Talk:Fairview, Utah

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 21:41, 19 March 2009 by GreeneJR (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

I have read the discussion page for the Sanpete page, which brought me to the Fairview page.  I specifically looked at the history for the page and I see something interesting.  I see that Familyjournals created the page as a small outline or stub.  According to her notes it was to help teach future contributors who are new to the Wiki.  I see that exactly three hours later Dsammy completely revised the page and put in quite a bit of new information.  Ordinarily I would say that this is good.  However, I believe that it is best practice to not immediately edit a page, especially in a significant way, until you have given the original contributor time to build the information they way they see fit.  We have not set any style guidelines yet, so remember that there are as many opinions as there are people.  Beware of the "I am smarter or know more than you" syndrome. 

Let me now make some recommendations.  First of all while we have discussed standards and templates for page styles, we have not decided on an enforceable standard.  Therefore, no one should be enforcing standards that do not exist.  Next, any sort of coaching or mentoring should be done by the moderator for this section, which is Fran Jensen.  Third, coming in and making wholesale changes within hours of someone creating a page is not fair. You have to give them some time to come in and complete it as they would want it to look, with the information they have.  You cannot expect someone to do all of this in one sitting or in one day.  You have to give them time.  So do not jump on new pages.  The only patrolling that should be done is to make sure that there is nothing inappropriate.  Period.  Moderators for each geography can mentor as needed. 

Dsammy, I noticed that yesterday you edited a contribution by Jeri 30 minutes after she made it.  I am sure you are a watcher on this page, and I have looked at what you have done and it appears to be very helpful additional information.  My only concern is that it came 30 minutes later.  Good manners would say that you need to wait a bit longer.


Jimgreene 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The page was on auto watchlist and I was home when the email came in to notify me of the change otherwise I would not check until later in the evening. I checked the source Jeri mentioned to see what I missed and noticed there were two mentions, one was combined and other wasn't so I edited her link to clarify to assist researcher to know what to look for further. That's it.  So ever heard of "watchlist"? It's a feature of MediaWiki. dsammy 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dsammy, this is precisely the type of posting that is inappropriate and violates our policy.  I am pleading with you to please control your sarcasm.  If you will read my posting closely you will notice that I said that what you did "appears to be very helpful," and that I am sure you saw her update because you are a watcher (on the watchlist).  I only wanted to point out that it is better etiquette to wait a while longer.  Your comment: "So ever heard of "watchlist? It's a feature of MediaWiki." Is expremely inappropriate.  It implies that I am not familiar with the product, and that you are more familiar than I am.  Even more so it comes across as "you (Jim) are stupid and I am not."  That is not civil.  Even if you do know more than me it is never civil to point that out.  My purpose in calling attention to your post was to mentor you and anyone else reading this page that perhaps waiting would have been better. My purpose now is to do the same, and to point out that you have stepped over the line and are now violating policy.

Jimgreene 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)