User:Wiki-Pharaoh/Inform for guidance
For the Wikipedia project, see Wikiproject Essays
 Inform for guidance is the principle of informing other Wikipedia Editors of your views on their contributions without quoting policies but instead directing towards a less formal essay that represents his or her viewpoint. The goals for using Wikipedia Inform should be the following:
Important Considerations[edit]Inform for guidance isn't a suitable principle to apply to draft policies or essays that hope to achieve policy status through positive overall community consensus. This is because an essay under this principle is designed to provide a non authoritative method to inform an Editor of a viewpoint rather than coerce them into compliance through the presentation of a document that has achieved majority community support. Despite this contributions made with the principle should contain compelling and logical rationale so that a reader may reconsider their position on the issue in dispute. Editors on Wikipedia are equals and should not be in a position to dictate to other editors unless the issue is regarding a blatant and non-controversial contribution such as vandalism. It's useful to guide fellow editors in making quality contributions to Wikipedia by making a case for why you believe their contribution should be changed or annulled based on a rationale. It's ideal that one is allowed to maintain a free right to express their opinion on a contribution but it's equally important that even when opinions are considered the actions of that Editor still fall in line with community expectations reached by consensus (or due process.) This said most editors do act in good faith, even if their contributions are not acceptable based on policies and could feel undermined by having policies dictated to them rather than a clear rationale explained to them through the use of inform for guidance principles. It's the difference between "don't eat my banana because I want to eat it later" and "don't eat my banana because it's theft and the Theft Act 1968 prohibits it." There is no qualification for studying Wikipedia Policies[edit]Wikipedia is not a place to study policies and you cannot gain a qualification or authority by intensely reading them or even being able to apply them. They should be used as a last resort when reasoning has failed or to guide new users in understanding what Wikipedia is or is not. Wikipedia Policies are de facto articles which stipulate behaviour that is generally accepted by the community rather than texts condoned by any single authority on the subject matter. The highest and only actual authority to interpret and apply any policies that are not carved in stone is Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Therefore, it's often a matter of interpretation as to what the community expects or does not expect. Given the fact that the aforementioned is the case it is prevalent that users stray away from wielding policies around like indefinite or infallible laws against other contributors and instead resort to using rationale that is communicated in a manner which maintains decorum and respect. This is important when making a case against or for a controversial contribution. However, when a contributor is clearly acting with a demonstrated aim to provide in-factual information on Wikipedia for whatever reason quoting policies may be useful as a means to inform the contributor what the Wikipedia community generally expects. Wikipedia is not a platform for indoctrination[edit]Editors are not here to be converted or coerced into conforming with ideas however, they are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia in a way which gives the reader an informed view about a subject or topic covered that is based on facts. This goal cannot be achieved if editors spend their time treating Wikipedia like a social club and occupying themselves with ensuring other users conform to customs. There is a need for guidelines on how to deal with disputes between editors as opinions or interpretations of facts can be foundationally different. The methods for attaining an amicable result in a diplomatic discussion vary significantly depending on the attitudes of those involved with the dispute but this doesn't mean either party is actually de facto wrong therefore quoting policies will not result in a constructive outcome. Attempting to gain a cartel over aspects of Wikipedia is opposing the view that Wikipedia should be a free place for contributors and readers to access or input contributions. The process of forming a Wikipedia cartel commonly involves a group of Editors that collaborate in ceasing control over certain aspects of Wikipedia so that they may have oversight or regulate the contributions made there. Once the self made usergroup has gained control over a specific area of Wikipedia it is common for them to use Wikipedia policies in an attempt to oust "outsiders" or Editors that do not conform to their combined opinions. In some cases these groups can become proportionally large and use this to create the impression of true consensus on an issue. Members of such groups represent a non natural point of view in their contributions or arguments for or against contributions made by other editors because they consider the common goal of their group before any facts on the matter at hand. These sorts of contributions do not conform to the Wikipedia's Five Pillars and are often subject to Committee cases. Using the guide to inform principles can help overcome the aforementioned problems as opinions or guidance are not compelling because of community agreement and they apply directly to the matter at hand. Wikipedia is not a playground[edit]Wikipedia isn't a school and editors are not its students, who as a prerequisite to making constructive contributions need to learn the policies. The only times which policy should be quoted and referenced to is when an editor makes a contribution that is blatantly designed to adversely effect Wikipedia or de facto will do by allowing it to stand. Otherwise it is important that editors are guided by the community onto how to make constructive contributions with rationale that applies to the edit in question. Explaining to a contributor what you think they did wrong and why you think it is wrong often results in a better outcome than immediately assuming they are trying to cause disruption and informing them