Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:53, 20 March 2012

The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

This page in a nutshell: Be clear, verbose, and open-minded when faced with new article editors.

This guideline is intended to help avoid incendiary situations resulting from the inevitable clash between established editors and newcomers.

Editors who are new to a particular article, or are new to Misplaced Pages in general, often make contributions that are quickly rejected by its established community of editors. These rejections can occur for a variety of reasons. In any case, it is important for an established editing body to be welcoming to newcomers, to respond to new opinions on an article's direction with an open mind, and to reject inappropriate changes with the requisite sensitivity, should a rejection be warranted.

There are similarly a number of steps a new contributor can take in order to facilitate the serious consideration of their ideas among the community of established editors.

Responding thoughtfully

One of Misplaced Pages's Five Pillars is to provide a contribution environment that is respectful and civil. That goal is served by carefully considered responses to contributors' requests for clarification when their contributions are rejection. Listening and responding thoughtfully can be the difference between inviting a potentially valuable new editor for a long-term stay and irrevocably souring their view of the community.

Upon rejection, it is natural for a contributor to attempt justification of their addition. Upon initial refusal, a contributor will make what they believe to be a more careful explanation. Some sensitivity to the efforts of the contributor demands more than an off-the-cuff rejection:

• Avoid summarily dismissing a contributor's explanation, especially by citing Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read. Snide or flip generalizations rarely result well.
• Present counter-arguments with some degree of detail, rather than merely linking to a policy. Reasons for rejection will help the back-and-forth to converge, and offer the best chance of ultimately resulting in understanding, for both sides.

Changing consensus

Major edits, especially those that pose a conflict with the article's current direction, are best aired on the talk page before implementation to see what the reaction will be. A consensus may exist among the established editing body of an article, and human nature is to view a major undiscussed change as unwelcome.

• A presently prevailing majority opposition does not validate a prima facie claim that the new proposal is an attempt to upset consensus. A new addition may, in fact, provide something new to consider, regardless of the immediate negative emotional response that such a change might normally evoke.

• Where a proposal repeats a previous one, and consensus against the proposal resulted, the new contributor should be provided with appropriate diffs, and an explanation of why it seems that their proposal is a rehash of the prior one.

• Keep in mind, however, that consensus can change. A proposal that repeatedly appears, regardless of a previous consensus for rejection, may in fact be a sign that the proposal is worth revisiting.

• One reason a new contribution may result in a rehashing of old issues is that the article in its present form is accurate but not clear, leading to misunderstanding or confusion by readers — and may be a sign that the article is in need of revision.

Established editors should bear in mind that their involvement in previous discussions of various proposals may give them a mindset that is blinkered to the novelty of a new proposal that is only superficially similar to an old one. A useful guard against such a mindset is the process of explanation of the similarity, which provokes some thought about the new contribution and avoids knee-jerk rejection.

Consensus building

It is natural for some controversy to arise over the value of proposed additions. However, a failure to respond to explicit and clear suggestions may indeed constitute a refusal to engage in consensus building.

• An extended discussion does not in itself constitute interference with building consensus.
• Suggest rewording, or identification of points needing sources, to make it clear to the contributor what is needed.
• Avoid pejorative use of WP:OR, WP:Soap, WP:Fringe and the like to assail an unwelcome view. Where it is possible, the goal is to find sources supporting various usages and viewpoints to result in a resolution based upon WP:NPOV.

It is easy to be caught up in a "one-way-and-only-one" controversy. Counterproductive argument can be avoided by assuming at the outset that there is a valid plurality of usages and views, and by subduing expression of strong attachment to one's initial conceptions before the discussion matures.

Critiquing with guidelines and policies

WP guidelines and policies are spelled out on their respective pages, and provide guidance toward good content and productive behavior. But the application of the general policy to the particular case takes judgment that may be controversial. The appearance of cavalier rejection without explanation is inflammatory and may result in a hostile encounter on Talk pages that is hard to correct.

