Misplaced Pages

:Competence is required: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:36, 22 February 2014 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,034 edits Undid revision 596595273 by Steeletrap (talk) Actually, no. The essay uses this text to differentiate between types of edits.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:56, 13 December 2024 edit undo2601:703:280:c740:68d5:5be1:7697:4100 (talk) →Responding to suspected lack of competence 
(375 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Explanatory supplement to the disruptive editing guideline}}
{{redirect|WP:COMPETENCE|the essay on levels of competence|Misplaced Pages:Levels of competence|the essay on editing about persons legally judged incompetent|Misplaced Pages:Minors and persons judged incompetent}} {{redirect|WP:COMPETENCE|the essay on levels of competence|Misplaced Pages:Levels of competence|the essay on editing about persons legally judged incompetent|Misplaced Pages:Minors and persons judged incompetent}}
{{redirect|WP:CIR|the policy on circular referencing|WP:CIRCULAR}} {{redirect|WP:CIR|the policy on circular referencing|WP:CIRCULAR|the essay on communication|Misplaced Pages:Communication is required}}
{{Supplement|interprets=]|WP:CIR|WP:COMPETENCE|category=]}}
{{Essay|WP:COMPETENCE|WP:CIR}}
{{contentious essay}}
{{nutshell|While most Misplaced Pages editors usually have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, some of them unintentionally disrupt the project and must be competent enough to recognize and end their caused disruption.}}
{{nutshell|Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up.}}
{{quotebox|title=The Triumph of Stupidity|quote=...force tends increasingly to fall into the hands of those who are enemies of civilization. The danger is profound and terrible; it cannot be waved aside with easy optimism. The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.|source=], 10 May 1933 |align=right|width=20%}}
⚫ Misplaced Pages is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. It seems surprising that we are able to work together functionally, but somehow this is what usually happens.


⚫ ] is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. It seems surprising that we are able to work together functionally, but somehow this is what usually happens.
⚫ One of our core Misplaced Pages guidelines that facilitates this is "]." It is good advice, reminding us that when we disagree, everyone involved is (usually) trying to do what they think is best. Sure, we get ] as well, but they're usually quite easy to deal with. They can be blocked from editing, as needed, with little fuss and generally no controversy.


⚫ One of our core Misplaced Pages guidelines that facilitates this is ]. It is good advice, reminding us that, when we disagree, everyone involved is (usually) trying to do what they think is best. We get ] as well, but they are usually quite easy to deal with. They can be ] as needed, with little fuss and generally no controversy.
Where we often see big controversies, though, is with editors who are unintentionally and often unknowingly disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see an unintended side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this tenet that they have come to believe that ''only'' good faith is required in order for an editor be a useful contributor to Misplaced Pages. Sadly, this is not the case at all. '''''Competence is required''''' as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess.


More often, substantial controversies arise when editors unintentionally ] while trying to help it. In such cases, they may not have been able to anticipate a potential for their edits to be disruptive in the first place. As a matter of course, their fellow editors are generally encouraged to assume good faith behind their actions. This principle should not be misconstrued to such an extent that good faith is considered {{em|all}} that is required to be a useful contributor; '''competence is required''' as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. When patterns of behavior emerge that indicate an editor might not be capable of making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, it may be necessary for the community to intervene.
Clearly, every editor is incompetent when doing some types of edits in certain subject areas, so it is important to know or discover one's own limitations.


Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in ] but incompetent in ] or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Misplaced Pages. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of the Misplaced Pages community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact.
== Versus good faith ==


⚫ == What is meant by "competence is required"? ==
Assuming that people are ''trying'' to help seems trivial—but if someone is ''unable'' to help or is sometimes helpful but at others majorly disruptive, this may generate a net loss to a project that must not be allowed to continue. The ] ] might have good intentions, but he's clearly bad for business. We always must value the project as a whole more than we value the contributions of any individual editor.


Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Misplaced Pages have the following competencies attached to them:
So, the next time someone posts on a noticeboard saying "Editor ] is causing problems—here's the diffs to demonstrate this," or "Disruptive editor ] is asking for an unblock," think twice before just "Assuming good faith." The person making the complaint is probably already assuming good faith, and they're concerned about a lack of competence, not a lack of good faith. Both competence and good faith are required to edit usefully. If an editor has ''already demonstrated'' incompetence that causes disruption, no amount of good faith can fix the problem resulting from the editor's lack of competence.


*the ability to '''read and write English well enough''' to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.
== Some common types ==
*the ability to '''read sources and assess their reliability'''. Editors should familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages's guidance on ] and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles.
=== Factual===
** (this is relevant only when citing sources; ] can be done without any knowledge of policies on sources.)
The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking.
*the ability to '''communicate with other editors''' and abide by ].
*the ability to '''understand their own abilities and competencies''', and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.