of policies like a school teacher would with a disobedient student. If an amicable solution cannot be sought by the parties involved there are facilities that enable contributors to resolve disputes. When someone declines your guidance it's out of respect[edit]The fact is no matter how willing or even eager you are to help someone correct something or guide them into doing something in a way which you believe is better, some people will simply decline or indicate that they are not interested in your help. This may seem like an insult however it can be considered a sign of respect from that person. This is because rather than allowing you to spend your precious time writing long help essays to them and then this resulting in them ultimately not following it they decide to tell you in advance. Have you ever tried to say no? According to some social research experiments most people will avoid saying no to someone and instead find a time consuming way to decline a request rather than being completely honest. When asked why many participants in the study indicated that they didn't want to offend or hurt the other person. However, it's not going to offend many people by saying no when they ask you to make a coffee for them. Sometimes Wikipedia editors do get offended or upset when other contributors don't seem to want their help or guidance especially if they feel its important. But just because its important to you does not mean its important to Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopaedia that is designed to engage readers with informative and factual information on the topics they are interested in. It is not a place for editors to spend most of their time that could be spent providing positive contributions stalking down or running around playing helper to every contributor who isn't doing something the way they think it should be done. The reason why discussion pages and talk pages exist is so that you can cooperate and collaborate with other editors about editing Wikipedia in a way that would bring more factual information to a table of discussion or methods to improve an article. If you feel like a user needs help with a specific edit or getting them into the swing of things simply leave a polite, non dictatorial, non critical, positively enforcing and non-bureaucratic message for the person to read and reply if they feel like engaging with you. If they don't then move on. If you notice them blatantly going against Wikipedia policies or doing something which may harm Wikipedia and you can rationally provide reason for this thought then simply communicate this to them. As mentioned in previous paragraphs to this guide, editors are likely to be positive if you do not throw policies at them. But, instead communicate your problem in a rational, amicable and eloquent way so they might actually be inclined to listen to you. If they still ignore you in this situation then consider informing them of policies. All roads lead to Rome[edit]Whether it's judging new comers as negative influences to Wikipedia and antagonizing them in order to get them blocked or banned or it's laying down tests for unsuspecting fellow contributors as to ascertain their worthiness, they all lead to the same place that providing calm and attentive relief where it is welcome would. The difference is when you try to pose challenges and set out to make editors times difficult for varying reasons it leads to it taking longer to get there. Working on a road together and facing cross roads in collaboration always gets the road built quicker than spending your own time and effort creating cross roads and pushing them down the one you've created. This only makes the end goal take longer for everyone to attain and it doesn't serve any purpose but to make everyone's lives difficult. Wikipedia is a fountain of knowledge however, this doesn't mean everyone on it is wise. If you find yourself in the difficult position of having to deal with fabricated challenges laid out by other editors that serve no other purpose than to provoke or antagonize you; for whatever reason it's best to simply disengage. The main goal of this would be to withdraw from partaking in that persons plans and ultimately, they will find themselves being the only ones subject to them. If they persist in disruption against you, such as nominating all your articles for deletion or trying to engage you in edit wars by removing contributions, then consider communicating the fact you feel uncomfortable with their actions using their talk page. Ensure that you maintain decorum and respect. You might find it useful to link all the edits you are unhappy about and warn them that if they continue to harass or provoke you that there will be no other choice than to either report them to administrators or make the issue more public by engaging in formal dispute resolution. In the rare situation that administrators don't provide you with assistance or you feel they could be bias its best to bring a claim up with the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. They are largely impartial and can make compelling or binding resolutions in situations when all other means are exhausted. With everything above said, it's still important that you remember most editors do act in good faith and only want to do what's best. This is by no means an excuse but it maybe a good reason to seriously consider how you approach editors who may appear to be antagonizing you but are in fact trying to help Wikipedia, and not their own egos. This is why it's imperative to engage in respectful dialogue prior to taking or threatening further actions. Only when the other contributor refuses to engage in civil conversation should you regard them as disruptive. Sometimes the line is fine but ultimately it's about keeping in mind the title of this section and that is all roads lead to Rome. Your aim as a Wikipedia editor and contributor should be to provide quality contributions that enable readers from across the face of the Earth to become further enlightened towards the issue they are needing knowledge about. Shields and armour make for a better farmer[edit]In this analogy Wikipedia Editors are the farmers and the means for them to defend themselves are the shields and armour. On the other hand, daggers and fire might achieve the destruction of whatever the farmer intended to destroy but it will likely get rid of the crops in the process, effectively rendering his whole effort to protect them useless. Wikipedia isn't a place for hippy circles or warrior guilds but there is a requirement for contributors to defend themselves when directly confronted or when they observe behaviours that effects the standard of Wikipedia (as opposed to behaviour that imposed against a persons viewpoints.) Examples of this are in cases of vandalism, advertising or generally disrupting the working of Wikipedia. In those situations it's important to remain the shield and armour bearer by using the tools at your disposal to ensure the situation is resolved without causing further disruptions. Here are some common things Wikipedia "farmers" can use to defend their crops without destroying them at the same time:
