Wikipedia opening a Teahouse?, Not to be confused with Teahot Options

[melloden]

I noticed this developing "Teahouse" project today. It seems to be yet another one of their make-new-editors-fit-in initiatives, and given that it's being organized by "community fellows" I would assume that the WMF is paying for this.

The Teahouse is a populated, user-friendly welcome center/help space that organizes experienced editors to actively reach out to new users in a many-to-many setting and provides on-wiki encouragement and peer support to promising new editors to promote increased engagement and retention.

Here's the problem I see with them wasting time and money on things like this, which are destined to end up as useless like every previous program with the same goal (Wiki Guides? Mood Bar? Wiki Love?): Wikipediots don't want to be "user-friendly" and "reach out." They're usually nerds, antisocial Internet addicts, or awkward social outcasts who don't understand the concepts of "encouragement" or "peer support."

Why does the WMF not realize this? Or does this Teahouse idea actually have a chance or succeeding? I doubt it.

[Mister Die]

I don't really see the whole big deal with "reaching out" or anything anyway. The problem isn't meeting Wikipedia users who are going to be nice to you, the problem is coming up against those who don't and who will move the heavens and the earth to make sure that whatever position they hold or whatever subject they wish to dominate stays under their control.

[Abd]

I don't really see the whole big deal with "reaching out" or anything anyway. The problem isn't meeting Wikipedia users who are going to be nice to you, the problem is coming up against those who don't and who will move the heavens and the earth to make sure that whatever position they hold or whatever subject they wish to dominate stays under their control.

If one is "involved" with arbitration procedures, one is, according to the guideline posted, not eligible to be a host. Does this mean that only editors without experience with conflict on Wikipedia are going to host newcomers?

If so, allow me to predict utter failure, melt-down, as the new editors, advised by inexperienced hosts, rely upon the site guidelines and policies, and advice from those who believe that these policies and guidelines are enforced, and discover that doing so can be hazardous to your wiki-health.

Of course, if a host has a long editing history and has simply dropped any issue that ran into conflict -- some people will do that --, and if the new user is also so inclined, it might work. And this, then, explains why the serious POV pushers among the administrative corps can get away with it. Much of the community stays away from conflict. Or tries to. Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost.

I've seen people who stayed out of conflict for years, then were abruptly and rapidly site-banned, when they ran into opposition that perplexed and amazed them, and they reacted as normal human beings, believing that, surely, they'd be protected by site policies and guidelines.

Nope. The site policies and guidelines don't have block buttons. And if you don't protest when an administrator inappropriately blocks a user, you may find that nobody will protest when the administrator blocks *you.*