Wikipedia talk:Competence is required

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
 

The "very insulting" practice of referencing this page[edit]

I just want to call into question the following hatnote that appears at the top of this essay:

Are we sure it's needed? What is it about this essay that makes its likelihood to insult editors so high that it must be advertised at the very top of it?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gibson Flying V: It seems an odd question from someone of your experience. Referencing it (as I have done in the past) does connote that you're questioning someone's competence and they often take umbrage. That said, we have a lot on incompetent editors running around here thinking they can actually edit; I find honesty is the best policy... cold, brutal, uncaring honesty. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
So should this be officially made a policy or guideline for blocking users? It gets invoked at ANI a lot, e.g. when a user's struggles with English require major edits to his content for clarity, grammar, etc. so that people start to wonder whether the project would be better off without him. This essay is even referenced in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, so its de facto incorporated as a rule. It's enough a part of Wikipedia culture that it's as though it were a rule.
Thing about it is, Wikipedia is basically one big self-directed work team (SDWT). What does a SDWT do when it needs to fire one of its members for incompetence? I would imagine they have to discuss it openly. Although they probably wouldn't say, "You're incompetent." They would probably say, "It seems unlikely that you will be able to meet our quality standards." St. claires fire (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Competence is not required[edit]

A recent edit added a see also to Wikipedia:Competence is not required (a new essay). It's fine to have a plurality of views, but that is going too far because there is no reason to believe the view expressed is held by more than a very tiny minority. Should the link be kept here? Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Nope. Already removed it. George Ho meant to advertise his views and that essay is now at MfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just a note: the naming of this essay notwithstanding, competence is not actually required on Wikipedia. WP:5P3 states that anyone can edit Wikipedia's content, not "anyone who is competent". There are no requirements for contributing to Wikipedia, in the sense that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors are routinely blocked for lacking competence to edit here. Check the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives. We may not have a policy that states so, but the WP:Disruptive editing guideline supports having competence to edit Wikipedia, and so do many (if not most) of our editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

This edit could be removed if it is assuming bad faith to any editors(both ip and registered). I only did it because seemed fitting with spirit of the tough topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.98.14 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a heading because this is a new topic—click "new section" at the top when adding a new topic. The recent edits have some benefits ("is for naught" is a bit antiquated) but there are some problems, for example, "Some people involve in articles" is not correct English. Also, the WP:WIKIHOUND link is distracting, and the original "collaborate" is a better description of what editors need to do. I would be happy to offer my thoughts by making some edits but do not have time at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, there isn't consensus for those changes. I've reverted you twice so you need to stop and discuss (as the current state is status quo ante). Continued use of "antiquated" language means it's not actually antiquated, just rare. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear (specifically, Chris). – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"so it is important to know or discover your limitations"[edit]

I propose that the essay point out that in order for someone to discover their limitations, they have to be able to realize they might be wrong, and should therefore consider that the other party might be right. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong[edit]

I would like to link to Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong from this article Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)