Wikipedia talk:Competence is required: Difference between revisions

Does the community agree with WP:CIR?

See central discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Does the community agree with WP:CIR?. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The role of topic bans

This is an area where topic bans are very handy. Some editors are very competent in some areas, and not in others. Some are excellent at gnomish editing and can really improve formatting, grammar, spelling, and such things, but they never get the hang of vetting sources, so they should be topic banned from their favorite articles where they cause disruption. It might be pseudoscience, alternative medicine, or politics.

An editor who repeatedly fails to understand that sources like Natural News, Breitbart, and Daily Caller are not RS is incompetent. We may think that what a person believes in real life is none of our concern, but if they continue to use those sources in real life, they will continue to use muddled thinking, and it often spills over into their editing and talk page discussions because they refuse to accept and believe what RS say.

When that happens, a topic ban allows them to improve the encyclopedia on other subjects. Since most of their disruption is often on talk pages, a topic ban keeps them from muddling things and being a time sink. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added a line about appropriate sourcing under the "What is meant by..." section. --Jayron32 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Required level of English

Lots of people edit English Wikipedia even if their first language is other than English. I just changed this essay to indicate that the required level of English be mostly comprehensible. If a user contributes content which is not language proficient, but still communicates an idea in an obvious and cites a source, then they should get encouragement to edit. I am not aware of situations in which people without English proficiency copyedit large text passages, but I do see people adding sentences and paragraphs. Students, academics, and scientists seem to be especially interested demographics for editing English Wikipedia without native English skills.

Here is the change I made. I am being overly communicative about this and if anyone wants further changes then I think it is fine to just edit the essay and post a note here if you like.

before

Someone should be able to read and write English competently enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into the article space. Everyone makes spelling mistakes or grammar errors from time to time, but if a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space, it can create problems for others.

after

Editors should write English competently enough to share text which others can easily understand. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Sharing good ideas and following other rules, like using citations and being willing to engage in conversation with other editors, is more important than language. If a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space then instead they can post a request to the article talk page.

Previous discussions on this topic:

• Target audience? Purpose? These are spectra, and they are discussed backwards, November 2015
• Changes, August 2014

There are other discussions in the archives which mention language skills but these seem to be most developed. I am not expecting anyone to contest the idea behind this change. I think everyone wants non-native English users to edit here, and that everyone recognizes that we accept edits which require much more copyediting than "spelling mistakes or grammar errors from time to time". Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some language that indicates that repeatedly introducing incomprehensible text into the article space is suboptimum. I like that you've offered an alternative, but you haven't presented any indication that it shouldn't be done in the first place. I'll make a tweak. --Jayron32 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Good idea, make that change. I agree - we cannot accept incomprehensible text. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also moved some of the text around. Some of your guidance was very good, but it was more about what "CIR is NOT" than what CIR is. --Jayron32 14:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, my experience at frwiki was that various editors have corrected my texts without making a big fuss about it. Instead, at nlwiki my poorly worded texts were flat out rejected. At rowiki I have corrected myself the texts of other editors who are not proficient at writing in Romanian language. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted. If language skills make it so someone is unable to communicate effectively on a collaborative project, we do take that into account when making blocks and reviewing unblocks. The ability to be a native speaker is not required, nor is necessarily a high functioning level of English, but one must have enough of a level of English to effectively communicate their ideas to other editors. The previous text made this clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  I have re-added part of what you removed; the "what competance is required does not mean" was improved by a reminder that being a perfect English user is not a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, that bit is fine and I think is important, so no objection to it. My concern would be the new language being held up as "we shouldn't take into account language skills when reviewing unblocks." Well, unfortunately, sometimes we have to. An editor who is being disruptive and is communicating in a way that shows they have no clue what is going on and are unable to communicate their thoughts isn't going to get unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As a teacher who has a lot of ESL students who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and as an ESL speaker myself who routinely edits/copyedits articles frequented by ESLs, I have a lot of experience with subpar English. I have reviewed the recent changes ([1]) and overall I agree with the revisions I see (also changes are mostly cosmetic and clarifying). Frankly, this entire essay is something I agree with, and so I think does everyone else. The main issue is, IMHO, the common failure of communication that originates NOT from the ESLs poor communication skills, but from our, experienced and English-fluent editors failure to tell the newbie what they are doing wrong. Case in point, I came here after CiR was mentioned in an ANI discussion about one of my students. She got blocked for "not being here to build an encyclopedia", she was incorrectly warned about using bad sources (not right, she was using mostly good ones), but as it turns out, upon review of her edits, the major problem was her poor language skills, sometimes indeed introducing gibberish to the article ("cheese made with crude oil and best eaten with skilkorms"). But nobody told her, through warning, forget even a polite message, that we have a problem with her language levels. She just got reverted, templated as a vandal and eventually suddenly indef blocked. Competence should be required also on the part of editors who revert/warn/block others, and that competence should require detailed rationale why someone is being reverted/etc. We can complain all we want about the problem of incompetent n00bies, but that is only one side of the coin, with the other being the well known issue that Wikipedia these days is much less welcome to new editors. Our standards have risen, our enforcement is severe, and it is not accompanied by enough coaching/mentoring/etc. We need to be careful not to 'competence ourselves out of existence'. Remember, on the far end of that scale is Citizendium/Nupedia and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Quoting from section "What is meant by 'Competence is required?'" (emphasis mine):

"...if a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in articles or from communicating effectively with other members of the community, it can create problems for others.

