and help A.

Honestly, I think delving into inter-contributor matters is asking for trouble. The moment we stop being a source of personal assistance and become a second source for mediation, we will go from being a bright source in the Wiki to being part of the problem. Sure, we'll probably help keep a few A's from leaving, but we'll likely drive off a few B's, and visa versa. Our focus should be on keeping everybody, and encouraging everyone to follow the rules, while avoiding any contact that makes us seem like we're taking sides.

I believe Esperanza should be a dedicated corps of Wikipedians who are constantly on the watch for good editing and potential burnout. When we see good editing, no matter how small, and no matter by who (that means IP addresses and otherwise unpopular contributors are included), we stop and say "That was good editing. Good work." If two of us see good editing, then we both say it. (If two hundred of us see it, then we create a subpage of the user's talk page to avoid talk-spamming.) When we see someone say "Wikibreak," we leave talk messages, send emails, and watch IRC to say "Hey, we noticed you were gone, and we can't wait for you to get back." (I think a regularly scheduled search of Wikipedia for the word "Wikibreak" would be a lot of help.) In addition, we should be available to discuss and help remedy wikistress, but only in so much as "remedy" does not involve inserting the EA member in between two users.

In short, I believe we should be physicians, healing existing wounds and offering preventative care. Law enforcement and dispute resolution should be handled by organizations focused on that. (Like RfC/MC/ArbCom.) -- Essjay · Talk 06:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...*snip* from Essjay's response

I understood it to be a project related to individuals, not to relations between individuals. What I mean is, I understood our focus to be on stopping A from leaving over what B said, rather than worrying about improving relations between A & B, admonishing B, or having anything to do with B at all unless B approaches us as well.

Actually this sums up was what I had in mind too. I guess I wasn't too clear before. Frankly, I was imagining that the typical things we would deal with would probably be personal attacks. A feels attacked by B, A comes to here and says "I quit. Wikipedia isn't the place for me anymore, I want to leave. Help!". Then what would happen is perhaps we could remind A of their wonderful contributions. Perhaps also say something along the lines of "Personal attacks are not okay. We're sorry you had to deal with it. But remember that there's more to Wikipedia than that - there's the better side here. Why not try X, Y, Z for a while, and then return back to your routine? Or perhaps keep A, B, C in mind? We really value your contributions here, and we hope that you don't leave because of D, E, F.

As for ...Esperanza should be a dedicated corps of Wikipedians who are constantly on the watch for good editing and potential burnout. - how is this different from WP:KC? At least, this is what I thought the KC was doing as well. I suppose Esperanza seeks to be somewhat more formalized, dedicated, and institutionalized? --HappyCamper 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite a lot of duscussion has taken place since I was last on! Happy, to me, WP:KC is a rough group of people who give out barnstars and get people back when they leave. Esperanza, I think, is more formal and would be more likely to tell other members about it. e.g. "Oh no, Essjay, look at Redwolf24's user page!" "JCarriker, look at Redwolf24's user page!" and post a link to a leaving users user page on an Esperanza page. I like the idea of searching for wikibreak. Maybe make a section on the talk page for open tasks, Search for wikibreak, etc. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 15:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes we're ssome kind of love cabal o.O But that works out anywho, its part of our main purpose. Redwolf24 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 19:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just a side note, a user category likeWikipedians on Break/Holiday would be helpful for could be helpful for this. -JCarriker 20:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it would, why don't we have that? Would have saved me a bit of nonsense while I was gone. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

For Esperanza to be a group "creating hope" I think I agree with practically everything HappyCamper has said at the top of this section. "An impartial, ethical, mediative service" sounds close to the mark to me. Lisa 14:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion

Esperanza is unique, it is not an alternative to any to anything because nothing like it exists. We should compliment existing insitutions by providing services that they do not. Esperanza does not and will not oppose wikipedia's current power structure, I want to make that very, very, clear- there are mediators, arbitrators and even a board member among our ranks. Esperanza is for everyone. Esperanza will be like Wikipedia's soul, it seeks to comfort and maintain its various parts (users) and will also be introspective of the community as a whole. Many of the specifics will become apparent when the charter is proposed, unitil it is I ask for you patience and that you continue to express your ideas, which are shaping the charter. Thanks. -JCarriker 21:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anti members

