User talk:Darkfrog24/Speed

I would like to invite @Pi zero, Gryllida, Ca2james: and anyone else who wants to (yes even YOU) to contribute to, trim, change, and otherwise work on this Wikinews essay and prepare it for submission to the community. I believe it directly addresses some of the issues that have come up in the past week and a half. Please contribute as much or as little as you would like. In its current, initial form, some of it is what I believe and some of it is what I am guessing that other people believe. I know we on Wikinews have "never assume," but I have decided that "assume good faith" is a better place to start. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, you're not remotely qualified to write essays about how Wikinews should work. If you were clueful about how the project does work, that at least would be a place to start; necessary though not sufficient. But (unless you're a mind-bogglingly good liar) you don't even have a clue, after having several years here in which you could have learned, about why we do not have Assume Good Faith. And your total failure to respect other users or the project is the way you have succeeded over the past... has it been a couple of weeks yet?... in turning the entire project into a living hell.

Of course, all this is related (these things always connect to each other) to your persistent confusion between somebody being paid to do something, and somebody being an expert at it; and your persistent mistaking of what we do here for what professional journalists would be doing even if they were working for a particularly reputable news org — is it not obvious that the very fact they are being paid radically changes the nature of what they're doing? As well as the fact that they're not on a wiki, also radically changing the nature of what they're doing. As well as what we're doing on Wikinews being vastly different from what is done on Wikipedia because of those core things about Wikinews that you have managed to not learn for several years. It doesn't fundamentally matter, for Wikinews purposes, whether you're paid to write (nor, if so, what you're paid to write); everything about this project is tuned to each individual's accumulation of earned reputation on Wikinews, a fact you have also (barring duplicity) clearly altogether failed to learn along with failing to learn how we do it. As stunningly illustrated by that remark you made about Wikinews being a wiki "where no one's credentials are known." --Pi zero (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Easy on those personal attacks, Pi zero.

I kept asking you to write such an essay, and you decided not to. Gryllida asked me to do it, so I thought "What the heck, I'll try it someone else's way and see if it works."

By "your credentials are not known," I mean I don't know if you went to journalism school.

Do you mean, by this paragraph, "Wikinews has a ranking system, and everyone of lower rank must submit to everyone of higher rank, not only by doing whatever they are told but by never saying no, never explaining themselves or insinuating that they might be right and the higher-ranking person might be wrong, and by never acknowledging mistakes or inconsistencies on the part of a higher-ranking person. Also, there are no userpage bars, no insignia, and generally no obvious indicators of who is and isn't of higher rank; I may decide that someone who has written zero articles outranks someone who's written seventy"? Close? "That's an ugly way to put it, but yes"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've worked hard to avoid being drawn off into a list of your strategies for dismissing things you don't want to hear; but at the top of the list is defining anything about yourself you don't want to hear as a personal attack.

Your bondage-and-discipline interpretation of Wikinews normal function is your invention; it didn't come from us. But you've been told that many times, so either you believed it before or you didn't, and either way I don't see what you'd expect to accomplish by asking again. --Pi zero (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. This interpretation of Wikinews comes from my observations of your and others' actions. Said actions are consistent with that model and not with a "Wikinews reviewers are teachers and you're their student" model. I can get into detail about why if you feel you're in a good frame of mind to hear it. There's no clock on this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This interpretation of Wikinews comes from your total failure to understand the project. It's got nothing to do with words versus actions; you've failed to learn from either one. --Pi zero (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Names

I'm feeling WN:SPEED, WN:DOITYOURSELF, WN:WHOSEJOB... Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Balance issues

Interesting, but here is no provision for encouraging the author to edit. In my opinion this is important.

Say Rob wrote an article. Alice proposed a change at 11:00. Gryllida saw the proposal at 11:15. Rob will see it at 13:14.

In my opinion Gryllida should not edit in this case, unless the author was inactive for more than 12-24 hours.

The best Gryllida can do is write the text for insertion into the article, and leave it either at the article talk page (The author will be able to quickly insert it into the article themselves.) or at a personal sandbox (If the author abandons the article, Gryllida will be able to use this for a quick merge). They will also have an opportunity to do this task by themselves if they wish. Also if they were in the middle of editing, they will not run into an edit conflict.

I've added some of such ideas at User:Gryllida/welcome a bit/for helpers.

--Gryllida (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

By "author" do you mean "first drafter," the Rob in this scenario?

I think your hypothetical Gryllida should enact Alice's proposal if Gryllida thinks it's good. Why would hypothetical Gryllida not do this?

It looks like it matters to you whether Gryllida or Rob enacts Alice's idea, but to the reader it will make no difference. What difference do you see? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The author will learn less if we do the changes ourselves than if we give them a chance to do it. This is why hypothetical Gryllida would not immediately implement the change. Gryllida (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I must ponder this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a section for this but don't know what to put in it right now. Perhaps it will come to me, but feel free to add your own vision. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's say Alice proposed a change, Gryllida wrote the text for insertion as you describe, and Ron said "I think this is a bad idea" but did it anyway out of deference or to be agreeable. But the change was detrimental and the article was either rendered unpublishable or we had to issue a retraction or some other undesirable outcome. In this scenario, whose fault is it, Alice's, Gryllida's or Ron's? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing

Absolutely NOTHING on this page warrants the community's attention and shouldn't be flagged as needing such. One person has required FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION over the past few weeks. --Bddpaux (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick look.

I've started reading it and it was alright until the point "Boldness on Wikinews might be better describred as do it yourself.". While opinions of different 'experts' on this can vary, it is my opinion that a leading author can delegate tasks to willing volunteers, and this can improve the performance of the leading author (as well as the outcome). This seems like the principle of leadership as opposed to independent work; the former can be a more powerful tool. --Gryllida (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)