• Don't just link to a policy; policies are complex and contain many details and cases. Mention what part of the policy is relevant to the discussion.
• Identify what part of the disputed content is not compliant with the relevant policy, providing quotes of the offending material.
• Take extreme care with links to WP:OR, WP:Syn, WP:RS, WP:POV fork, WP:Fringe, WP:Undue, because unsupported links can be seen as a pejorative and hastily conceived reaction by the editor raising the concern.

It should be borne in mind in citing WP:RS that primary sources are acceptable for establishing particular facts when worded properly to maintain a WP:NPOV. Secondary sources are necessary to establish notability only for the subject of the article as a whole, and WP:Notability is not an issue for a subtopic.

Also, citing WP:Undue suggests that a minor topic is being given more prominence in the article than it deserves. That objection may be mitigated by suggesting detail of the minor topic be explained under a separate page devoted to the minor topic. A separate page requires establishment of notability. Care must be taken to distinguish discussion of a topic from discussion of a point of view per se, as the latter is subject to criticism as a WP:POV fork. These two often can be separated by a careful choice of wording and sources.

Example

Compare the comment accompanying a rejection or reversion of a contributions that says simply:

This contribution doesn't satisfy WP:SYN.

in contrast with,

The statement "so-and-so" appears to go beyond the statement "thus-and-thus" provided by the source x: please provide additional sourcing as required by WP:SYN.

Reading the first version, the contributor is simply mystified that their contribution is not accepted, and their attention may not turn at all to the offending statement "so-and-so". They are likely to feel the first version is abrupt, vague, and ill-considered. In contrast, the second version indicates exactly what is thought to be the problem and how to fix it. The contributor may not agree, but it looks like the contribution was read, and like some change might fix matters. A constructive interchange appears more likely than in the first case.

It doesn't suffice to link policy without explanation. A policy must be judged to apply, and that judgment has to be explained, both as to how the offending text can be seen to be an example of what the policy deals with, and also an identification of just what part of the text constitutes that example.

One-line edit summaries

A feature of WP is the one-line edit summary. The key guideline here is:

• Expand on important information. Readers who see only the summary might not get the entire picture. Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, use the Talk page to give more information, adding "See Talk" or "See Discussion Page" to the summary.

When material is rejected, the terse one-line summary without Talk-page amplification works best with obvious reversions. A reversion with a one-line edit summary hardly ever works for serious, extended contributions; the one-line edit summary easily can lead to an unproductive and unpleasant Talk-page exchange.

If the one-line edit summary employs links to a policy or guideline like WP:OR, WP:Syn or so forth, it is quite likely to result in a Talk-page engagement because the contributor is unlikely to view their addition as a violation. With that in mind, the one-line edit using such links should be supplemented with a Talk-page explanation that frames subsequent discussion, or worded in a way unlikely to set up an irritated Talk-page exchange. For example, a one-line edit summary:

"This edit appears to violate WP:Syn. If you differ, please discuss it on the Talk page."

might avoid an edit war.

Summary

A refusal to explain reasons for rejection, claiming policies are self-explanatory and that a link to policy is all that is necessary, and following attempted defense by going to AN/I with the claim that a contributor is "challenging the rules" by a refusal to learn policy, is a poor approach. However, it is a methodology employed by some. This guideline is intended to promote real discussion instead.

References

1. "Failure or refusal to "get the point"". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
2. "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". See "Signs of disruptive editing: Rejects or ignores community input". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
3. For criteria regarding such interference, see "Signs of disruptive editing: Does not engage in consensus building". WP:Disruptive editing. Misplaced Pages. 12 March 2012.
4. "Attributing and specifying biased statements". Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
5. "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Misplaced Pages:Notability. Misplaced Pages. 27 February 2012.
6. "How to summarize". Help:Edit summary. Misplaced Pages. 15 February 2012. Retrieved 2012-03-15.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Navigating conflict

• Misplaced Pages proposals
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution