Visual aid creation/improvement
[edit]Strong visual aids are critical to realizing the potential of Wikipedia. I have developed strong skills in the creation of tables, familiarized myself with licensing issues that often lead to the deletion of good photographs and images, created useful maps, and contributed photographs of my own.
Conflict resolution
[edit]Minimizing the negative impact of overblown rhetoric, strong bias, threats, etc. on the quality of Wikipedia articles. Reaching out to editors with opposing points of view to find mutually-acceptable middle ground.
- Alex Nimo -- a clarification of the notability guideline, how it relates to other, more specific guidelines, etc.
- Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – I participated in protecting article from a sustained effort by one editor to insert anti-Franken bias (in roughly March, 2007.) The editor, among other things, repeatedly attempted to insert references to his own blog, without disclosing his authorship. Three Revert Rule enforcement, proposed arbitration, and mediation were all involved in this saga. I tried to keep the focus on reducing the tenor of the rhetoric, and focus on the issues rather than each other. It was no "quick fix," but the sustained effort paid off over time. (Note: there really was no resolution, as the blogger seems to have simply given up; the issue could come up again at any time.)
- Heather Wilson – another issue of partisan bias. This was shortly after the above issue, but overlapped somewhat. I played more of a facilitator role this time, working toward consensus among all parties, and expressing agreement with both sides at various times. We hit an important benchmark by summarizing the DCYF issue in a relatively neutral way; also, a sock puppet was identified and blocked during the process, which improved the tone of the discussion considerably.
- More mediation at Dante's - editors got into a heated argument. I suggested a new approach, moving the focus back to the content of the article. One party opted out, but not unpleasantly.
- The Kevin Mitnick article is controversial, and bore hallmarks of being edited by heavily biased parties: strong language, piecemeal sentences, gaps in the article. I believe I improved its quality here, nudging it in the proper direction. -Pete 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Encouraging collaboration: an editor seems to be running amok, with a great deal of editing that is out of step with Wikipedia procedures. I gently suggested that the relevant committee check in with him/her, which I hope will avert a heightening of emotion, and allow this user develop as a strong member of the community. Also suggested an administrative block, which was denied, but prompted strong words from an administrator. So far, things are looking up.
Prompting an update from a more knowledgeable editor
[edit]- Georgia's 10th congressional district – a simpler issue, but a good example of the collaborative benefits of Wikipedia. I inserted true, but outdated information, in the hopes that somebody else would find more recent information and bring the article up to date. It worked - see here.
Vandals are everywhere, and range from obvious/blatant acts to more subtle forms. I try to revert acts of vandalism (like here) and communicate clearly with vandals in the course of my editing; I believe this has the effect of either chasing them away, or showing them the value of editing in a constructive manner.
Sensible organization of categories, policies around image uploads, deletion and renaming of articles, etc. make Wikipedia more inviting to editors, and thereby improve the community that improves the encyclopedia. I have contributed to many such issues, notably in the categorization of Referendums and related articles, the image upload procedure, and renaming of many Oregon-related articles.