Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree
Content moved
[edit](content on discarded idea about considering copyeditors to be "significant contributors" moved to User_talk:Dank55/Copyediting#Okay, on the right track)
- Dan, please drop a note on my talk page regarding this. Scartol and I are going to be doing a series of podcasts about content creation/contribution on Wikipedia and several are going to be dedicated to writing in particular. One is going to be about copyediting specifically. You could come on and discuss your ideas for promoting copyediting - we could all brainstorm together beforehand, too. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Recognition and feedback for copyeditors
[edit]Okay, I was thinking about a push to allow copyeditors to use that "User FA" template to give a count of Featured articles they had copyedited, but the problem is that both that userbox and general consensus considers the concept of "significant contributor" to be the same as someone who is or deserves to be a co-nom on an FA...and that's the opposite of what I want, both because writers won't usually invite copyeditors in the door if the copyeditor gets equivalent credit to the writer, and because this is not at all the relationship that the writer and copyeditor have in the real world. The writer's name goes on the book, not the copyeditor's.
So, it's time to invent a new userbox. Wikipedians are notorious apathetic about new forms of "egoboo" and new userboxes, so it will take a push to get copyeditors interested in proudly displaying the new userbox, but I don't see an alternative at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's not going to work either :) Conversation continued at User_talk:Dank55/Copyediting#Okay, on the right track
Copyeditor recognition
[edit]- Copyediting. JRP asked me to have a look. See my last comment at WT:FAC; I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Considered by whom and in what context? Don't fall victim to this editcountitis discussion :-) I, at least, have always considered anyone who brings an article over the hump to featured status as significant. I was actually going to archive this nom today (it's at the bottom of the list with no support and two opposes), but seeing that both you and MF are now on board, I'll give it more time, but please keep the FAC updated, and don't take forever :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes ma'am. I just got asked today, and I like to respond if possible when someone actually wants me to hack away at their article. I'll get it finished today. "by whom": I don't care, really, I'd just like for more people to act as copyeditors. That probably means getting more recognition, but not so much recognition that writers don't want to ask in copyeditors for fear they'll get the same credit as the writers. That's about it for my opinion; I'll let everyone else work out the details. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't get hung up in trivia about stars, awards, numbers, counts, lists and stats; significant contributions are recognized, and copyeditors are valued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes ma'am. I just got asked today, and I like to respond if possible when someone actually wants me to hack away at their article. I'll get it finished today. "by whom": I don't care, really, I'd just like for more people to act as copyeditors. That probably means getting more recognition, but not so much recognition that writers don't want to ask in copyeditors for fear they'll get the same credit as the writers. That's about it for my opinion; I'll let everyone else work out the details. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Considered by whom and in what context? Don't fall victim to this editcountitis discussion :-) I, at least, have always considered anyone who brings an article over the hump to featured status as significant. I was actually going to archive this nom today (it's at the bottom of the list with no support and two opposes), but seeing that both you and MF are now on board, I'll give it more time, but please keep the FAC updated, and don't take forever :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- On a separate subject, I'm currently talking with people about how to make copyediting "sexier" so that we get more dedicated copyeditors, both before and after article reviews. Would you characterize my contributions as "significant", and would you mind if I up my edit count as a "significant contributor" to this FA? I won't mention this article specifically on my userpage or display a bronze star there; the bronze star is all yours, if it passes :) Does anyone object? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is a great idea, though it's a matter of perspective. I can see how some editors (probably suffering from WP:OWN) may find that less appealing. ("A copy-editor? A significant contributor? Preposterous!") I would suggest that you could use wordings like "primary contributor" and "significant contributor" or high-light the change in role. We do need to make copyediting sexier, but not at the cost of discouraging the research-driven efforts. For example, it takes me two or three weeks of evenings to assemble all the notes for an article like this one, then I write it, then I work and do stub or Start-level research on red-linked topics so that we have few red-links, then I polish. That is a longer process than what you undertook and so that should be recognized in some way BUT that does not in any way suggest that copy editing is any less important to the end result. My focus is narrow, your focus is broad. It's a different animal. But, it does need some way to be recognized. JRP (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reply on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is a great idea, though it's a matter of perspective. I can see how some editors (probably suffering from WP:OWN) may find that less appealing. ("A copy-editor? A significant contributor? Preposterous!") I would suggest that you could use wordings like "primary contributor" and "significant contributor" or high-light the change in role. We do need to make copyediting sexier, but not at the cost of discouraging the research-driven efforts. For example, it takes me two or three weeks of evenings to assemble all the notes for an article like this one, then I write it, then I work and do stub or Start-level research on red-linked topics so that we have few red-links, then I polish. That is a longer process than what you undertook and so that should be recognized in some way BUT that does not in any way suggest that copy editing is any less important to the end result. My focus is narrow, your focus is broad. It's a different animal. But, it does need some way to be recognized. JRP (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. My comments were resolved some time ago but I've watched the copyediting with interest. Its transformed it from a competent article into one thats a real pleasure to read. (No insult intended JRP - you know what I mean). Suppose instead of calling yourself a significant contributor Dan you listed them in a form that more clearly acknowledges your particular skill? Must be a suitable phrase that recognises this art? "Finishing"? "Polishing"? "A to FA in the tap of a key". Fainites barley 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's very kind! We've been brainstorming this, and I think what we're going to do is attempt to create a "market" of copyeditors and writers by encouraging copyeditors to troll the FAC and especially GAN pages for articles where they think their help would be appreciated (for whatever reason), and to offer their services in exchange for future GA and FA collaborations. This could help reduce backlog at FAC and GAN by helping to get prose issues out of the way, make the experience much more pleasant for writers, and increase the love available to copyeditors, which would probably lead to copyeditors taking their training more seriously. On your point of how we represent our services and what we're after, I think the typical copyeditor would be happy with a userbox that says "People have been saying nice things about my copyediting" that links to a userspace page with links to all the places where people have said nice things (like this one!), which will help writers evaluate whether they want to work with that copyeditor or not. But I don't think copyeditors should ask for co-nom credit just for a copyedit, even when it's offered. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say that I'm really uncomfortable with that idea. If an hour or so of my time can go some way towards helping this article, or any other, get promoted, then that's reward enough. All the credit should go to the editors who do the research, put it all together, and bring the article to FAC. I know what a great feeling it is to have an article you've sweated blood over pass FA, or GA, and I wouldn't want to take even one ounce of the credit away from the editors who actually did the hard graft. I'm quite happy writing my own GA/FAs, and, where I can, helping others to do the same. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're not disagreeing with me, that I can see, Malleus. I've been offered co-nom-ship and turned it down, just like you have. On the other hand, I'm in the 5th day of working on Trump Tower Chicago after I started to copyedit, in part because the issues from the re-started FAC just went on and on, and in part because there are issues that need to be settled generally for articles on commercial properties before we can come back, in part because there was a lot to fix, and in part because nothing is easy, everything is a compromise among people who disagree in a variety of ways. I've been offered a co-nom the next time this comes to FAC, and I'm certainly going to take it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am extremely uncomfortable with this and agree with Malleus. It is too much like the quid pro quo that, in my profession, would be considered unethical. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- There are many roles that are required to be filled before an article can go to FA. There is the research phase, the writing, the polishing (adding infoboxes, images, etc.), and copyediting. Sometimes these are done by one individual. More often, more than one is involved to some extent. Generally, I think that the first two steps are the most time-consuming and those consititute "primary contributor" or some other name. I agree with Dank55 that there needs to be additional motivation for others to copyedit articles (with the caveat that it's so easy to copyedit poorly, that we don't want to encourage unqualified people from doing it...) However, there also needs to remain incentive to do the research. I think this whole nonsense about barnstars, and awards, featured stars, etc. are beginning to become too much the point instead of doing good work for the encyclopedia. I want to see this article succeed. I've worked a very long time on it and it would be a matter of personal pride to me if it does. But, let's also keep this process clean.
- If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that Dank55's vote should be excluded. I am protesting the deal he made on the Trump Tower and is proposing for other articles that his copy editing skills are to be offered in exchange for a co-nomination. His suggestion does not reflect on your article, unless you have made a similar deal, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
←I'm not sure that Malleus disagrees with me; I think his disagreement might have been over what he thought might happen (asking for a co-nom for 2 or 3 hours of work), but which won't happen. Mattisse finds the fact that I might eventually get a co-nom for Trump Tower Chicago offensive at the moment, but perhaps this is a matter of distrusting where this kind of arrangement or behavior might lead...which is fine, Mattisse doesn't know me, and is under no obligation to trust me. What is troubling is this notion that keeps coming up that Sandy is some kind of mindless automaton, not capable of making a decision on the merits of contributions outside of running an edit counter, and not capable of taking into account the inherent COI when someone says "I copyedited this article, but I support". Sandy will have no trouble whatsoever interpreting my !vote, and as I said, I planned on not voting at all; I only registered a vote because other people weren't, and I thought it might help Sandy to move this forward, if that's her preference. I skimmed the FAC's looking for an article that needed copyediting in order to avoid the inefficiency of having to cycle back around again, saw that Tony was asking for a copyeditor, and did my thing. Sandy indicated that she was about to archive (fail) the article if I had not shown up. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Sandy. I think she is perfectly capable of making up her mind. And this has nothing to do with "votes". It is about the quid pro quo of copy editing, something that has always been freely offered and that I and others offer without compensation, being contingent on receiving a co-nomination. I do not know why you fee it necessary to do this, but if this becomes common, I will no longer copy edit FAC articles as I want no part of this. Already, you have convinced the editor of Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) to offer you a co- nomination for your services. I find this very sad. He deserves the full credit for his article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy never to get my name on an FA; last I heard, there is no black market for FA co-noms, so being denied one costs me precisely nothing. The only sour note here is your threat to stalk off in a huff; I hope you'll stay. It has to be a community decision how to improve the level of writing and of copyediting, and how to increase the quality and number of FAs. We won't solve anything by beating each other over the head with styrofoam bats. Let's take this to WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if someone takes the time to do a thorough copyedit of an article, they should at least be recognized if the article comes (back) to FAC. I try to recognize those helpful people in my own FA nominations. I agree that there are some cases, although probably rare, in which the copyeditor puts in enough blood, sweat, and tears to deserve a conom if the article comes (back) to FAC. It definitely depends on the situation and the depth of the involvement in the article, and as long as the copyeditor isn't pushing the issue, I don't see a problem with a nominator offering to list the copyeditor as a conom. Karanacs (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy never to get my name on an FA; last I heard, there is no black market for FA co-noms, so being denied one costs me precisely nothing. The only sour note here is your threat to stalk off in a huff; I hope you'll stay. It has to be a community decision how to improve the level of writing and of copyediting, and how to increase the quality and number of FAs. We won't solve anything by beating each other over the head with styrofoam bats. Let's take this to WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Starting over
[edit]Ha! Since this is a talk page on my FA, I'm going to start over and try to clarify my feelings on this. Perhaps it doesn't even involve me at this point, but I hate to see so many well-meaninged people argue. (But I think everyone is assuming good faith.)
