Jump to content

Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Founder proposal: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Comments: need to re-word
Line 60: Line 60:
* '''Strong support'''. Trying to contact one of the founders at the moment is a nightmare, more are needed. And those extra people have to be people who are commonly around, and sympathetic to the views of those who actually do the work in the channel, such as Chzz. <small>I propose Helpmebot - always around, tries to be helpful! ;-) </small> '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:green">Stwalkerster</span>]] [&nbsp;[[User talk:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]&nbsp;]</font>''' 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong support'''. Trying to contact one of the founders at the moment is a nightmare, more are needed. And those extra people have to be people who are commonly around, and sympathetic to the views of those who actually do the work in the channel, such as Chzz. <small>I propose Helpmebot - always around, tries to be helpful! ;-) </small> '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:green">Stwalkerster</span>]] [&nbsp;[[User talk:Stwalkerster|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]&nbsp;]</font>''' 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' Per all the above comments. - [[w:User:EdoDodo|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">EdoDodo</font>]] <sup>[[w:User talk:EdoDodo|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#33dd44">talk</span>]]</sup> 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Strong support''' Per all the above comments. - [[w:User:EdoDodo|<font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">EdoDodo</font>]] <sup>[[w:User talk:EdoDodo|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#33dd44">talk</span>]]</sup> 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Naturally, a channel benefits from leadership. Leadership can come from anywhere - be it ops, superops, contacts or group contacts. Issues with the leadership of a channel can, in my experience, often be amicably resolved by communication. This proposal seems worryingly liable to ostracise valued members of the community - and indeed a lack of discussion about the issues would do the same. Activity levels on IRC, as on Wikipedia, can vary in peaks and troughs - I have logs going back to Nov 2008 of the channel and could presumably draw whatever conclusions I wanted about the activity levels of users in there by selecting different time periods. In short, "number of lines spoken", as "number of edits", are bad indicators of the value of a contributor.
:It is doubtless, to me, that Chzz is a valuable contributor to -en-help. In my time in the channel, too, I've seen fantastic organisation by werdan7 and JohnReaves, such that intervention on their level is often unnecessary. But I think that, if not the route cause, the "straw that broke the camel's back" with this issue was that Chzz was informed that his language was inappropriate. That is undeniable, I'm afraid. The channel often has a young audience and while "Wikipedia is not censored", the same cannot be said for IRC, where the relatively fast-paced nature of communication (relative to Wikipedia discussion) means that certain things can be said in the heat of the moment and can then, still in the heat of the moment, be given more gravitas than they deserve. The cycle can continue and thus can contribute to raising the channel temperature.
:freenode largely leaves channel policy to individual channels. Only a few matters considered offtopic would merit involvement from staff in a channel. Similarly, the policy of Wikipedia/Wikimedia channels on freenode is not at all based upon enwiki (or any other wiki's) policies - for the simple reason that experience has shown us that these policies do not translate well to an IRC environment. To this end, ''point 2'' above is entirely incorrect in that it seeks to transpose Wikipedia policy onto IRC. That's just not what happens in reality.
:A real part of problem here seems to be that Chzz has felt slighted by a remark made to him about his conduct in -en-help - and there is significant agreement with him. Given his long service to that channel, that he should feel slighted is fully understandable. However, I don't think a debate on channel organisation helps the matter at all. The debate '''must be''' about channel policy. If we focus on management, as we have done, there's a likelihood that a new management will be installed and they will, with minimal discussion, make changes to the channel's rules. This will help no-one - rules have to be crafted by a process of discussion and must always be open to change by further discussion, or they will not be accepted. And here I agree with ''point 3'' - any rules must always be treated as "guidelines" (according to Wikipedia lingo) such that any infarctions are considered on their own merits without summary action.
:I think the best thing for all parties in this situation to do is to get together in a channel on freenode at some convenient time and have a group discussion where they can decide the direction of the channel, and what changes need to be made (if any). Thanks [[User:Martinp23|Mart]]'''[[User_talk:Martinp23|inp23]]''' 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:13, 12 June 2010

Discussion of the role of channel contact(s) for #wikipedia-en-help in providing help for new users. —fetch·comms 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a proposal to remove the current channel contacts or accuse them of doing anything wrong—it's a proposal for discussing their role in the channel and its management, whether to add more contacts, and how we can advance the quality and efficiency of help provided in the long run, with the help of the channel contacts. —fetch·comms 01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel purpose

The #wikipedia-en-help channel is used as a valuable educational resource for teaching new Wikipedians, as well as providing an environment for users to grow in their knowledge of Wikipedia and how to help others with the learning and experience that they gain from the process. This process promotes an atmosphere conducive to generating a collaborative and congenial environment; this is a must for the success of Wikipedia.

Overview

Following recent discussions with Chzz, Fetchcomms, Keegan, Skomorokh, Stwalkerster, Algebraist, Jamesofur, Shirik, et al, there appears to be some sort of rough consensus that the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel needs new channel contacts/founders for the following reasons:

