Wikipedia talk:Competence is required

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Snowball keep, July 22 2015, see discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator, May 13 2011, see discussion.

Shortcut

WT:CIR

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Three Essential Competencies for Managing Editors

These were in my proposed version [1], now disputed.

the ability to acknowledge
WP:Content dispute
the ability to admit ones own errors and correct them.
the ability to analyze contributions by other editors,
preserving the encyclopedic and constructive elements, while discerning subtle or minor errors and refining them

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should add the ability to sign one's posts to essential competencies? And what the heck is a 'managing editor'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add reading the room to that list as well. E Eng 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully suggest that the OP is tilting at windmills trying to get this essay changed to their preferred version. Explanatory essays are just that, essays, and by no means meant to represent all points of view. Counter essays can exist, as such as Wikipedia:Competence is acquired for this one. I'd suggest. you work on this in your own userspace, and perhaps publish it to Wikispace once it's completed. Granted, it will probably face an MfD, and either be kept, moved back to your own userspace, or outright deleted, but that's what happens when one writes an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BilCat for the informative and civil reply.

That's probably what I'll do. But a

WP:Bold

rewrite was worth a try.

The two other editors in this post's comments have so far avoided the task of addressing the "three essential competencies" that I've proposed. I hope you will not ignore them, but consider them carefully. Even when I do publish another essay, it would profit to merge in changes that are found to be good.

It is clear so far that they do not highly value either competency or civility, as much as they value the retention of their priveleges. At least now I know what we what have to deal with. This should be carefully considered.

Jaredscribe (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're beyond tiresome with your presumptuous declarations about what other editors value. I skimmed your user page, and at least now I know what we have to deal with. Dry up. E Eng 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these three go beyond the minimum necessary level of competence, and are trying to describe someone's vision of the perfect editor. For example, editors don't need to have "the ability to admit ones own errors and correct them"; they mostly need to let other people have their way.

For example, there's a missing apostrophe in that item. It should say "admit one's own errors". This item says that the correct approach is:

Me: You left out an apostrophe.
You: I apologize for leaving out the apostrophe. I will go correct my error right now!

which is okay, but this approach is good, too:

Me: [fixes the punctuation]
You: [nothing]

In this common situation, competent editors don't need to admit their faults and correct their errors; they just need to avoid breaking what I've fixed for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! You fail to recognize that the so-called Rennaissance todo of ancient pornographic idolatry in the Italian art schools and plutocratic courts, during the 14th century, This was contemporaneous with the translation of Plato and other greek authors into Latin, and it ought to be called the "zombification" (of graeco-roman imperial mythology) instead of "the renaissance". You're a disruptive and vulgur ignoramus. E Eng 22:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the todo was extinct. But what the fuck would I know?

AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the modern errors were "never get involved in a land war in Asia" and "never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern errors are passé anyway. Postmodern errors are where it's all happening... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General skills and the subject-matter expert

In the recently reverted edits, I saw two things that made me think about the role (or lack thereof) of subject-matter knowledge. The two bits were:

Changing the nutshell summary from "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." to "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but lack subject-matter competence and political skills, or misuse their priveleges."
An addition: Our emphasis on
WP:Incivility
.

I think that both of these overstate the relevance of knowing the subject matter. A lack of subject-matter expertise is not usually the cause of someone invoking Wikipedia:Competence is required. Instead, we usually think of this concept when the person seems to be missing general or "soft" skills, such as knowing WP:How to lose or being able to figure out what the group is thinking (which is not the same thing as groupthink).

I am not thrilled about the original nutshell summary, but I don't think the suggested replacement is better. Perhaps something like "...but do not have the skills needed" would work better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Nutshell as written is fine. The word 'competent' need to be in the summary, in my opinion. But I could live with your changes. BilCat (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you @WhatamIdoing for actually addressing the issue.

Yes, the two different types of competencies need to be distinguished. I'd call the first "research/writing competency" and the second "editorial competency". Although since the term "editor" applies to everyone, it is equivocal in the context of wp, and this distinction therefore isn't clear. Thats why I called the second set Three Essential Competencies for "Managing Editors" (the soft skills) and in those three, tried to explain "how to lose" in my own words, with out having prior read the essay you cited.

Thoughts on that? I think the nutshell should be done last, after making whatever other changes we might agree on. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus developing here for focusing this essay on those specific competencies, as this essay is about a broader range of competencies than just those two. Again, it might be better for you to focus on essays that address those concerns specifically, rather than try to shoehorn them into this one. BilCat (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriad ways in which incompetence can be displayed. We don't need essays on them all. One that states the basic premise - that Wikipedia sometimes finds it necessary to block those that demonstrate incompetence to a level that is disruptive to the project - is what he have here, and is probably all we need. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Or to quote the famous aphorism, "Competent editors are all alike; every incompetent editor is incompetent in their own way." Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed early and not moved due to unanimous opposition to proposal.

WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

personal attack - even unintentionally. See also wikt:incompetent. This should be renamed to a more neutral name. I picked this name, to try to focus on the editing not the editor. Other suggestions welcome. jc37 09:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose That's not what the essay says, and competence isn't recommended, it is required. If there is to be a change that could use more discussion before a !vote. What I do is just say "CIR" and do not link to the page directly, so that anyone who knows what CIR means will understand, but a novice editor will not be directed to a page that may not be helpful to them and may be seen as disparaging. I do not see this page or this title as uncivil, only that it could be used in an uncivil way. If someone has given evidence of incompetence, just as if they have given evidence of acting in bad faith, assumptions otherwise no longer apply. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Competence is required to be a net asset to an online encyclopaedia. The only relevant 'recommendation' in this context is that people who are consistently shown to lack such competence should not do so. We are under no obligation to be 'neutral' about damage to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree there would be benefits from us all being nice to each other but the core point of this essay is that contributors need competence so they improve the encyclopedia and do not waste the time of other editors. Like everything, this essay can be misused, but in the end, competence is required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as competence is required and this is about as factual as you can get. If another user is perceived to be making personal attacks it can always be discussed at
WP:ANI. — Czello ^(music) 10:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to all 4 of you above. You can achieve all of that and have the page under a different name. The recommendations on this page, are just that recommendations. And yes, the shortcuts for this page can be abused. And we've already seen rather questionable examples at AN/I (No I'm not going to link to them, for rather obvious reasons. Besides - you're all apparently regulars there.) There really is no justifiable reason to keep this page at a name which can so easily be used as a personal attack. Especially unintentionally. - jc37 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solution looking for a problem. The page has been at its present title since its inception—15 years ago!—and gets over 800 page views a month. That works out at an awful lot of people who do not think there's an established problem. Likewise, if there have been questionable uses at AnI or anywhere else, then the issue is with the editor(s) misusing CIR. They can be dealt with as a normal admin action per WP:ASPERSIONS. And should be. But fundamentally, it does exactly what it says on the tin: whether we like it or not, and whether change has been for the good or not, these are no longer the halcyon days of 2005; everything's just a little more codified, complex and constrained, which means, unfortunately, competence is not just required but is an essential life skill for the new Wikipedian. It's one soon learnt or not at all; if anything this page could reasonably read a little more robustly. SN54129 11:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @Jc37: You're an experienced editor whose been on Wikipedia for a very long time. Why did you think it was a good idea to move this essay without prior discussion? After 15 years of the essay's existence at the title, what made it so so urgent that you had to move it today? (I'm asking this in good faith.) BilCat (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the talk page archives, and perhaps I missed it, but there's never been a previous RM. I see deletion nominations and repeated concerns about this page. But nothing about a rename. So I thought I'd go ahead and do that. Someone reverted, and here we are.

I mean seriously, if about a third of the page is listing disclaimers, there's clearly "something" going on here. And if a simple page rename can solve it, all the better. - jc37 11:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, age of page shouldn't come into play. I dislike linking to nonsense from the past, but to give another example of a page that was very often referenced throughout Wikipedia, and around quite awhile, there's always
WP:DICK. Nothing lasts forever, especially uncivil page names... - jc37 11:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your suggested name doesn't work though. Competence is not recommended, it's required. I think we should've had some discussion of this before launching into a requested move where people are going to !vote on your suggestion alone. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"required" - according to who? Even if I hear it as you seem to be trying to define it, it's a subjective term. And the only thing "required" (to use your term) to edit Wikipedia, is to be able to at least passingly communicate in English, and to passingly understand written English. All the rest seems to fly in the face of
WP:BOLD. But I really don't care much about the content. This is an information essay and can say whatever. Others can debate that. If you have a better name suggestion, by all means, suggest it. An RM is not held to only what a proposer nominates. - jc37 12:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you saying people can be incompetent at editing Wikipedia? Doesn't that mean they would be damaging it? As to the name, of course someone could propose another, but it's quite possible the 5 people who already !voted oppose wouldn't see it, hence the need IMO to discuss this beforehand. But my opinion is that the name is fine and I am opposed to any change because there is no problem here. Again, hence the need for some discussion before I simply ignore this requested move and leave my !vote at oppose. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that we should not be calling anyone "incompetent". Ever.

As for the rest, you are, as always, welcome to engage in discussion, or not, as you so choose. - jc37 12:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So after 15 years of this article being around, you only just now realized that the title was calling people incompetent, and had to move it immediately? Ok. BilCat (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another word than "competent" that we can use to describe being able to do a task? Would "Competence at editing Wikipedia is necessary [to edit Wikipedia]" be better or are you hung up on the word "competent"? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like competent is perhaps the nicest way to put it. We could flat out say "don't be ignorant" if cut-throat is needed... – The Grid (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As an explanatory supplement to
WP:DE's "in a nutshell" reads, "Editors who persistently disrupt Wikipedia, knowingly or unknowingly, may be blocked or banned indefinitely" (emphasis added). This differs from Wikipedia:Vandalism, which is explicitly about "intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia". The title of this page acts as shorthand reminding us that we can avoid fruitless attempts to determine intentionality, because in either event we require editors not to create widespread or persistent disruption. Referring to this page does not mean we are insulting a particular editor's competence. Instead, it makes it clear that we place restrictions on editing that has effects that are basically indistinguishable from intentional disruption. Dekimasuよ! 13:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well said. BilCat (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) - That's a nice way to summarise the page - but that's mostly in defense of the page. Not the name of the page.

The issue here isn't what you intend it to mean. it's how the receiver receives it. And I think it's fair to say that we have a long, long history of discussion resolutions and arbcom cases exemplifying that. Or, I could just point to
WP:CIVIL
, I suppose.

Look, I understand that you all don't see an issue. Because apparently you've not been on the receiving end of someone tossing an insulting shortcut, or page link, your way. You're all presumably fluent in Wiki policy. But the irony here is that the very people that will be on the receiving end of this, are very likely to take offence to this and find it insulting. And saying "that's tough, like it or lump it", just doesn't seem like what we should be saying here. I think we all could do with walking a mile in someone else's shoes and maybe look beyond our own worldview and experience. - jc37 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You linked the wiktionary definition of incompetency above, but note that
Wikipedia:Competency is required is actually considerably more polite than a hypothetical targeted title like Wikipedia:You are incompetent (which I agree would be counterproductive). At the same time, it is unavoidable that referring to a behavioral guideline or conduct policy will imply the editor in question does not meet the standards of that guideline or policy. A reference to the title requested here would still imply that the editor does not meet the "recommended standard of competence", while at the same time the shift from "required" to "recommended" could indicate to that editor that they should not be sanctioned because they are not in red-letter violation of the underlying guideline. Dekimasuよ! 13:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Funny thing. I apparently typoed this RM, and didn't notice it until just now. If you look at my Bold move, the new page name was
Wikipedia:Recommended competencies for editing
. And that was my intent for this RM. But since it's already started, we'll just move forward, and I'll just note that the plural form is what I support.

By making the word "competency" plural, it helps more indicate what you would like it to mean.

As for "sanctioning". I hope that we're not sanctioning anyone based solely off of this page. WP:DE is what you linked to, and that doesn't have anything to do with someone's knowledge of English or if they can diagram a sentence, or read a policy page. - jc37 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree,
WP:CIR should not be linked to editors who are apparently not competent like as some kind of warning. That's uncivil. I don't do so. I mention it to other editors or in ANI reports, generally without even linking it. It would be possible to abuse many different kinds of Wikipedia space links. There's nothing intrinsically abusive about it. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed, with the note that just on the philosophical level if one truly believed an editor was incompetent then there would be no point beating them up about that because its not really something which can be remedied. Claims of incompetence are serious and should be handled quietly and respectfully at an appropriate venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a recommendation. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The potential and responsibility for a page's title to be misused as a personal attack lies solely with the editor making it into a personal attack. Purposefully and knowingly mislabeling someone's edits as vandalism is a personal attack, yet that's not an issue with the title of Wikipedia:Vandalism. The same applies here. I am all for increasing civility on Wikipedia, but even the proposed title could be used as a personal attack just the same as the current title, so even if it was an issue with the titling of this page the proposal is not a solution. It would be just as uncivil to tell someone that they do not meet the recommended level of competence as it would to tell them that competence is required. On that point, competence is required, it is not a recommendation; it is not merely a good idea for someone to be able to edit at the most basic level, it is required. - Aoidh (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -
WP:SNOWCLOSE – The Grid (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose, if people are making it into a personal attack that can be addressed individually... Thats not an issue which can be resolved by a title change (people are still going to call other editors incompetent, which I would note is only a personal attack if unsupported or poorly supported by evidence). BTW I've been on the receiving end of the personal attack version, I never blamed the guideline or essay which was being misused I blamed the disruptive editor who was misusing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current title is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English comprehension

English comprehension is surely a required competence for a Wikipedia editor. Someone may have identified a useful RS, but have they actually understood what it says?

I can see how some academic sources may be misunderstood by a Wikipedia editor using, for instance, google books for a brief excerpt. It arises if the source lays out all the arguments which they wish to demolish, but their rebuttal is not visible to an editor who is working with a brief on-line view. More frustrating is the editor who has read an RS that does not support the article content that they have inserted, but they believe that it does. The latter case is more concerning. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essay already states more or less that. Are you proposing a change in wording? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that it does make that point clearly. Are you relying on well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles? Straightforward English comprehension (in the educators' meaning of the term) is needed to not misunderstand a source. An editor who lacks competence may come up with perfectly clear text in the article which is wrong because they have not understood the source. If you are looking for a suggested addition, something like:

the ability to understand the points made by sources and convey them in an article.

Where an editor fails on this, it may be due to lack of familiarity with a technical subject. Or, as mentioned originally, it may be a belief that a source confirms their POV when it does not (either by being neutral or even contradicting that view). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]