FamilySearch Wiki:How Community Governs Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
(added editorial admin, oversight and mgmt) |
(Editorial quality review) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page is an attempt to link to, categorize, and briefly describe the pages on Wikipedia that enable the community to govern themselves. | This page is an attempt to link to, categorize, and briefly describe the pages on Wikipedia that enable the community to govern themselves. | ||
== | == Links to Wikipedia articles == | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:About] discusses: | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About Wikipedia:About] discusses: | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editorial_oversight_and_control Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control] discusses:<br> | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editorial_oversight_and_control Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control] discusses:<br> | ||
Wikipedia:Arbitration committee | |||
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. | Wikipedia:Dispute resolution | ||
Wikipedia:Consensus | |||
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry | |||
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest | |||
Wikipedia:Vandalism | |||
Wikipedia:AIV | |||
Wikipedia:Requests for comment | |||
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion | |||
Wikipedia:Single-purpose account | |||
== Details == | |||
=== Editorial administration, oversight and management<ref name="WikipediaAbout">from Wikipedia:About</ref> === | |||
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present, around a 75–80% approval rating after enquiry is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia. | |||
A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[5] and its members are elected in three regularly-rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate. | A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[5] and its members are elected in three regularly-rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate. | ||
=== Handling disputes and abuse<ref name="WikipediaAbout" /> === | |||
Main articles: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest | |||
Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon. | |||
*Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone. | |||
*Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach, or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process. | |||
*Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of "Internet sock puppets" or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy. | |||
In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single-purpose accounts. | |||
=== Editorial quality review<ref name="WikipediaAbout" /> === | |||
As well as systems to catch and control substandard and vandalistic edits, Wikipedia also has a full style and content manual and a variety of positive systems for continual article review and improvement. Examples of the processes include peer review, good article assessment, and the featured article process, a rigorous review of articles that are intended to meet the highest standards and showcase Wikipedia's capability to produce high-quality work. | |||
In addition, specific types of article or fields often have their own specialized and comprehensive projects, assessment processes (such as biographical article assessment), and expert reviewers within specific subjects. Nominated articles are also frequently the subject of specific focus under projects such as the Neutrality Project or are covered under editorial drives by groups such as the Cleanup Taskforce. | |||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 20 March 2009
This page is an attempt to link to, categorize, and briefly describe the pages on Wikipedia that enable the community to govern themselves.
Links to Wikipedia articles [edit | edit source]
Wikipedia:About discusses:
- Editorial administration, oversight and management
- Handling disputes and abuse
- Editorial quality review
The article is nicely laid out. It contains sections that summarize each bulleted ussue above, but at the beginning of each section is a link to a page that covers the topic in full. Very nice architecture.
Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control discusses:
Wikipedia:Arbitration committee
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Wikipedia:Consensus
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Wikipedia:Vandalism
Wikipedia:AIV
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
Wikipedia:Single-purpose account
Details [edit | edit source]
Editorial administration, oversight and management[1][edit | edit source]
The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who find that editorial administrator responsibility would benefit their ability to help the community may ask their peers in the community for agreement to undertake such roles; a structure which enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present, around a 75–80% approval rating after enquiry is considered the requirement for such a role, a standard which tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of projects within Wikipedia.
A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help several hundred editors to watch for problematic edits and editors. An arbitration committee sits at the top of all editorial and editor conduct disputes,[5] and its members are elected in three regularly-rotated tranches by an established enquiry and decision-making process in which all regular editors can equally participate.
Handling disputes and abuse[1][edit | edit source]
Main articles: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.
- Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
- Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach, or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process.
- Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of "Internet sock puppets" or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.
In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single-purpose accounts.
Editorial quality review[1][edit | edit source]
As well as systems to catch and control substandard and vandalistic edits, Wikipedia also has a full style and content manual and a variety of positive systems for continual article review and improvement. Examples of the processes include peer review, good article assessment, and the featured article process, a rigorous review of articles that are intended to meet the highest standards and showcase Wikipedia's capability to produce high-quality work.
In addition, specific types of article or fields often have their own specialized and comprehensive projects, assessment processes (such as biographical article assessment), and expert reviewers within specific subjects. Nominated articles are also frequently the subject of specific focus under projects such as the Neutrality Project or are covered under editorial drives by groups such as the Cleanup Taskforce.