User:Richiar/Workspace 1

Article development

Grammar; Syntax; Semantics; Pragmatics; Stylistics (linguistics); Stylometry; Phrase structure rules; Analytic language; Synthetic language: Musical composition

Quality areas and framework:

1) content: a) element

2) context

3) style: not pedantic

4) organization: a) simple sentence structure and appropriate choice of words b) active voice rather than passive voice c) direct objects rather than indirect d) balanced use of prepositional and infinitive phrases

5) communication

6) perception: comparison, education-(i.e. reading, understanding, applying), knowledge (forground against adequate background relationships, insight, judgement)

7) skill in technical use of the Wiki tools and ability to compose an article: a) interest in subject and article

8) self control and working within one's proper limits of understanding.

9) language rules (are flexible and relate to context)

Types of communication

Constructive communication

- A progressive flow of editing occurs
- There is rational communication and edits, and reasonable give and take in advancing the editing and communicating process
- editors are respectful of others editing, self-correcting their errors or allowing correction of edits inferior quality, repectful of standards, boundaries, and limitations of their own and others
- There is a positive work environment
- the wiki general standards are supported
- additions and edits of the article and talk page are constructive (CE)

Regressive communication

- debates are beginning to form, without progressive development of the editing, and positions are becoming rigid and contentious
- distorted use of Wiki principles occurs, such as misapplication of a policy with defense of the misapplication, etc
- There is a frustrating work environment
- Additions to the article and talk page are non constructive (NCA)

Disruptive communication

- editing attacks are occuring, disrupting constructive editing process
- There is a hostile work environment
- the Wiki general standards are undermined, and disruptive, low quality editing rules Wiki
- Additions to the article or talk page are destructive (DA) or DOA (dead on arrival)

Classification of communications
Hq	C	Me	Nc	N
+2	+1	+0.5	0	-1

Hq = high quality edit (as in a professor or one who shows expertise in a subject); C = contributory edit; Me = mixed edit; Nc = noncontributory edit; N = negative edit

steps: 1) attending & listening/not listening 2) attending & listening with primary secondary actions (article development with content, or grammar) 3) beginning coordinative action - acquiring skills 4) addressing conflicts and making progress - establishing norms at the article site 5) performance

Status of aritcle:

[FA - featured article] [GA - good article] [AD - article in development] [NID - article not in development] [Q - (partially) developed article quiet] [S- stub] [AN - article needed]

Status of editing community:

[active community/-inactive community] [thriving community/-developing community/-community at risk]

Perfection

Principles of Community-building: - (Peck)

Stages of Community evolution

Pseudocommunity

Chaos

Emptiness

Community

Perception

Quality Management Frame

I am initiating a subpage entitled Quality Management Frame (QMF) as a way for editors to "manage" quality, within the context of the Forum for Encyclpedic Standards. Richiar 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Try the following link for creating a page with that name. (SEWilco 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia: Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Quality Management Frame

The structure of the Quality Management Frame:

Perpetration of dysfunction (PD)

Contribution edit (CE): an addition that adds to the quality of the article, forwards its development, and contributes the editing community

Noncontributory addition (NCA): additions that do not add to the quality or status of an article, but do not necessarily represent a subtraction of its quality. A noncontributory edit is an addition to the article, but not an edit.

Destructive additon (DA): an addition that subtracts from the quality of the article and its status. It is destructive to the editing community. It is definitely not editing.

Expert contributor:

Definitions

expository; - [1]; - tendentious - pugnacious - obstreperous - cogency - obfuscation - pedantic

Example of welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

3RR

Just a note to make sure you are aware of the Three-revert rule.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributins to the Urantia Book article. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Also review:

Three-revert rule

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on User talk: Richiar, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Richiar 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia and trusted editors from Village Pump Policy on 9/22/2007

Having read about the #German Wikipedia limiting editing to trusted editors in a couple of newspapers, is there anything in the English Wikipedia area on the topic? How does it work - and how would newcomers become "trusted editors"?

"On first impression" the policy is likely to create problems - most people are ressonably responsible (and mistakes and fingers in a twist will always occur). The policy will not prevent edit wars and more subtle forms of "creative rewriting": there are too many backlogs for "all newbies/occasional users' entries to be double-checked for the (first 50) entries" or similar - some sort of compromise or visible means of working up to trusted editor status is required. Jackiespeel 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions, Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and the corresponding discussion pages. Garion96 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could a link be put "somewhere more visible" to the above? If a form of kitemarking with clear reasoning being presented I think most people could see the point of the exercise (except when their "carefully prepared articles" fail to reach the standard (g)). Jackiespeel 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not have "trusted editors"... or anything like it. Anyone can edit. Blueboar 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered if there would be a discussion about his, was going to start one if there wasn't. This is copied word for word from the Daily Mirror, admittedly not the most reliable of sources.
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia is stopping the public posting information on its website after complaints of doctoring. Instead, only "trusted editors" will be allowed access to it. Web users will still be able to suggest changes to entries - but they will have to be vetted first. The move comes after some info on US-based Wikipedia, viewed daily by 7% of all Internet users - was deliberately distorted, leading to complaints that the site is inaccurate. CIA staff changed the profiles of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and US Congress staff removed embarrassing and negative information about some senators. The new checking system will be tried out first on the German version of the site. Wikipedia's David Gerard Who? says "Nothing has been set in stone, but its almost certain that changes will be made to the German version of the site in November. Depending on how the trial goes, we will consider applying them to the English version." A screening device called WikiScanner Is it? is also being used and has picked out doctoring by the Vatican and Disney. And software rating the reliability of editors is also now in useSince when? Is this just nonsense or is there some truth behind it? I was pretty sure that consensus had gone against his move many times, not to mention, it would dramatically reduce the number of edits, both with people unable to edit, and the "trusted editors"(Who would these be and would would pick these), would be utterly swamped with all the "suggestions", leaving little time for their own editing.--Jac16888 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Read m:Foundation issues, no Wikimedia foundation project can restrict editing, so neither the English, nor German Wikipedias will be doing anything that would restrict editing. Prodego ^talk 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Daily Mirror" story is not entirely made up, but it bears very little resemblance to reality. There are plans to designate "stable versions" of articles, but those articles will still be editable by anyone. The WikiScanner and "reliability rating" software exist, but they were created by third-party analysis of Wikipedia's editing history, and have no effect on Wikipedia's operation. --Carnildo 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Daily Mirror has vandalism problems with its articles. -Freekee 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn straight! Couldn't have said it better. Voice-of-All 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)