== What "competence is required" does {{em|not}} mean ==
===Social===
{{shortcut|WP:CIRNOT}}
Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Misplaced Pages to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door.


⚫ *It does not mean "]". We should cut editors (particularly ]) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
Some behavioral issues and personality traits may be correlated with the inability to collaborate in an environment in which collaboration is essential. The Misplaced Pages community assesses editors solely on the basis of their contributions and actions within Misplaced Pages. Blocking an editor who has demonstrated that they cannot participate in Misplaced Pages is not discrimination on the basis of disability, even if that disability contributes to their failure to participate.
⚫ *It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
*It does not mean one must be a ] English speaker. Spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others, and editors with intermediate English skills may be able to work very well in maintenance areas. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an ] on the ].
⚫ *It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help ]
*It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a ] and is not helpful. Always refer to the ''contributions'' and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person. The extra effort required to do that ''is part of the job'', and part of the responsibility of a good editor.
⚫ *It does not mean that Misplaced Pages's ] does not apply when talking to people about required competence. Rude and uncivil comments are discouraging, and can raise mental health barriers against recognizing one's mistakes or improving one's skills.
*It does not mean we assume lack of competence based on a user's ].


==Responding to suspected lack of competence==
===Bias-based===
{{shortcut|WP:CIRRESP}}
Some editors hold personal opinions so strongly that they cannot edit neutrally and collaboratively with other editors. If this continues to be disruptive and a user is unable to step away from topics where they have strong biases, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places ''other'' than their pet topic. It is often very difficult to see one's own biased editing, though it is easy to see that of others.


One must take care when responding to the perceived lack of competence in others. Be mindful of what incompetence {{em|is}} and {{em|is not}}. Incompetence is not ''lack of knowledge''. Responding to competence issues requires care and understanding of the background of a situation.
===Language difficulty===
If someone's native language is not English and they can't communicate in English well—including discussing things with other editors—consider trying to encourage them to edit a Misplaced Pages in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.


There is also the problem of editors whose command of English is sufficient for colloquial use, and who can make themselves understood on talk pages and in other informal circumstances, but who do not write sufficiently well in English that their contributions to '''''articles''''' are acceptable. These editors should also be encouraged to edit the Misplaced Pages of their native language or other languages they are more conversant with, and to limit their contributions on English Misplaced Pages articles to edits which do not require writing in English which is beyond their capabilities. *'''Language issues:''' The English-language Misplaced Pages is the largest Wikimedia project, and for that reason, people will tend to come here first to contribute. Poor or dodgy use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems. Often, people may not be aware that there may be a Misplaced Pages in their native language, where they could contribute more effectively and where their contributions are needed. If problems seem to arise from a language barrier, consider directing the user to the Misplaced Pages in their native language; the ] may be able to assist.
*'''Repeated mistakes:''' If a user is making repeated mistakes, verify whether the user has been given any advice or instruction in {{em|how}} to do things correctly. Most users ] but simply may not know how to do so. If it appears no-one has explained a problem with their edits, doing so should {{em|always}} be the first step. There are two ways to explain mistakes, (a) ] and (b) ]. In either case, use their ] to introduce yourself, provide ] while explaining the problems, and direct them to further readings or to forums such as ] or ]. In the ''vast majority'' of cases, this will be sufficient and no further action will be needed.

*'''Alleging incompetence:''' It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While ] is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them ''less'' receptive to instruction.
===Immaturity===
*'''When all else fails:''' Sanctions such as ]s and ]s are always considered a ''last resort'' where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to ] or another similar venue, you should have exhausted ''all reasonable'' attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia.
Some folks just can't act with the degree of maturity required to edit effectively. This may simply be because they are too young: because everyone can edit on Misplaced Pages, there is no restriction on age, and although many young people make good editors, some mature at different ages. If you think somebody's talking like a preteen, it might be because they are. Encourage them to come back in a few years.

===Editing beyond your means===
Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Misplaced Pages works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. Encourage them to keep to the simple things, or suggest a break if they're getting frustrated about their edits getting reverted.

===Lack of technical expertise===
Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, differences in skill sets are not a problem.

===Grudges===
Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." ], this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases.

===Newbie===
Most of us were pretty incompetent at editing Misplaced Pages when we started. We might not have understood wikicode, we might not have ], or we may not have fully appreciated exactly ]. The great thing about this situation is that ''it's easily fixable''. ], and soon they'll be making themselves useful.

⚫ == What "Competence is required" does not mean ==

⚫ * It does not mean "]." Misplaced Pages has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly newbies) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
⚫ * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
⚫ * It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence.
* It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article."
⚫ * It does not mean that Misplaced Pages's ] does not apply when talking to incompetent people. Rude and uncivil comments may discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills.
* Finally, it does not mean we will give any good-faith editor an infinite number of opportunities to make themselves useful. If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone ''still'' isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate.

== The bottom line ==

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. Don't spend too much time trying to figure out the reason for the disruption, because many trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly—but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable time frame, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. '''''Not every person belongs at Misplaced Pages, because some people are not sufficiently competent.'''''

== This essay... ==

... is often criticized for being ]. The most sensible defense to such criticism is that the primary purpose of this essay is not to present it to competence-lacking editors to let them know they are incompetent. After all, as argued here, they are either incapable of recognizing their own incompetence or are incapable of changing their behavior. Rather, the purpose of this essay is to inform discussion amongst other editors of how to deal with issues arising from incompetence. So, if WP:COMPETENCE seems to apply to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so.


== See also == == See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}

* ], the tendency for incompetent people to be unaware of their incompetence—and for highly skilled people to believe that people capable of their achievements are more numerous than they really are
⚫ * ], a class of incompetent editors
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
⚫ * ] – a class of incompetent editors
* ]
{{div col end}}

{{Misplaced Pages essays|building}}

Latest revision as of 02:56, 13 December 2024

Explanatory supplement to the disruptive editing guideline "WP:COMPETENCE" redirects here. For the essay on levels of competence, see Misplaced Pages:Levels of competence. For the essay on editing about persons legally judged incompetent, see Misplaced Pages:Minors and persons judged incompetent. "WP:CIR" redirects here. For the policy on circular referencing, see WP:CIRCULAR. For the essay on communication, see Misplaced Pages:Communication is required.
This is an explanatory essay about the disruptive editing guideline.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcuts
Explanatory essay about the disruptive editing guideline
Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack or otherwise aggravate the dispute.
This page in a nutshell: Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up.

Misplaced Pages is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. It seems surprising that we are able to work together functionally, but somehow this is what usually happens.

One of our core Misplaced Pages guidelines that facilitates this is assume good faith. It is good advice, reminding us that, when we disagree, everyone involved is (usually) trying to do what they think is best. We get people who intentionally damage the project as well, but they are usually quite easy to deal with. They can be blocked from editing as needed, with little fuss and generally no controversy.

More often, substantial controversies arise when editors unintentionally disrupt the encyclopedia while trying to help it. In such cases, they may not have been able to anticipate a potential for their edits to be disruptive in the first place. As a matter of course, their fellow editors are generally encouraged to assume good faith behind their actions. This principle should not be misconstrued to such an extent that good faith is considered all that is required to be a useful contributor; competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. When patterns of behavior emerge that indicate an editor might not be capable of making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, it may be necessary for the community to intervene.

Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Misplaced Pages. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of the Misplaced Pages community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact.

What is meant by "competence is required"?

Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Misplaced Pages have the following competencies attached to them:

  • the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.
  • the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles.
    • (this is relevant only when citing sources; copyediting can be done without any knowledge of policies on sources.)
  • the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
  • the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.

What "competence is required" does not mean

Shortcut
  • It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
  • It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
  • It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. Spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others, and editors with intermediate English skills may be able to work very well in maintenance areas. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page.
  • It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence.
  • It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person. The extra effort required to do that is part of the job, and part of the responsibility of a good editor.
  • It does not mean that Misplaced Pages's civility policy does not apply when talking to people about required competence. Rude and uncivil comments are discouraging, and can raise mental health barriers against recognizing one's mistakes or improving one's skills.
  • It does not mean we assume lack of competence based on a user's protected class.

Responding to suspected lack of competence

Shortcut

One must take care when responding to the perceived lack of competence in others. Be mindful of what incompetence is and is not. Incompetence is not lack of knowledge. Responding to competence issues requires care and understanding of the background of a situation.

  • Language issues: The English-language Misplaced Pages is the largest Wikimedia project, and for that reason, people will tend to come here first to contribute. Poor or dodgy use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems. Often, people may not be aware that there may be a Misplaced Pages in their native language, where they could contribute more effectively and where their contributions are needed. If problems seem to arise from a language barrier, consider directing the user to the Misplaced Pages in their native language; the Local Embassy may be able to assist.
  • Repeated mistakes: If a user is making repeated mistakes, verify whether the user has been given any advice or instruction in how to do things correctly. Most users want to contribute productively but simply may not know how to do so. If it appears no-one has explained a problem with their edits, doing so should always be the first step. There are two ways to explain mistakes, (a) direct explanation and (b) showing the better way. In either case, use their talk page to introduce yourself, provide diffs while explaining the problems, and direct them to further readings or to forums such as Misplaced Pages:Teahouse or Misplaced Pages:Help desk. In the vast majority of cases, this will be sufficient and no further action will be needed.
  • Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.
  • When all else fails: Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia.

See also

Misplaced Pages essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article construction
Writing article content
Removing or
deleting content
Essays on civility
The basics
Philosophy
Dos
Don'ts
WikiRelations
Essays on notability
Humorous essays
About essays
About essays
Policies and guidelines
Category: