Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Father Steve Freshman Hazing - 02/03/06 10:00 PM
The following brief article appears in the Wikipedia under the title "Please do not bite the newcomers":

Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource.

Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold. We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value. It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard".

If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put titles in boldface, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others.

If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*. If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing.
Other newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians, or being flamed). Teach them to be bold, and do not be annoyed by their "timidity".

When giving advice to newcomers, tone down the rhetoric even a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized strictures and structures, which take time to learn, and which may benefit from periodic re-examination and revision.

.....

Assume good faith on the part of the newcomer. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!

Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, your dignity is uplifted, and you further our project.

Remember that you were once a newcomer also.

Treat others as (if possible, better than) you would want to be treated if you had just arrived at Wikipedia.

-----------------------------

Might just be a little something in here for all of us.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Freshman Hazing - 02/03/06 11:25 PM
I couldn't agree more. Particularly that bit about "being 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not." If someone gets a charge out of fooling people into thinking that some apparent stranger is in fact a stranger then so be it. Those who have this deranged notion demean only themselves.
Posted By: TEd Remington Re: Freshman Hazing - 02/03/06 11:31 PM
Fr Steve:

Written perhaps by Tom Clancy.

After all, the title could certainly be "Dear and Pleasant Stranger."
Posted By: maverick Re: Freshman Hazing - 02/03/06 11:32 PM
Quote:

I couldn't agree more. Particularly that bit about "being 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they're not." If someone gets a charge out of fooling people into thinking that some apparent stranger is in fact a stranger then so be it. Those who have this deranged notion demean only themselves.




Yes, funnily enough it was that bit about "being 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, low-down scum-sucking Internet troll..." that caught my eye too.
Posted By: Father Steve worthless, no-good, low-down - 02/04/06 01:12 AM
"You rackin' frackin' varmit rabbit!"

~Yosemite Sam, in reference to Bugs Bunny
Posted By: inselpeter Re: worthless, no-good, low-down - 02/04/06 05:43 AM
"Troll - A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges."

The only real troll I've ever met was the Bridge troll in the Three Billy Goats Gruff. I could never figure out just what was so terrible about him. Only he lived under a bridge and the billy goats were afraid of him. Mind you, I'm only always reminded of this by this term 'internet troll.' I don't mean to throw some charmed Poly-Anna dust on any possible goings on about whose existence I am utterly unaware. This is really and truly a separate matter of which I am once again reminded: I just always wondered about trolls, that's all. I just don't get 'em.
Posted By: TEd Remington Re: worthless, no-good, low-down - 02/04/06 10:56 AM
Didn't they make a war series about a chanting one? Rappa Troll?
Posted By: Father Steve Re: worthless, no-good, low-down - 02/04/06 04:19 PM
Trolls (at least the Scandinavian mythological kind) can be nice, too.

Happy smiling friendly trolls
Posted By: Jackie Re: Freshman Hazing - 02/04/06 04:31 PM
Speaking for myself only--
a.) I've never understood why someone would sign on with another name in the first place--it just seems sneaky to me;
b.) With one exception, I don't care who they are or what they've done here in the past--if they return and stick to making even semi-appropriate posts and are polite, they're welcome;
c.) One of the things that has made so many of us stick around for so long is our willingness to accommodate one another: someone doesn't like repetitive signatures? They were gone. Someone dislikes seeing routinely-used swear words? They're relegated to strongly-expressed feelings. This kind of thing has been done time and time again, even though the majority may have had no problem with what was complained about. Sure, everybody has the "right" to express themselves however they want to; but pretty much everybody here who has stayed long enough to become a "regular" has set aside this right, and been extraordinarily gracious in adapting so as not to cause offense/offence to others. And I say extraordinary because we were/are just a group of strangers; one would expect people to go out of their way not to offend their friends, but here we were, by sheer coincidence (well, coincidence beyond a love of words).
Even seeing the exception's name still makes me tremble, and it's been years.
Posted By: Zed Re: Freshman Hazing - 02/08/06 11:58 PM
It's a bit like dancing. If you dance with and say nice things to the beginners they keep coming and turn into experts who are still willing to dance with you. If you snub them they go away and you have no partners.

Why do you suppose this thread is sponsored (spelled that 4 ways and it looks wronger than ever) by razor blades. Trolls under bridges have beards - they don't use razors.
© Wordsmith.org