Grants talk:IdeaLab/Wikademy

Comments from I JethroBT (WMF)

Hi Sleyece, and thanks for your idea for Wikademy. I wanted to let you know of a few spaces on English Wikipedia that share some of the same goals as this idea. The closest example of a guided tutorial for new editors is The Wikipedia Adventure, which I know is used for training new editors in some institutions in the United States and elsewhere. There is also the Teahouse, a space editors can use to ask questions to other editors about nearly anything related to contributing on Wikipedia, such as how to perform a certain kind of edit, where to find pages on certain kinds of markup, or how to navigate a conflict they may encounter. I would consider looking through these spaces if you're not familiar with them yet, as they may provide a similar kind of help to newcomers that you are considering in this idea, or they may give you ideas of how to try something different with this space.

In terms of starting out, I think it will be important to explain how Wikademy is going to be different or offer something unique in terms of helping new editors compared to existing help spaces on English Wikipedia. Once that is clear, I think a next step is to consider what kind of skills or expertise is needed to create and maintain Wikademy, and to start identifying and reaching out to do that work. There is also some general guidance about a few approaches that idea creators could consider to implement their idea. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Also add en:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and editor-mentoring which teaches quite a few things, in a personalized manner.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

@Sleyece: I oppose this idea. We have an extraordinary amount of new editors' resources on the English Wikipedia. Yes, there is a learning curve, but we have more than enough new editors' resources to deal with it. For example, the basic welcome template {{subst:welcome}} provides links to the most important stuff new editors need to know, explained simply for them to understand.

I disagree with your indicators of success: [. . .]there will be a marked decrease in blocks of users with less that six months experience. So if administrators, instead of blocking new editors, scare them away by being overly aggressive with them, is that success? And if administrators are corrupt and look the other way when faced with obvious disruption instead of blocking them, is that success? If newcomers improve from early mistakes after suffering short blocks and months later get another short block for unrelated reasons, would that be failure even though recidivism was reduced?

Also, what if the problem isn't newbies drowning in complex policy, but instead contemptuousness on the part of experienced editors, or most newcomers having promotional or malicious intentions when they join Wikipedia?

For all these reasons, I am  Opposed to this idea. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what I like to call a "Turtle Marriage Argument." Back during the U.S. Gay Marriage Debate, there was an episode of Bill O' Reilly where he said something to the effect of "If Gay people are allowed to marry, what's next, people marrying turtles?" From then on, I have associated all unrelated exaggerations to that moment of TV Gold. -- Sleyece (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Sleyece: You mean a Slippery slope fallacy? No, my point that you were referring to was warning of w:Causation vs correlation. And that wasn't even my main point, which was about how we have multiple versions of this already. And you know very well that the SSM debate isn't technically over. And IDK what you mean by "TV Gold". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the "multiple versions" that are in place are even remotely enough to address the problem. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)