- I invited User:Dank55 to this FA because he was a recommended copy-editor and User:Tony1, for one, rightly insisted that I get one. He didn't take the job because I offered him a co-nom. I didn't and wouldn't be likely to, but that is more because I think the whole mess with primary contributors and secondary contributors, barnstars and awards, are somewhat silly. I have a strong belief in WP:OWN. I like having the pat on the back when I get a article featured, but let's not go overboard.
- Despite no offer of co-nom or any reward of any kind, Dank55 did an excellent job with copy-editing. A better and more involved effort than any copy-editor that I've worked with. He should be commended. No, not with a star. But with a big "Thank You" from me and a sincere desire that we can work together again. I hope that's good enough, but I also hope that it's the love of a job well-done that drives him, just as it drives me.
- That said, Wikipedia is secretly capitalist and despite our sincerest desires to promote WP:OWN and open principles, a good amount of very good work on Wikipedia happens because people like the little rewards, the stars, the "Good Articles", the main-page cred. Probably most people on Wikipedia hope for recognition of their good work either within their peer group / Wikiproject. I think the sheer number of articles about semi-encyclopedic television episodes shows that this can go too far, but a lot of good editors grow up from those cliques and do great history work. So, while we are a little disappointed by this truth, it's still the truth and we should seek a balance.
- Dank55 was proposing a way to shift that balance to get more people copy-editing. That is an outstanding goal and one that we should all be supporting. I happen to disagree with the specific means (in part, but not in whole), but the underlying goal is good and necessary. I wish him the best of luck and I hope that a balance can be struck between rewarding a user for their very necessary service and obstructing the FA process with "quid-pro-quo" assistance which is also unhelpful.
I don't know if this summary changes anything, but I hope that we can build a consensus for how to get better and more copy-editing. It's an area of weakness for the project as a whole. JRP (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I posted at WT:FAC to try to get the community involved in the debate; perhaps you want to weigh in there (although you can leave out the very nice things you're saying about me, for which I thank you). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with what happened in this article regarding copy editing. I do have a problem with the way Dank55 "played" Tony the Tiger over Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), making the co-nom essentially contingent on Dank55 working on another FAC attempt. To read all the posts is an uncomfortable foray into emotional manipulation. Tony, who obviously has a deep investment in his article, grew desperate enough to finally agree to the co-nom. I will not copy edit as a quid pro quo for a co-nom. I have no interest in that sort of business deal. If it becomes that, I will opt out. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mattisse: I respect your work, but I must intercede here to say that I believe your edit summary comment misconstrues Dan's motives completely. I don't think Dan is capable of deception frankly. If anything, he tries to please everyone at once, a dubious policy. I wonder whether you'll agree to give him a little slack, and withdraw your suggestion of "blackmail" ... TONY (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sorry and I withdraw it. I apologize to Dank55. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem, and thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I truly am sorry. I did not intent to be so harsh, so thank you for overlooking my behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem, and thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sorry and I withdraw it. I apologize to Dank55. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mattisse: I respect your work, but I must intercede here to say that I believe your edit summary comment misconstrues Dan's motives completely. I don't think Dan is capable of deception frankly. If anything, he tries to please everyone at once, a dubious policy. I wonder whether you'll agree to give him a little slack, and withdraw your suggestion of "blackmail" ... TONY (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with what happened in this article regarding copy editing. I do have a problem with the way Dank55 "played" Tony the Tiger over Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), making the co-nom essentially contingent on Dank55 working on another FAC attempt. To read all the posts is an uncomfortable foray into emotional manipulation. Tony, who obviously has a deep investment in his article, grew desperate enough to finally agree to the co-nom. I will not copy edit as a quid pro quo for a co-nom. I have no interest in that sort of business deal. If it becomes that, I will opt out. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)