FT2

Hi,

I'm FT2. I mostly edit on the English Wikipedia, and keep my main user and talk pages there. I'm a past Arbcom member, Checkuser and Oversighter on enwiki (I requested to step down from the last two in October 2009), with involvement in rollout of RevisionDelete and other tools and proposals there. If you need a hand with anything, or want to reach me, please ask.

You can also reach me by email too.

Thank you

FT2

Current thoughts on top recommendations and runners-up

1. User interface and provision of information:

1a.

• Wizards and guidance. Lots of wizards and guidance.
• Reader feedback.

1b.

• Information tools - eg, to provide a task feed (and plenty of places to add tasks to it), user task manager and filters for "tasks I like", "stuff needing doing", automated crude quality ratings, good quality articles available on other wikis, etc

2. "Senior editor" structure

• Community granted.
• Evidences consistent high standard of knowledge and activity in content and content related work (including interaction with other users), as far as self management of COI and topics of close interest.
• Content rather than admin path
• Recognition, incentivization, "wiki qualification"
• Process learns from RFA "issues to avoid": simplicity, automation, low drama, low time involvement, low gameability, high transparency, little intervention. Pre-set removal process. SecurePoll based.
• Incentive to act well - nobody likes loss of an award.
• Benefits - editors wondering who to rely on; users and admins handling misconduct; patrollers; wider community (encourages uptake of high standards)
• Can be trusted in difficult topic areas to address problem editing (other users restricted to talk pages: "anyone can edit" of thousands, and anyone else willing to show a decent edit standard can join them)
• Looking for this to be where all editors gradually get guided. Unlike adminship (1700 admins) aim is ideally many or tens of thousands of these, "normal for longer term editors".
• Raise average content editing standards and hence also enjoyment/tone, while keeping mass participation.

3. Establish a baseline for quality and focus metrics, incentives and drives, on the "low lying fruit"

• World judges us more by our poor articles or failures.
• Set baseline standards that any article should be able to easily reach (example criteria)
• Aim for the vast numbers of articles needing bringing up to baseline.
• Easy to automate, easy to obtain wide participation
• Most should be able to reach baseline in a few hours, or at most a few weeks; feeds through to GA/FA
• Hammer this in every wizard, every screennote, every way.

4. Project-wide WikiProjects (simple, almost 1/2 a "recommendation", not a difficult one to propose)

• Provises larger teams, universal quality pooling and info, translation, quality spread between projects, assistance, and support
• Collects expertize across all projects
• Supports projects with low levels of access to knowledge on the topic
• Disseminates knowledge and approaches on the topic across langauges
• Central point of reference for information, co-ordination, translation etc on the topic
• Allows non-anonymous experts and those who are knowledgeable but don't want to argue with POV warriors, a valid role within the Wikipedia model (eg forming of a "referees panel" for the WikiProject, a non-mandatory comments and advice page for specialist inquiries, and requests to review proposed edits, sources, stated approaches, etc, to high quality articles within that WikiProject's remit)

Undecided (ideas that are important, but some decision may be needed):

• Recognition and enhancement for established/experienced users (this is different to the idea of a "trusted/senior user" item) - masterclasses, new skills share, enjoyment enhancement, etc.
• Key tasks unattended
• Large scale consensus mechanisms
• Content advisory panel?
• Dispute resolution and collaborative processes
• Thread to re-read: Non-anonymous users (narrow focus)
• this post

Question

• If these were adopted, would the "balance of matters touched on" be good, or would there be major areas with no attention given to them?
• What else is more important or missing?
• Tentative only.