(Moved to from Esperanza mainpage to talk by JCarriker at 20:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC))

1. I think this is a bad idea. Wikipedia does not need a cabal.-gadfium 08:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
   • Cabals are closed organizations this is open to almost everybody. -JCarriker 20:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

we're the cabal against the cabal. We're the anti-Cabal ;) I don't see how we would be a cabal, we're like a community of WP:KC members... Redwolf24 (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Too negative

I'm not sure I like the intro saying Wikipedia is "often hostile and apathetic". I can see that some people would sometimes find it that way, but it's not how I would generally classify it. Angela. 02:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing it to "Can seem hostile and apathetic at times" Redwolf24 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a fair edit to me. Andre (talk) 02:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remove "hostile" and "apathetic" altogether, but I can't think of any alternatives at the moment... --HappyCamper 03:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

My own break

Just to let y'all know that I'm on an enforced break until further notice I'm begining school on August 29th, and my free time will likely be dedicated to volunteer efforts since Marshall is already overwelmed with evacuess from Hurricane Katrina. I will coninue to work on the charter when I have time with Redwolf. -JCarriker 03:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am having to reduce my edits too. I'll search around for a suitable preamble and post it here when I find the time. --HappyCamper 02:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts

I thought some cross-fertilization might be achieved by mentioning Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts here. Some minor but fixable stuff turns up there, as does some more moderate stuff, and some upset or confused newbies. This sounds like it is within your formative remit. I wonder if you might consider adopting that page in some manner or other? — it gets a surprising (although still small) amount of traffic but almost no attention. -Splash 01:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh...that looks like something we could definitely incorporate into this! --HappyCamper 01:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now I read some of Essjay's posts above, I wonder if perhaps you don't really want this kind of thing. -Splash 01:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we do. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 01:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about the idea of taking those incidents and modifying them as generic scenarios? For example, Howabout1 is changing article Wolf to say they live in California, but is constantly being reverted by Sango123. Howabout1 becomes exceedingly frustrated, says s/he's met "the most annoying Wikipedian ever", and threatens to leave. Howabout1 then comes here and says "I'm exasparated! I need help." OR, we observe this after the edits cool down, and suggest to Howabout1 that perhaps they might like to reflect on the incident.

In any case, once How is receptive to Esperenza's help, what do we do? In my mind, Esperenza is not here to say " Howabout, do this, this, this, and your conflict is fixed." Rather, something along the lines of "Howabout1, you have just been through an edit war. It's tiring, and at times it does seem unfair. We understand you had good intentions in mind when making those changes, and we're glad that you came so you can talk this out with us. We hope that we can suggest some approaches you can use in the future to mitigate through similar situations...". Note how this is entirely independent of Sango, which is sort of the ballpark that Essjay was suggesting. Sound good? Or more changes? Other ideas? --HappyCamper 02:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, but use examples rather than letters. Letters are confusing. I.E. replace A and D with real people, as letters suck. Redwolf24 (talk)

Done. I hope you don't mind me editing your text, and I hope Sango doesn't mind, but she updated wolf to Featured Article, so she deserves the credit. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mind, but for subsequent examples I think the personification should be done somewhat differently. Let's stick with a scheme A,B,C, = Alphonse, Beryl, Celeste, etc... --HappyCamper 15:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this makes a lot of sense. We're not here to dicate, but rather to support. It's like a Wiki-support group, a collection of friends that are all here to help each other. I've noticed that when editors return after leaving the project, it is partly due to the outporing of respect and pleas to return that sometime appear on their talk page. Maybe Esperanza could help with this? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 13:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

</color>

Where are we at right now?