Don't pretend you do not care[edit]Some Wikipedia contributors try to assert the point that they don't care about Wikipedia as a means to either show disconnection or give the impression they "have better things to be doing but Wikipedia is just a side project." The fact is unless you are a merciless vandal or are unable to biologically conform to social norms you must care otherwise what other reason would you have for spending your precious time providing contributions on a voluntary basis to an Encyclopaedia. Pretending you don't care about the things you do only serves to make you appear stuck up. If you care about Wikipedia then show it because the chances are what you could perceive as a weakness might actually inspire respect and give a cause for mutual ground between you and the other contributor. If you don't actually feel that you care about the issue you're involved with then it's probably time to take yourself away from it because uninspired and under-driven contributors often make boring and sometimes loathsome collaboration partners. This does not mean involve yourself in contributing towards something that you care about so much it could impede your ability to interpret facts and apply them with the all important neutral point of view. However, it does mean involve yourself in things that you feel inspired towards or passionate about making sure the world can lay its eyes upon the glorious thing that is facts and well supported knowledge. It's the difference between "I love my Siberian husky and I want the world to know how great they are" and "I love learning about Huskies and I want to share knowledge about them with the world (the good, the majestic, the bad and ugly.)" If we spend time doing things we enjoy there is a greater chance that those reading the resulting work will enjoy it as well; Additionally it prevents disputes arising from editors who care more about being generally right than the subject itself. Edit counts do not define mastery[edit]Many editors view edit count as a relative way to judge the experience or even mastery of another contributor. Unfortunately the amount of edit counts a user has is only an indication as to the level of engagement and experience the editor has. It doesn't in anyway provide the sole basis for being named a Master on Wikipedia. It's worth considering the definition of mastery and that is to have comprehensive knowledge in a particular subject or activity. In order to factually judge skill it's imperative that you note the work of the person and define the person in your own mind. Ranking people on Wikipedia only serves to divide it and segregate the community, additionally; Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and not a social club. The value of ones contributions are not subject to the amount of contributions they make but the simple factuality and engagement potential of the edits they make. Edit counts and age can help to understand how well versed the respective contributor is in the use of Wikipedia itself however, it does not provide accreditation for their knowledge or ability to apply it. Knowing the places to click and the verses of Wikipedia history doesn't accurately collaborate the persons own mastery of any given area. Here are some top Wikitips for avoiding ranking and making positive judgements on other contributors:
Addictions or extremes of dedication rarely render constructive results[edit]Sometimes contributors become so caught up with the romanticism of the "Wikipedia hero who has edited three quarters of the articles" that they forget to make basic logical deductions. In this case a multitude of editors who have the highest edit counts are in fact addicted to Wikipedia. Many people in this position find that once they begin to sustain losses in their personal life due to their constant attention to Wikipedia that they begin to express themselves in various ways which reflect their suffering during their time on Wikipedia. It also drives an unhealthy desire to "wall off" their edited spaces from other users so that they feel their hard work, for which they have sacrificed so much, cannot be altered (in contrary to the Wikipedia's principles.) Possibly the most interesting factor in this is that when non-effected editors note the symptoms, in the form of edit counts they seem to gravitate towards these people as a source of authority. It's worth considering if following a person suffering from an addiction while simultaneously encouraging (reinforcing) them to partake in it will render results that are in the Wikipedia communities best interests. When you are addicted to Wikipedia you're no longer representing a neutral point of view[edit]Addictions carry many problems with them but one that effects Wikipedia is becoming zealous in your addictive behaviours. This is especially problematic in those that have their behaviours gratified by society. A good example for comparison is when you observe street preachers who are more knowledgeable than most when it comes down to paraphrasing religious verses, but they are also addicted to the Church. These preachers are driven by the gratification which their audience imparts onto them while at the same time being given the ideal excuses for them to continue to partake in their addictive behaviours. If society broadly accepted and condoned alcoholism, or in fact began to show support for it, there would be a very small percent of Alcoholics that would recover. This relates back to the original point in that how can you expect an addict who is consistently gratified for this behaviour to hold a neutral point of view on what he is addicted towards. See also[edit]
|