Quoting from section "What 'Competence is required' does not mean" (emphasis mine):

"If a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space then instead they can post a request to the article talk page."

Now, is it a problem if an editor cannot write comprehensible text in article space? The first section says 'yes'; the second says 'maybe, but they can just request on the talk page'.

Also, I don't see how an editor who writes incomprehensibly in article space can be magically understandable when they post a talk page request. Teratix (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's possible an editor cannot write concisely, clearly, or grammatically. So a longer text that can be scrutinized and discussed among editors before crafting article text, seems quite plausible. I think the larger question is what to do when an editor is unaware of the weaknesses of his contributions and becomes offended because he does not understand what is "incompetent" about it. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Per specifico, it is quite possible for a person to lack the ability to write English correctly, and still make themselves understood on the article talk page well enough for someone else to make the corrections they not there. --Jayron32 14:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: OK, so should we change the wording (in the second section) from 'comprehensible' to something like 'clear, concise and grammatical'? I don't think an editor who writes incomprehensible text in article space - text so unclear as to effectively be gibberish - would be able to make an understandable talk page request. However, as you and Specifico pointed out, it is indeed plausible that an editor who can't write article-standard English would still be able to intelligibly request edits on the talk page. Teratix (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording. I don't think we need to change anything.--Jayron32 08:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see a contradiction, because there's both a different bar of language competence for article page vs. talk page, as well as different guidelines governing a user's contributions to each namespace. At a talk page, zay gramma und shpelling complately turribly ken being, buht iff you iz nowing or overstanding wut zay trying to saying in Takk payzh, zen dazn't metta zo mash, bikkoz zay meenig, iz gettig to you inside you hed, no? As long as you can understand their intent and respond, communication is going on and that's enough for a talk page. However, you're not allowed to alter their words to make it clearer, per WP:TPO, though you can certainly restate them in your own words and say, "Did you mean this?" OTOH, at an article, you can go to town and change all their words around all you want, again, as long as you understand their intent. In a way, their language could even be worse at the article page, as long as they have inline citations of English sources, because if they have good sources but their text is borderline, you can maybe figure out their intent from the combination of what they wrote and the source content; and if you can't even do that but the sources look good, you can just rewrite it and keep the sources (if you have the energy). That said, I would discourage someone from contributing directly to articles on en-wiki if their English competence was that sketchy; and if I saw very sketchy language plus no inline citations, I would revert, and gently suggest they try over at Klingon wiki, or wherever. Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I took 'incomprehensible' to mean 'gibberish' (e.g. rneairgaerihan). However, I see other people are interpreting it as just content that's hard but not impossible to understand (like your example :)), so I'm fine with the current wording if that's how people read it. Teratix (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning at the top

Instead of the "I'm sorry you feel that way" non-apology at the top,

we should quote the actual policies that deals with this issue:

Bright☀ 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The existing wording is fine, you seem to be projecting something here that isn’t stated in those words. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

you seem to be projecting Ha! Amazing choice of words that focuses on the contributor in a disrespectful manner, isn't it. Bright☀ 07:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem with the standard "Comment on the content, not the contributor" template wording itself. Sometimes commenting on the contributor is exactly what's required. When you're realing with vandals, spammers, sock puppets, disruptive or incompetent editors, you often have to comment on the person, too. This is normal, we do it quite often here. Commenting on a person does not automatically mean a personal attack or an insult. Wikipedia is sometimes too cautious with this advice. Anyway, I'm fine with the second sentence, "Do not reference this essay in a rude or disrespectful manner", but I think the original wording is fine, too, and perhaps more sensitive (it says that even if you are not referencing it in a rude manner, someone can still take it personally, so you have to be careful).—J. M. (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it may be somewhat better to say "User's contributions do not seem to reflect adequate competence" but that is still indirectly calling them incompetent. But rather than state it outright, you can say only that it appears that way. I agree that sometimes it is necessary to point out that a user is so problematic that they are unable to usefully contribute, but that is best done at ANI and simply by referencing "CIR" (unlinked) or by mentioning an "apparent competence issue". Directly linking them to WP:CIR inside or outside ANI is too insulting. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

”Comment on content” is fine advice for discussions on article talk pages where content is the subject of the discusion. It is not blanket advice that applies everywhere. As stated above we do this all the time in numerous forums. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I was trying to work with "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent." When dealing with CIR situations that can be tricky advice to take. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think the change reads better, which is reason alone to make it, though I can see Chris troutman's concerns with it being prescriptive. Find a way to make it without making it seem like a mandate, and I think it should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)