It seems that the discussion has somewhat tapered off lately. What do you think are the next steps for Esperanza? --HappyCamper 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've been considering signing here, but I opted not to thus far for a number of reasons. One among them was the stratification of the project. This presumably has a good reason: I'd be interested to hear what it is. 'Government' sounds very unusual for a Wiki to me. -Splash 21:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, there is some wording in the front page that I am not particularly fond of, but at the moment, I haven't had the time to address this yet. For me "government" makes Esperanza sound distant and impersonal, and I don't think this would help generate cohesiveness. For me, I've left my name on the list to express an intention of help building this up. --HappyCamper 14:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Charter

Hmmm, for the charter, you will probably need to get input from a lot of people, and it might require some collaborative editing and so.

Might I make a novel suggestion?

There's these new fangled things called wikis, which apparently are very handy for that kind of thing. You might want to take one for a spin!

(In other words, if you don't put that darn proposed charter on the wiki yesterday-like, I'm going to have to whack y'all over the head with a RolledUpNewspaper until enlightenment ensues! :-P )

Kim Bruning 00:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we all add to this right now. Ok, the version right now is terrible, but we need to start somewhere. Wiki it up! Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 01:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, as long as nobody minds that it will be a smattering of ideas, probably 99% might be thrown out, et cetera, et cetera. At this point, nothing is set in stone, and anything can be added. I'll start when I close a few AfDs that are filled with sockpupet votes first though. --HappyCamper 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did the charter get deleted? The note from Redwolf says that it is included in the main page, so maybe I'm missing something? Mamawrites 11:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Much more difficult

Writing this "charter" has been much more difficult than I thought. The tone of Esperanza as it is written needs to change somewhat. It needs to be somewhat warmer, and I am almost dying to add smileys all over the place just to lighten the mood! :)

Of course, there is a fine line we need to distinguish here. We recognize that we are sincere in our efforts. But how not to come across as an inapproachable institution? What target Wikipedian audience are we really trying to address here? While writing this, I kept on thinking about the Wikipedians that have left and their lasting legacies...I think we should be mindful however, that it's okay for a Wikipedian to choose to leave or to reduce their activity on Wikipedia. We have no manner of understanding what goes on beyond what they write on Wikipedia. I think we are primarily interested in ensuring that Wikipedia remains a healthy place for a volunteer to contribute at all times, regardless of whether user XYZ wants to leave or not. In this sense, not only should Esperanza address individual users, but probably some general outreaching program is needed as well. However, that's probably far, far into the future, if at all.

The ideas in this page are excellent, and would be very worthwhile to build up. I think for now, a charter might be going overboard though. After some contemplation, I'm not sure what purpose it would serve other than making Esperanza even more difficult to be what it "should" be. We need more direction before something like it is drawn up.

I would like to suggest the following: It seems that we are trying to cast too large of a net, too far, to catch too many fish. Let's try to narrow the scope of this project first, make something concrete and simple that serves a good purpose, and build from there. Once we have that going, we'll be able to motivate ourselves more to set something up and expand. I think for a project like this, we will want to do things right and well the first time. Lots of baby steps sounds more reasonable than a large step. I have a hunch we can do without the formalities at the moment.

Ideally, I hope someday Esperanza could be a place where a Wikipedian-about-to-leave can come and simply speak their mind. At the moment, let's try and figure out if we want any of these?

1. "Birthday Wikipedian"
2. "Wikipedian of the Week"
3. "Random lottery for articles" (for want of a better name)

I'm personally not too fond of the "Wikipedian of the Week". I'm more receptive to a "Birthday Wikipedian" though. Wikipedians simply list their birthday, (or any day for that matter), and on those days, we'll deliver "presents" to their talk pages - A word of thanks, a framed featured picture, et cetera. We should limit the number of birthdays however, so that we don't overwhelm ourselves! --HappyCamper 19:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a charter is the one simple concrete thing. Also, I have created Category:Wikipedians on Break/Holiday. Mostly for use on my page. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 22:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we should adopt an alternative word or phrase to charter. Every time I sat down to sketch out something on paper, it just kept on degenerating into "legalese"...Perhaps "rule of thumbs for positive interations on Wikipedia", or "Esperanza's guidelines for staying cool", or "The Wikipedian's Handbook for Editing" or something of the sort... --HappyCamper 03:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe think of the charter in 3 parts 1. statement of purpose/mission, 2. constitution/rules and 3. method of operation. (At present the charter seems to me to have all the constitution written but little about the mission itself or the way that mission will be carried out by members. Lisa 14:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Other ways to help

I think we'd do well by watching out for certain Wikipedians that seem to have too much on their plates; dealings with personal vandals/problem users, or complicated projects, and see what we can do for them to help out before they crack. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly something that would be good to follow up on. I wonder what things we should look out for? RfCs in preparation? Repeated user page vandalism? --HappyCamper 03:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also remember things like FAC, VFD, RFA, and RFAR can all lead to Wikistress. Edit wars in the making are a source of editor-burnout. I think the best thing to do in situation where we find a stressed-out user is just ask what we can do to help. Getting into edit wars isn't going to solve anything. Just be a shoulder to lean on and lend an ear. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wow

I came here from a link at the Village pump (had been here before but couldn't remember what it was about) and the first thing that struck me as the page loaded was the confederate flag. Had to do a double take. It must suck to be black and Mississippian (I mean, even before Katrina). Couldn't imagine that flying all over the state I lived in. Oh, and good job on this project. Guettarda 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• yup, that one had me doing a bit of a double take as well, don't you think it might be in better taste to ditch the confederate flag, and use the city flag of New orleans, instead?--64.12.116.135 03:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Other ideas

Another idea to throw around...how about we have a list of people from Esperanza, and every month or so, we'll ask a random user if they would like their user page redesigned? Tastefully, of course. But wouldn't it be neat to create a "user page" template with useful links, archives, et cetera, et cetera? --HappyCamper 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that's cool. We wouldn't want a "standard" user page; part of the fun is the originality of all the different users. But a random user lottery and a redesign might work. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:52, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. There are lots of cool little tricks that some folks are using. :) It would be helpful to have these in one place and/or advertise them. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 07:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

How about Trading User Pages? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Active?

Well there has been no discussion for the past couple of days, so I thought I would try and kick start this with my opinions of the previously mentioned ideas.

1. The Wikipedian of the Week/Day/Whatever is a bad idea. People already think there is a cabal, and when people do not get featured, they will feel hurt. Trust me, I've seen this type of thing in real life, and it doesn't end good. People will try hard to get it, not get it, and wind up frustrated.
2. The Article Lottery sounds like a very good idea. People have an equal chance of being picked, and having their article worked on. Set a time limit of 2 months before you can get picked again... you know, spread the wealth and all that.
3. I can't remember anything else I was going to say, but feel free to comment.

--Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lord Voldemort about the Wikipedian of the Week proposal. It's certainly meant well, but it has the potential to turn into an ugly popularity context.

Besides, the spirit of Esperanza is to show our support and appreciation for all deserving editors—not just one per week! Make use of barnstars and other Wiki-awards where appropriate. Heck, just leave positive notes on User Talk pages whenever you see a job well done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with L.V. And the article lottery does sound like an interesting idea, though I am not sure how it will be filter(perhaps through Community Portal Open Tasks).Voice of All (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, have increased my award, and "good job" giving by several folds. So far, the response has been very good. Everyone needs to feel appreciated. We don't need to bureaucrasize it (e.g. planned compliments), but Esperanza should certainly encourage and actively promote that. For the Article and User page lotteries, I would definitely participate in these. Good faith fixups would be an easy way to promote this collective, too. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia-anniversaries?

The consensus seems to be that the Wikipedian of the Week would feel too cabal-like, so I wonder if instead of doing that or the Birthday deal, we could focus on celebrating the anniversary of different users' first edits? Many people include this information on their user pages, or we can figure it out from looking at user contribution links. We could create a list of days of the year, and then any user could nominate him/herself or another user by adding that person to the list. When the date of a nominee's Wikipediversary (does that sound right?) comes around, Esperanzians would go to the nominee's talk page and leave a cheerful message of thanks for past contributions and encouragement to continue making edits.

PROS: This would be a way to spread good cheer without creating any sense of cabal.

CONS: The good cheer might not be timed so that a Wikipedian receives it when they are feeling disillusioned about their role in Wikipedia; it might make sense to do something more targetted to people who express a desire for reassurance or support.

Other thoughts, pro or con? Mamawrites 08:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This just seems like so much to manage, for so few people. We should put more focus on new users, as they are a smaller, yet important group. We should stay in touch with them instead of just giving them one standard greating(five pillars, ect...). We can use the new users as are starting list. And then work from there, perhaps with the wiki of the week. Each Esperanzian would get a user to talk to/work with for a week, that way we could have 20 wikipedians per week, since there are soo many. Just a thought :).Voice of All ^{(Talk)|(Esperanza)} 06:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedian of the week

part 1

(moved this from number 7 to here to aid page comprehensibility Lisa)

Picture it this way... you're about to leave the project and boom! you're the wikipedian of the week. I'd stop right there and realize more people seem to like me than hate me and I'd stay. I think wikipedian of the week is a good idea. Also note I have mentioned to JCarriker that we should move this stuff to Wikipedia:Esperanza for its expansion. I personally will be adding Esperanza into my signature and tomorrow I'll mention this project to some of the people in User:Redwolf24/Friends (mm, spam). Redwolf24 (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. We have to make sure we got everything right before we open the floodgates as J has said. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't protect the future WoW template. It would make me sad. :( I guess if it becomes a vandalism threat, but I'd wanna help, but coundn't then. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well if we expect to have so many people vandalism is very possible. Perhaps we could have them unprotected until the day they come up? Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I want to say is "no less than 10% and no more than 20% government" sounds a bit large. 1 in every about 6 of us will be in the government? I don't see how we could co-ordinate elections with so many people. I'm thinking more like 5 to 12 percent. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I like both suggestions. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 23:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure whether a Wikipedian of the Week would really help out. It seems to me that the problem is much more chronic, and a Wikipedian of the Week would not address this. I've noticed that many editors have left after encountering that singular critical comment, despite the fact that they have handled themselves well on Wikipedia for long periods. --HappyCamper 00:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

What if, persay, instead of voting Yay or Nay, we were to just vote yay and see who gets the most yays? Actually that sounds a bit impractical but I'm saying its a thought... Redwolf24 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Then it might degenerate into a popularity contest? --HappyCamper 03:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm with you HappyCamper -- not sure this can help enough people at once and some people may not want to be featured on the front page anyway. Just like some people don't want barnstars for whatever reason. Besides there will be too many amazing Wikipedians to be able to feature them all as "Wikipedian of the week". But for volunteer work like this, some kind of real recognition would be good. Maybe a permanent "roll of honour"?? This sounds a bit old-fashioned but perhaps we can set our minds to think about how Wikipedians can be recognised (much in the way offline volunteers maybe awarded national or civil honours). Lisa 13:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

part 2

(moved this from somewhere in the middle to here for comprehensibility Lisa 14:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

I wonder whether this will truly be effective. If I were feeling underappreciated, I don't think I would be cheered up by an expression of bureaucratized kindness; rather, I would feel somewhat patronized. This idea is clearly well-meant, but it might need some refinement if it is to work as intended. — Dan | Talk 00:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would hope with this organization that we could throw down all the bureacraziness that sometime inhabits Wikipedia. Personally, I don't really want any sort of government or leadership, other than some sort of advisory committee. Maybe a rotating committee to plan and just sort things out? Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 00:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we need a "government" or any sort of "election". We need maybe a group of Wikipedians who would be willing to listen for X amount of time during period Y. What we might also need, is perhaps a core set of values which everyone should abide by, or at least pledge to work towards. That is, anyone who talks to an Esperantist (for want of a better word), should expect the interaction to be impartial, non-biased, ethically sound, et cetera...(but these are just ideas so feel free to elaborate) --HappyCamper 03:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Dan's statement (and much of the rest of the above as well). While I am in complete sympathy with the aims of the project (and I've watchlisted the page to see what goes on) I think I'll continue to stick to unorganized acts of kindness, though perhaps I should make them more often. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

part 3: Compromise on "Wikipedian of the Week"

