User:Giano/The_future, Giano shows leadership Options

[Mr. Mystery]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

[Casliber]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

I think there are signs this is changing. Some content contributors have gotten more involved this year and are sticking around thus far.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

[everyking]

I think there are signs this is changing. Some content contributors have gotten more involved this year and are sticking around thus far.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

Some serious content contributors don't want to get involved with adminstrative issues. Others, as you might recall, are not allowed to get involved in administrative issues. I don't think there are very many who fall into neither group. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[sbrown]

Some serious content contributors don't want to get involved with adminstrative issues. Others, as you might recall, are not allowed to get involved in administrative issues. I don't think there are very many who fall into neither group.

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

To be fair, I can think of quite a few who fit that bill. A few of them on here even.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

To be fair, I can think of quite a few who fit that bill. A few of them on here even.

To be frank, I cannot name any person on Wikipedia who improved as an editor after becoming an admin. I am, however, finding a lot of admins who had some degree of editorial skill and human resources talent before their RfAs but almost immediately became sloppy, touchy and puerile afterwards. A few of them on here even!

[Lar]

To be frank, I cannot name any person on Wikipedia who improved as an editor after becoming an admin.

I wrote my first(1) FA after becoming an admin. Whether that's a sign that I improved as an editor is not necessarily clear to me

1 - and so far, my only one... writing an FA takes a significant chunk of time. Or did me anyway.

[MBisanz]

To be frank, I cannot name any person on Wikipedia who improved as an editor after becoming an admin.

I wrote my first(1) FA after becoming an admin. Whether that's a sign that I improved as an editor is not necessarily clear to me

1 - and so far, my only one... writing an FA takes a significant chunk of time. Or did me anyway.

I had 1 DYK when I passed RFA, I now have 25 DYKs, 2 FLs, and 1 GA, although I do have to admit that most of them are on boring topics.

[Kelly Martin]

I had 1 DYK when I passed RFA, I now have 25 DYKs, 2 FLs, and 1 GA, although I do have to admit that most of them are on boring topics.

And I bet you cut a stunning sight in your Wikipedia Dress Uniform, what with all the cabbage you get to wear to go with all that alphabet soup.

And yet, despite all that, you have still failed to do anything to actually help create an encyclopedia.

[MZMcBride]

I had 1 DYK when I passed RFA, I now have 25 DYKs, 2 FLs, and 1 GA, although I do have to admit that most of them are on boring topics.

And I bet you cut a stunning sight in your Wikipedia Dress Uniform, what with all the cabbage you get to wear to go with all that alphabet soup.

And yet, despite all that, you have still failed to do anything to actually help create an encyclopedia.

Wait a minute. Acronyms and initialisms aside, MBisanz is saying he's created featured lists and new articles (with "Did you know" hooks). Yet he's "failed to do anything to actually help create an encyclopedia"? I'm lost.

[Kelly Martin]

Wait a minute. Acronyms and initialisms aside, MBisanz is saying he's created featured lists and new articles (with "Did you know" hooks). Yet he's "failed to do anything to actually help create an encyclopedia"? I'm lost.

"Did you know" hooks are rarely encyclopedic; they're closer to "hey, look at the neat meaningless trivia I discovered", the sort of thing that the rest of us use Twitter to get. "Featured lists" are a concept invented by Wikipediots jealous that their writing skills (or political savvy) are too lame to negotiate the Featured Article minefield, so they too could get wikicabbage on their wikiuniforms. Creating lists is not remotely encyclopedic behavior; at best that is almanac level work.

When you guys start writing good, solid, high-level syntheses of broad topics for consumption by a general audience, that's when you'll be creating an encyclopedia. Discovering and cataloging mindless trivia doesn't cut it.

[Cla68]

When you guys start writing good, solid, high-level syntheses of broad topics for consumption by a general audience, that's when you'll be creating an encyclopedia. Discovering and cataloging mindless trivia doesn't cut it.

To return back to the original subject of this thread, I think Wikipedia has lost a lot of editors who had the potential of being able to do what you mention above, but left after they saw how disorganized, amateurish, and chaotic Wikipedia's administration was. The first time a relatively inexperienced editor takes a complaint to ANI, AN, or Jimbo's talk page, the response they receive is really important. If it's ignored or answered in a flippant, insipid, or ineffective way, then don't be surprised if many of them suddenly decide that there are much better things that they could be doing with their time.

By the way, Giano has opened another page to discuss possible solutions here. RDH has already made some excellent suggestions.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[sbrown]

The first time a relatively inexperienced editor takes a complaint to ANI, AN, or Jimbo's talk page, the response they receive is really important. If it's ignored or answered in a flippant, insipid, or ineffective way, then don't be surprised if many of them suddenly decide that there are much better things that they could be doing with their time.

And of course if there blocked there very unlikely to come back.