This discussion was opened to reach an understanding as to how the article can improve. Some users have offered their ideas for improving the essay. No comments have been added for a long period of time so therefore the discussion is being closed. 'Olowe2011Talk12:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think it is wise to say that editors should not consult Wikipedia guidelines. They are the basis of Wikipedia. Very rarely do people WP:IAR and it's not like we should do this if the rules don't stop us from improving Wikipedia. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with the editor who has contributed this essay to look with them at some of their concerns about the ways we deploy advice on our policies and guidelines to inexpert and inexperienced Wikipedia editors. We do, at times, bite them, sometimes quite severely, and this is always a cause for concern. I have promised them that I will give them guidance on the mechanism for taking their thoughts forward into the community with a view to the contents of this essay being discussed and either adopted (as they stand or modified by consensus) or taken forward to specific forums for discussion.
I do not believe that we are yet ready to set up formal headings on supporting or opposing, so I have not done so. I think this is much more likely to be useful as a discussion, certainly at first. FiddleFaddle16:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I support the idea overall, or certainly its intentions. I'd like to know more about how this came to be and what you expect to achieve, as the current overview text is quite vague. Does this intend to improve communication between new and experienced editors? Is it a proposal to change the way we review AfC articles? Looking forward to your input. FoCuScontribs; talk to me!17:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the present I think we need to rely on Olowe2011 to explain their intentions since they contributed this essay. My own role in this until I form my own opinion is as adviser to them on how they might proceed. I am hoping any rough edges and imprecisions will be worked though as part of this discussion process, too. FiddleFaddle20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this essay is very misguided. On the other hand, I think, but am not sure, its focus could be re-tuned to honor what I perceive as its intent, even though I strongly disagree with it – think it's a non-starter – as presently drafted. We must and do inform people of guideline and policy constantly. The essay's focus is that doing so is generally bad across the board and that there is an effective alternative. There is not – unless we wish to be mealy-mouthed, uninformative, and not give users the tools and understanding they need to succeed. Examples are legion. I believe the essay's focus should be on the attitude and manner of informing people – the tenor of one's post to a new user – rather than the focus here of not quoting or using policy and guideline in a response. I've answered probably a few thousand questions at the help desk, Teahouse, helpme requests and other places. I believe I've mostly succeeded (I certainly hope I have) in "maintain[ing] decorum and respect" when I do so. I almost always cite policy/guideline and often quote or paraphrase it. You can't (or it would be ineffective) to tell a user, for example, that their declined article will not be accepted unless reliable secondary independent sources exist that can be used to create a verifiable article and demonstrate notability, if you need to state that in some other terms, not link any of the policies and guidelines that you are referring to and not explain them in some measure. What you don't need to do is tell them by the way you say it that they failed and the page they created sucks and you don't respect the effort and so on. I believe that could be an effective focus of this essay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you for your opinions on my essay so far. The idea is to compliment the policies and guidelines and not to undermine them. Currently the policies and guidelines are thrown around Wikipedia like they are gospel and facts on a case-by-case basis are thrown out of the window. Over zealous use of the policy can actually begin to work against it's intended purpose and with inappropriate application often comes a lesser sense of appreciation for the policies themselves. I do agree with you that quoting policies may be a mere convenience however, it often simply relinquishes the quoting editor from spending time making issue specific responses. In my opinion stating policies embodies a statement with an authoritarian tone or style that often defies the whole point in providing guidance before dictation. From my own experiences on Wikipedia it's all so common for fellow contributors to retort to communicating with semi-applicable policies rather than taking the time to explain how something works in a way which is actually relevant and helpful to the matter in hand. This essay isn't to remove or dampen the foundational importance of policies however, it does provide an alternative point of view in regard to providing advice with guidance over immediately drowning someone with policies. ~olowe2011Talk05:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with Fuhghettaboutit; nine times out of ten parphrasing the policy then linking to it works perfectly fine. Part of the reason kikichugirl and I created {{helpmessage}} was to make a "last-ditch-effort" message so that if the explanation given wasn't suitable, the editor being helped would be offered additional outlets for their queries to be answered. There is simply no way to effectively tell every user the relevant policies and guidelines without linking to the page that is being referenced, unless you want to waste a ton of time. Sometimes you have to break down every step, but the last time I did so it took me 45 minutes to write out the whole thing, proof it, and post it. I (and as I imagine, many other editors) simply do not have the time to devote to that sort of enterprise, especially when AfC or IRC helpers are dealing with dozens of users every week.
As an additional note, the prose is so verbose that I have now read the GND section four times and I'm still not overly sure what it's trying to say, but further revisions may change that. I don't know how often this has been directly linked to, but I think it is unwise at this time to add it to {{Wikipedia essays}}. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: It is already added and has been for a long time. Thanks for your ideas on this but I am not clear as to what you are saying. If you mean you'd prefer to direct to policy so that its quicker than explaining everything then that is 1. an opinion on how you communicate with people and 2. if you read my previous comments or read the full article you might note that I have made it clear that it is not a concept that intends to introduce the removal or even replacement of Wikipedia policies. Thanks for your input 'Olowe2011Talk20:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
' Olowe2011 Talk 12:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)