Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance
Coordinator is a rank?
I thought the task of a coordinator was to act as the proverbial mortar between the bricks. People should have a clear point-of-contact which they can communicate with directly, and who makes sure things go smoothly. This is a useful role for someone to have in an egalitarian organisation, and I would certainly recommend for the Editor assistence project (and anyone else for that matter) to have someone acting in that role!
Perhaps someone has been misappropriating the term "coordinator"? :-)
--Kim Bruning 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- True. However, I've found that generally, allowing people who want and can fulfill the role to do so informally works better than an "appointed position". People usually rise to fill such needs once they arise. Does that make sense, or do you think a "formal" position would be better? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense to me. I would prefer not maintaining a "formal" position. --Iamunknown 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Formal? Informal? What's that?
- Here's my procedure:
- Announce: "Oh yeah, and we need a coordinator".
- Observe: Who appears to be running away screaming the fastest? This is tricky to do on the internet, but typically people will still display typical evasive-like behavior: "Oh, not me, I'm too busy watering my germaniums all day.", "That dude over there is much smarter", etc...
- Lasso this person.
- Tie them to a stake so they can't get away.
- Tell them "congratulations, you're the coordinator"
- Note that coordinators tend to work themselves loose, so you need to check in roughly once a month or so, to make sure they're still there.
- --Kim Bruning 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) This is actually a time-old, tried-and-tested method for internet communities. Long story about why it works.
- Sounds like a good one to me! Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- --Kim Bruning 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) This is actually a time-old, tried-and-tested method for internet communities. Long story about why it works.
- Rather than a "co-ordinator", I think we should have one or two clerks, who will be responsible for checking the backlog of requests and (if necessary) assigning them to an assistant. They will also handle complaints about the program, do other administrative duties, and serve as a point of contact. I would be happy to take on this role. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You do seem to be missing the running-away requirement ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than a "co-ordinator", I think we should have one or two clerks, who will be responsible for checking the backlog of requests and (if necessary) assigning them to an assistant. They will also handle complaints about the program, do other administrative duties, and serve as a point of contact. I would be happy to take on this role. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize that my viewpoint is in the minority, but I would like to express it in again: I do not want coordinator as a rank or any clerk positions. I fear that it will turn this into a program and a bureaucracy, which I originally did not consider it to be. I would like this page to be inviting and say, "Hey, need any help jumping through the hoops of fair use images? Want some constructive criticism? Frustrating by a content dispute? Come right on over, sign a list and an editor familiar with X will be glad to come right away!" I agree that we need to make sure that editor's requeusting assistance are actually getting assistance. But I disagree that we need to formalize the role. This is a wiki, if you see something wrong, fix it]. I would hope that assistants who realize that may not be able to assist an editor would, in such a circumstance, ask an editor more familiar with the subject matter. Maybe I am just idealistic. --Iamunknown 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
How shall we get this started?
I like helping other editors and certainly want to at least try out this new system. How shall we get it started? This currently is a guidelines draft and, as such, I have a few questions to bounce around. In what venue will editors ask for assisstance? (That is, will they sign their name on a specific page, e-mail a specific e-mail address, etc.) Shall we assist people on their talk pages or maintain a sub-page for each person? (I would prefer the former.) Anyways, just some loose ends I thought of. --Iamunknown 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think probably the assistance should be on the talk page of the person getting helped-that way, it's easy for them to refer to, and if the assistant sees them engaged in something that's a Bad Idea(TM), they'll get the new messages bar, hopefully checking it and cooling down. As to where and how people should apply, I think we should have one page on which assistants can list themselves. Someone can request help from a specific person, or put a more general request on that page for whoever's available and able to help in their situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the put a general request on a specific page idea. How's this edit to get us started? I thought it should be at the bottom so that editors who come for assistance are encouraged to at least scan the rest of the document first. --Iamunknown 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like it! I clarified the statement a bit to ask people to put a brief problem description, that way anyone thinking of responding can see if it's something they have experience with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! I like how this is starting. --Iamunknown 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea: "Oh yeah, and we need some unofficial coordinators, just to keep a bit of an eye on the page and to make sure this starts up properly". --Kim Bruning 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) <looks at Iamunknown and Seraphimblade>
- Basically one just needs some people to keep the page on their watchlists, and to promise to look after it a bit for a couple of months at least, is all. :-) --Kim Bruning 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like it, let's do that! Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll definitely do that. :-) --Iamunknown 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- As will I, of course. We also need somewhere appropriate to list this where it might get a wider audience, any ideas? Radiant's already signed up to give some help, definitely a good sign. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll definitely do that. :-) --Iamunknown 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like it, let's do that! Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to sign up
I would be interested in participating in this project. At the moment, it doesn't seem to be clear whether it's active or not, particularly in light of the closure of the AMA MfD. Can anyone clarify whether this project is currently active? And can we add a list of members? Walton Vivat Regina! 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have a member list, but it's an in-text link, I'm trying to think of a clearer way to display it. And yes, it's active, I've put notices in some different places, so if anyone wants to ask, they will! (By the way, the list is here.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could just consider yourself a member? :-) --Kim Bruning 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Userbox
Anyone who is interested in the project could also add this userbox, which I've just designed, to their userpage. Use {{User Editor Assistance}} to transclude it. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
