I'd like to make a few suggestions about teamwork. Since I'm new here, I do not presume to start a project page. I'll just post my suggestions on this talk page.
- Let others boss you around.
- Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
- Conform to formats, styles, and emerging patterns of article organization.
- Be nice to the other editors.
- Sarcasm seems witty when you're typing, but will the reader really get the point you are trying to make?
- Hurt feelings reduce cooperative spirit and ultimately work against teamwork.
- Be helpful.
- Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copyediting?
- Do you know how to design a template or format a table?
Just a few thoughts. --Ed Poor 17:40, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would suggest that serious editors invite communication, via not only the talk page, but by email and IM, for speed and clarification of disputes and collaborative work. Team work means resolving disputes fairly, without passing them off for others to settle, or impose their will. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That may be a good thing to include as well. I strongly agree with everything Ed posted here, but some of the internal communciation, especially among sysops, has been somewhat wanting. MountainDew 16:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Given the current state of some talk pages, what is the correct method for communicating with these individuals? Not everyone has email or IM available. --Mtur 16:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'd like to encourage more users to make their names available. MountainDew 17:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- If you go to the account creation page, I recently noticed that the email field is now listed as mandatory. Some unannounced change, it seems. And who using Conservapedia would not have email or IM available, except by choice? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 17:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- At my place of employment, external instant messaging is prohibited and enforced with software. While email is available, I am not going to expose my work account. --Mtur 17:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- I recommend against contributing from work, without permission in writing. Why lose your job over a hobby? --Ed Poor 17:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- It would only be difficulty if this site got categorized as hate speech or bigotry by the web filtering software and I tried to get around it. Until such a time, it isn't an issue as long as my objectives are met. All in all its a fairly good company - the IM issue is about having internal communications traveling outside of the intranet. --Mtur 17:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I agree with Mtur. There's nothing wrong with using Conservapedia at work, unless there is a ban on all websites. Most employees are checking stocks and news sites at work anyway. And as many employers monitor email now, websites like Conservapedia are often preferable to email anyway.--Aschlafly 18:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
You could always sign up for a second free email account. MountainDew 18:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- That is there and what is linked for email to me. For those who want to contact me that way, it is available. However, whenever possible I prefer to conduct all communications in public for maximum transparency of process. That way, no one can attribute to me things that I did not say and the full context for what I did say is always available to read. --Mtur 18:07, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your "email this user link" told me:
- This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.
- It seems odd that you are in a discussion about communication as a way to facilitate teamwork, and yet you do not seem eager to use IM or email. --Ed Poor 18:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- My apologies, I haven't selected the checkbox. A valid email has already been added and authenticated. The IM option is not something I can do without actively circumventing software (and port 6667 has also been blocked for years). That said, I still prefer communication in the open to any other option. --Mtur 19:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Your "email this user link" told me:
Identification of sysops
Per Andy, information/instructions have been added to the site area, Conservapedia:Administrators [] Ed and I, among some others, will be working with Andy to develop some guidelines for handling dispute resolution among Sysop's, etc. Input from all current Sysop's is encouraged, once we decide the exact parameters. We don't want to become top heavy with minute rules!
In the interests of transparency, I would like to suggest Bureaucrats and Sysop's add their designation to their sig lines. Not for self-aggrandizement as one user has suggested, but as a means to let users know who is giving suggestions or instruction. Users deserve to know, IMO, exactly who is speaking to them, and what their interests are, who can block them, and who cannot. It is only fair, and we can't expect everyone to go looking up all participants. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 19:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Should it matter who can block a person and not when speaking to a person? Or is this a matter of intimidation "I am saying this and if you argue with me you will be blocked"? Each person is ultimately due the same amount of respect as any other. If something is getting out of hand, then isn't a warning on the user page first more appropriate than the suggestion that arguing with a sysop is enough? --Mtur 19:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, we do require in most areas of society that anyone connected to the government, Census takers, animal control officers, or policemen, readily identify themselves. It never struck me to look at it as you just did, Mtur. What I do see are lots of questions about who, exactly, beside Andy has a "say". You advising another user that apparent bias has been inserted into their edit is all and good, however some might just feel like ignoring you. A Bureaucrat or Sysop, saying the same thing, they would not be so free to ignore, because their are indeed actions we can take. That is the way of the real world, not some online fantasy one, where all treat each other as "equals" and abide by majority rule. It matters who can block a person only when that person is doing something that impacts the site negatively. Most of the Websites, chats and boards that I have been on, ALWAYS identify those with authority over others, with an automatic title moniker on their posts. This is the fist major site I have encountered where that isn't being done, and I among others, think it is very unfair to the users. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 20:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Indeed, when a police officer is working, they are wearing a uniform. However, while wearing that uniform they are expected to have a certain code of conduct above and beyond what the average citizen has. If that is the case and that sysops will not get into arguments with users or engage in questionable reverts - then by all means keep the sysop bit in the signature. However, as soon as you get into a debate with a user and start showing your 'badge' around - it has a chilling effect and discourse is restricted because people are afraid of offending you for fear of getting banned.
- I have no problem at all if sysops have that in their signatures. However, I would be most disconcerted if that means that sysops can behave in ways to a user where if the user behaved in the same way to the sysop, they would get banned. It is important for those people who show the badge to set the highest possible standards for the rest of us to follow. If the standards that the sysop follow are lower than the rest of the users, there will be issues - quite similar to what those who created conservapeida perceive in wikipedia. --Mtur 20:10, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- Well, the shoe fits both sides, Mtur. I would submit that anyone using personal insults to other users, Sysop or not, they should be blocked. Anyone defying instruction from a Sysop or Bureaucrat should likewise expect disciplinary action. All sites have cops. Things have a way of working out. Some Sysop's have blocked users, and other Sysop's have restored them, some more than once, lol. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
At Wikipedia, during my years as an admin, I usually did not identify myself as having sysop rights when simply discussing articles and such. I only "brandished the badge" when giving a warning.
A related example, I am still on Wikipedia's mediation committee, and occasionally I will say as a member of the mediation committee I recommend (blah, blah, blah) because contributors are more inclined to listen to me that way.
However, there's an online custom that you don't "op" yourself on IRC unless you are currently in the process of warning or blocking, etc. Or unless the channel is under frequent attack. If I sign as Sysop Eddie all the time, I wonder if I might alienate some of the "kids" here.
Moreover, I often find that making mild suggestions works better with some people: "a word to the wise is sufficient". Not that I'm telling other sysops to do it my way. We need some men around here who take their tough pills daily! :-) --Ed Poor 08:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- Hmmmmmmm, never been a member of a board or site where the Admins were not clearly identified, Ed. How on earth would members know who is giving correct policy advice, and who isn't? And IRC, isn't that a bit of an archaic reference, in 2007? Well, I have to go unload those sandbags you dropped off......--~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 09:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- When laying down the law, we can say, "I am a sysop and you better (do this)." Or whip out your badge for the occasion. --sysop Ed Poor 09:28, 7 April 2007 (EDT)