Assertations

  1. A channel contact, or founder, should be an active participant in the Wikipedia project and community. For this particular channel, #wikipedia-en-help, the contact is expected to be an active user of the English Wikipedia, especially in the area of helping Wikipedians both on IRC and onwiki.
    Finding: The current contacts are John Reaves and Werdan7. Neither are very active in the channel or on enwiki (John Reaves has not been on IRC for about 14 weeks (as of 10 June 2010) and he has made only 1 edit this year; Werdan7 has written about 500 lines in this channel since July 2009 and has only made 6 edits this year).
  2. The channel contact should be able to enforce the policies of Freenode, ensure that the channel is effective, and promote help for new users who come in; these efforts should not be be contradicting to the existing policies/guidelines on the English Wikipedia excepting any official rules imposed by Freenode.
    Finding: Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Any guidelines for the channel not mandated by Freenode should be determined by channel consensus, per the "Wikipedia way"; this is necessary to advance the quality and efficiency of help provided. However, the channel appears to have some "rules" which limit one's ability to help new users—rules neither endorsed by Freenode nor Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nor the majority of the channel's regular users.
  3. #wikipedia-en-help is ultimately Wikipedia's live help chat. It deals with often-confused new users looking for advice on their articles and other general editing help; such questions will inevitably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and some "rules" inevitably broken. But the main purpose of the channel is to help users, and if a rule prohibits one from helping a user, then it may be broken.
    Finding: As it stands now, the rules enforced are contrary to existing enwiki policies and guidelines, but furthermore, there is no sense of IAR in regard to helping a user. In such cases where an article like this is concerned, or where an inquiry is received about a page like this, it is difficult to help if using "inappropriate language" is forbidden (excepting personal attacks, of course). The channel's most active helper, Chzz, has dedicated countless hours trying to improve the channel's effectiveness and quality of help while coordinating similar efforts onwiki (for example with WP:AfC and WP:FEED), but is currently taking a leave of absence until this matter of channel organization is resolved. Compare him to the current group contacts: Chzz has written over 60,000 lines in just #wikipedia-en-help since July 2009; no other helper even comes close to half that amount. The bottom line is, Chzz knows how to help but neither he nor the rest of the channel can continue on effectively helping others if even his efforts are being impeded by the channel's "rules".

Summary

These assertions and follow-up findings present the following goals:

  1. The main goal of this proposal is to designate new, more involved channel contact(s) for #wikipedia-en-help.
  2. Give more control of the channel by having guidelines be discussed first before implementation
  3. Follow all Freenode-established guidelines first, enwiki consensus-established guidelines second, and any other #wikipedia-en-help consensus-established guidelines third
  4. Continue to improve the efficiency of helping new users on IRC by improving the quality of help provided

Comments

Please leave comments, suggestions, questions, etc. below.

  • Completely Support this motion. I want to add that it is really hard to find ops when there is a problem user. Chzz has hung around a lot, and does a lot of support for the channel. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —fetch·comms 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supported wholeheartedly. There is no point in having channel contacts who have little or no contact with the channel. I'd be happier seeing people running and operating the channel who are there regularly and know what is going on, rather than someone who is so far out of touch that satellite telephone wouldn't even reach them. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 23:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree on this, we need more channel contacts! --Zalgo (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense. I've seen myself how helpful Chzz is and how valuable he is to the channel. If anyone is to be a channel contact it should be him. -- œ™ 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (tentative with reservations). I support the general premise of this proposal. It seems intuitive that a channel operator should be active on the channel. It also seems intuitive that the task of insuring a channel operator is continuously available while the channel is populated requires more operators, opposed to few. This is the crux of my reservations. The proposal seems to insinuate more operators while encouraging activity. This is the notion which garners my support. If on the other hand removal of one operator is necessary to install another, the issue becomes less intuitive and requires more research than I have currently done. Thanks for considering even these. My76Strat (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do note that channel operators are different from channel contacts, or founders. We have multiple active operators (KFP, PeterSymonds, etc.), but a founder is able to override any operator action done in the channel. Basically, they have the most technical access in the channel save for Freenode staff. However, they are still expected to be active in the channel, even if the founder flag is not used that much. —fetch·comms 01:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avicennasis: flags #wikipedia-en-help Chzz
ChanServ: (notice) No flags for chzz in #wikipedia-en-help.
Avicennasis @ 02:23, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not asserting that Werdan7 or John Reaves need booted, or that Chzz or any other user diserves this responsability. What I do find important is that, as stated, the group contact(s) should be active both in their channel and on Wikipedia. It's rather difficult to carry out the appropriate channel maintenance if you are not familiar with either the regular helpers or the process by which they are helped, as well as bot functionality and all the other miscellany that comes with what the contact should do. -en-help is a different creature from most other Wikimedia channels, because it invites and introduces many that have never even used the IRC medium and also, generally, not even a wiki. That's how I got started back when it was #wikipedia-bootcamp. So, again, for me this is neither a recall of our contacts proposal in place of another individual, but a referendum on the system itself. Keegan (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good first point; I'll add that in to make sure this proposal is not misunderstood. It's simply a way to move the channel forward, which does require some change, it's not supposed to be accusing people. —fetch·comms 01:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Not only does this proposal makes complete sense by it's self, Chzz is Awesome, I have, countless times asked this user for help, guidance and technical expertise, which was answered by Chzz, while juggling 2 or 3 other things at the same time. This user is Very valuable. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify again, this proposal doesn't actually have to do with Chzz actually getting the founder flag, although that may be a viable option in the future. —fetch·comms 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this is very thoughtfully written and brings up some important points. I agree strongly that this is a discussion that we should have at this point. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (edit conflict) My thoughts would only echo those above. Avicennasis @ 02:23, 29 Sivan 5770 / 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Unknown - I dont know if this is for deletion or what, but yes sometimes people dont help and just sit there, However some people, like myself or Chzz will help anyone who needs it when we are not busy doing other things. so if this is for closing it, dont. The voices (+) should be for people who are actully helping rather than sitting around Sophie (Talk) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal is about the role of the channel contact(s) in this channel. The channel contact basically has the most technical rights in the channel, they can override other channel operator actions, etc. We're certainly not trying to close the channel, just trying to improve it. —fetch·comms 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Founder_proposal&oldid=367676380"