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.



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.

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.

I was invited to participate at the Teahouse but turned down the offer since it was not limited to English WP and I have no desire to learn about, participate in, or promote in any way Wikimedia Commons...

Basically I believe that the "tea house" concept is to establish a big help desk for editing tips, recommendations of where certain content might be best applicable (WP vs. Commons vs. Wiktionary, etc.), and so forth.

The concept seems related to helping serious new editors through the steep learning curve at WP.

I just found the original email, which did come from a WMF employee, I believe:

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.*

It looks like a way for more people to understand editing policies, so it would seem a good use of a bit of money, particularly with worries about the quality of biographies. Presumably it's not going to cost much or possibly nothing. Does any one know how much?

The "cost" will get sunk into the salaries of the one or two or three Wikimedia Foundation staff members who will spend their time working on this very, very important initiative. The fact that Carrite was deemed to have a "special 'knack' for working with new users" shows you that only the top-most intelligent and savvy of WMF employees are being assigned to this very, very important initiative. So, we might estimate that their salaries are in the $70K to $80K range.

I wonder what sort of weed will be available?

I do hope they've got some of that good Canadian shit.

Funny line on Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts:



Guess high schools these days aren't teaching their children anything useful, as Wikipedia has a disclaimer AND anyone here can give you five examples to the contrary of this person's claim.

How does blatantly lying to new users convince them to continue editing Wikipedia? I don't understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Non-free_images

AbigailAbernathy doesn't understand the concept of "fair use" either.

Ah, the blind leading the blind. That's the Wikipedia Way™, I recall.

Yeah but you're just making a little girl sad.