| EA | This editor helped out with the editor assistance program. |
EEK! Userbox! --Kim Bruning 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) runs and hides
Hrmmmmmmm...-goes off to edit Kim's page- That roping people in thing was your idea, right? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oops. --Kim Bruning 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Coordination
Is there some way to coordinate this project with AMA, Med Cabal, Third Opinion, and adopt-a-user? All seem to have significantly overlapping purposes (informal dispute resolution, guiding new & inexperienced editors). It would be nice to see some sort of overarching way to collaborate and coordinate between these projects. -- Pastordavid 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Given that AMA is sticking around, at least for now, I probably will suggest with them that we work together-this project can send people that want an actual advocate to AMA, and they could send people that just need some help and advice this way. Adopt-a-user has a lot of crossover, but they're more intended to help new users learn to edit. And that is great! This one, though, is intended even for more experienced editors that might need help and advice just in a certain area they're not too familiar with, and might find being "adopted" demeaning. 3O is intended more for an uninvolved party to take a quick look and offer an opinion (a mini-RFC, if you will), and Medcab for someone neutral to try and help everyone come to consensus, so I think there's a lot more difference there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense to me. Part of what I am thinking of is that it is not always clear which route one should take when in need of help / guidence, and it would be nice to have some way to sort requests for help. I realize that WP:DR is supposed to help people in self-sorting, but I don't know that it always works (i.e., in some cases DR is unclear, and some people are not the best at self-sorting). Perhaps a centralized ___location to list disputes, that can then get sorted to the appropriate place? I don't know ... I'm kinda thinking out loud. -- Pastordavid 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a lot of what the Help Desk does, but they tend to get buried and underused at the same time. I don't think that's a bad idea at all (though I wish more people just would point someone in the right direction if they see them floundering, it doesn't seem to happen as often as it should). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MEDCAB de facto does sorting as well, even though that's not really the purpose. :-/ --Kim Bruning 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Split
If the /list page gets any longer, it would be helpful to split it by topic area. >Radiant< 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, any suggestions on topic areas? Maybe "General editing help", "Dispute resolution", "Deletion issues", any other ideas? Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, thinking about this, there's quite possibly people with multiple skills, we could do something like this:
| User | Editing | Disputes | Et cetera |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seraphim | yes | yes | |
| Radiant | yes |
I think the three categories you suggest are good. Perhaps policy/guidelines is good, too, as may be investigating assertions of admin misconduct. Perhaps the MOS, if we have any experts on that. >Radiant< 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those are very good ones too, and I like the format you suggest, rather than having people listed under multiple sections. Actually, MOS help would be great if we can find some people willing to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea too. I think "images" and possibly even "research" (as in methods of doing research) might be good sort keys as well. --Iamunknown 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think research would probably go under general editing help, but images would be a very good one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea too. I think "images" and possibly even "research" (as in methods of doing research) might be good sort keys as well. --Iamunknown 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
First "case"
I am glad I happened on this page while y'all were working on it. I had a situation arise like what is described, and the description of the process here was much better than the description of "voluntary mentoring" on the mentoring DR page. I still think it would be good to have some sort of way to sort disputes/requests among the various informal and formal DR programs - something like a DR dab page: "If the situation is X ... go to ___". -- Pastordavid 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now that, is an excellent idea. I'll start work on that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Got one started here, if anyone has ideas, edit away! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Great start! Not much time right now, but I will be back to have a go at it later. -- Pastordavid 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Category
Please could all participants in the project add themselves to [[Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project]]? (Unless you've already added the userbox, which adds you to the cat automatically.) Walton Vivat Regina! 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sign-up instructions.
How does one sign up as an Editor Assistant? I was unable to add myself to the list. --Aarktica 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Draft
Here is a draft of what I would like to add:
I am open to informally providing constructive feedback on a situation or problem. Leave a message on my talk page, and I shall reply ASAP. Cheers. --Aarktica 19:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- When I edit the page, all the previous text is missing. I have added text to the box and hit the 'Save page' button several times without any success; perhaps I'm missing something. --Aarktica 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Already getting complicated
Would it be at all possible to cut down on instruction size already? might be a challenge... what can you leave out and still have it work? --Kim Bruning 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a radical thought: get rid of everything except for the "Request assistance" box. >:-) --Iamunknown 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Google did something like that, except theirs was a "search" box. Was pretty popular, back in the day, as I recall. ;-) --Kim Bruning 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really sure-I certainly don't want it to be hard for people, but at the same time, I do think some coherency is needed. What do you think is overly creepy? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Turn that around... What do you need to keep? :-) --Kim Bruning 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps move "role of an assistant" and "leadership" to a sub-page, with a link like More guidence for those providing assistance can be found here" or something to that effect. -- Pastordavid 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I think that would work better, and have the front page more for those looking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps move "role of an assistant" and "leadership" to a sub-page, with a link like More guidence for those providing assistance can be found here" or something to that effect. -- Pastordavid 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Turn that around... What do you need to keep? :-) --Kim Bruning 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like that. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Assistants should work. - jc37 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)