I have another idea to make the Wikipedian of the Week more palatable...How about changing the phrasing to read something like "My Wikipedian of the Week"? This way, it removes any appearance that this "Wikipedian of the week" is an endorsement by the encyclopedia. Is this a better alternative? --HappyCamper 04:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This may work. I like what User:Howabout1 suggested calling it WoW (add an exclamation point to that.) Maltmomma ^(chat) 03:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Flags and page layout

Perhaps one of you design folks can take a look at the layout of the project page. I like the thought behind what's there now, but the organization could be a bit more graceful. Perhaps something like:

The members of Esperanza extend their good will and hope:

• for Louisiana and the Gulf Coast (flag)
• for the victims of the 2005 Niger food crisis (flag)
• for the victims of Operation Murambatsvina (flag)
• for the victims of the Baghdad bridge stampede and the ongoing Sectarian violence in Iraq, etc.

Thoughts? -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 07:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I'm fully behind you! JDH Owens (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear! Banes 05:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

How can we help out?

There is a lot of information about the orginisation, the porpose and the philosophy of the community. But you guys did not tell other users how to help out. I'm sure that there are a lot of newbies asking: I want to join, but how can i help out? I wish you can add more information on how to help out.

Userpage Help

One way of making people feel more appreciated might be an area where various useful templates and tips for sprucing up userpages. This could help Wikipedians feel more like valued members, if someone was helping them with their userpages.

Good idea, but...

...why the senseless bureaucracy? Wikipedia as a whole has been getting nastier over the past few months, and I think we've all noticed this. This project is a really timely means of dealing with this, and kudos to its founders for getting it going. But why do we need a "provisional government" to write a "charter"? Why not do it the wiki way, as with nearly everything else on Wikipedia? Ambi 10:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Aware

Is anyone here aware of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign? A remarkably similar project, perhaps some collaboration? They seem to have almost the same aims as we do. Comments? Banes 18:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, quite a few of us are members of KC. However, KC is informal and not highly organized. It is more of a volunteer effort to do what you can individually. Esperanza, however, is formalized and highly organized in order to systematically respond, on a large scale, to the needs of the Wikipedia community. -- Essjay · Talk 23:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Prov. Gov. dissolved a few comments by the Admin Gen

The charter has been completed, so the drafting committee is obsolete. I promised when Esperanza passed fifty members to dissolved the provisional government, so I'm keeping my word and dissolving the provisional government as of 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

As such, beginning on Friday the first elections for the Assembly will begin and last until either all Esperanzians (as of Thursday) have voted or until the following Friday, which ever comes first. Elections for all tranches will be held at the same time, but please note that the terms will be abbreviated lasting only until the charter mandated election date. The 18 candidates with the highest number of votes will be elected to the Assembly, the Assemblians with the 6 smallest amount of votes will be assigned to Tranche Ж , which has an election in January. I will remain administrator general until December 1, this should allow enough time for an election to be held and my successor to get situated in time for the Assembly election in January. The assembly can amend the charter and is in a far better position to make changes than either the drafting committee or the provisional government, regardless the charter is in the hands of all Esperanzians now.

There has also been criticism of Esperanza's so called "bureaucracy", and I find that most unfortunate and believe it to be somewhat unfair, and I will now address this subject. Wikipedia itself, has bureaucracy and a bureaucracy much larger than that of Esperanza, I might add. Esperanza, was founded to be a unique part of the Wikipedia community, it was never intended to be another WikiProject, in fact its not a WikiProject it’s a members association, members associations do have Government‘s (e.g. the Association of Members Advocates) .Esperanza was designed to share above anything else, why should the organization's leadership be any different. Outside of Wikipedia’s specialized bodies and institution power is de facto. Inside Esperanza power is de jure, and Esperanza primarily by the regular opportunity to join the Assembly, is the most accessible and spreads power among the greatest number of people governing bodies of Wikipedia’s institutions; newer and less prolific wikipedians have a greater chance of gaining leading roles than they ordinarily would. This is what makes Esperanza unique, in this since it not only necessary but essential to what Esperanza has always been intended to be.

For all of the criticisms of the charter, it leaves virtually all decisions to its membership through the Assembly. I have been very disappointed to see that this opportunity, has been largely ignored in the commentary on the charter. The charter creates two bodies which complement, consult, and balance each other. This is far from bureaucratic. The charter does provide tools, for creating further specialized bodies within Esperanza, which can be viewed as expanding bureaucracies, but a committee that, say examines why wikipedians leave, to borrow Lisa’s idea, is something that would be of value to us. The fact that legislation has to be certified by at least three Assemblians, and that expansions of Esperanza’s government must be approved by the Assembly is limitation of bureaucracy not an open invitation to rampant growth.

I hope many of you will consider standing for the Assembly, and especially those of you such as Redwolf who have been quite active will consider running for Admin Gen latter on. Again, thanks for your patience in waiting for the charter. - JCarriker 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. Do we have an assembly or not? (The charter says contrary at the moment, but the adminstrator general says we do)... Anyways, to give Esperanza a "spark", I'm willing to trade user spaces with someone, as an experiment. In other words, I'll modify the volunteer's user page (on a separate page), and that person will modify my user page. Then, we can copy and paste our new designs for the user pages around the same time- similar to Trading Spaces. Any volunteers to give this experiment a try? Afterwards, we could leave feedback for the Esperanza community. Hey, the worst thing that could happen is that I don't like the new design and revert it back after a week. No harm done. Any victims- er, volunteers- for this? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You think your confused, try being pushed aside in the very organization you founded. I knew I should have never allowed Esperanza to have been moved out of my user space until the charter was ratified. I guess that's what nice gets you these days. Regardless, the goodd intent this is little more than a coup, it should be obvious to anyone that my vision is not the driving force behind Esperanza. In short of course Esperanza contradicts me, I've been deposed. -JCarriker 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he posted that before I took away there being an assembly in the charter. I think the first act of the assembly would be dissolving itself, oddly enough. People inside and outside of esperanza have said the assembly makes esperanza too bureaucratic, so this is a compromise, and the community as a whole will act as the assembly was meant to. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

October 10 2005 Elections to the Advisory Council

That's my hopeful date, meaning we'd have to get some nominees before then. I hope we can muster up enough people. Then, we will have the two with the most votes have their term until February 28th (Unless they choose to be in tranch b) and the two with the 3rd and 4th place votes end December 31st. The admin generals term shall end December 31st, except for that shall be the day every year. Thus, JCarriker is our admin general of 2005. The tranches for the advisory committee will be as such:

Tranch a ending dates:

• December 31st
• April 30th
• August 31st

Tranch b ending dates:

• February 28th/29th
• June 30th
• October 31st (ineffective for 2005)

Of course dates for the first committee will be odd as it IS the first commitee. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we are nearing the end of the year and since JCarriker is the founder of Esperanza, I personally think he should serve a full year and be re-elected for 2006. Then have elections for the Admin Gen come up next fall for 2007. Maltmomma ^(chat) 05:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do we need an advisory council to coordinate promoting being nice? Why do we need an Admin Gen who serves long terms? No other organisation on Wikipedia has anything like this, except for the arbitration and mediation committees, which are special cases. It's entirely possible to have a very organised project without having elections and committees and councils and drowning the enthusiasm in bureaucracy. Why not just start working on fixing things, instead of all this not-very-useful preliminary stuff? Ambi 05:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of really long terms. It should be no longer than 6 months. And although JCarriker has been a great leader so far, if we are holding all these votes, we should at least hold a vote of confidence in him sometime later this year (say, after a month or so of service, November 13-19?). And I'm not sure that Esperanza couldn't become a special case as well. But yes, we need to get this thing rolling. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)