EndMyopia:Here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

EndMyopia Wiki is both a vision improvement encyclopedia and a community of editors who build it. It's a collaborative community, editors whose personal agendas and actions can conflict.

The expression "here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia" can distinguish constructive and non-constructive users and pages.

Being here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia

Signs that a user may be here to build an encyclopedia include:

Genuine interest and improvement
A genuine interest in improving the content. This often involves a wide range of interests, and substantive edits/article writing or other significant activities. It may also include significant constructive improvements to the processes that are involved in improving content, or mitigating and reducing problems that make a negative contribution to EndMyopia Wiki.
Respect for core editing standards
Behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content and behavior.
A focus on encyclopedia building
Non-encyclopedia-related contributions are kept to a limited level in comparison with positive and directly constructive contributions to the encyclopedia and/or its editorial processes.
Self-correction and heeding lessons
When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. The user appears to take editing seriously and improves their editorial ability and quality of input.

Clearly not being here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia

Shortcut

The following may indicate a user is clearly not here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia:

Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business
Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing
General pattern of disruptive behavior
A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions.
Treating editing as a battleground
Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing.
Dishonest and gaming behaviors
Gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty. EndMyopia Wiki broadly works on a basis of trust, and such activities undermine that trust and suggest other motives such as "lulz" (amusement at destructiveness or schadenfreude) or a complete lack of interest in good editing conduct practices.
Little or no interest in working collaboratively
Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict like disregarding polite behavior for baiting, blocking as a means of disagreeing, diverting dispute resolutions from objectives, driving away productive editors, or ownership of articles.
Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention
Major conflicts of attitude, concerning EndMyopia Wiki-related activity. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However, some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together. Maintaining civility is essential in every exchange. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect.
Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia
Users who, based on substantial EndMyopia Wiki-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... when their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia").
Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods
This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proved insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept.
Interest in gaining as many user rights or "awards" as possible (or overly focusing on rights in general)
The user wants to gain as many awards as possible or focuses a lot of attention on gaining user rights through gaming the principles. While having awards is not negative overall, claiming them and user access levels as a right and not a privilege is damaging and not the goal of these things.
Editing only in user space
The user is only interested in editing their own user space or in draft space with no sign of making the draft live.


Being "here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia" is about a user's overall purpose and behavior in editing EndMyopia Wiki. In considering whether or not a user is here to build a vision improvement encyclopedia, the user's overall pattern of editing and contributing behavior, as well as the clarity of past warnings (dismissing vacuous warnings) or guidance and their attempts at improvement, should be reviewed as a whole.

Other content

Because EndMyopia Wiki is a community as well as an encyclopedia, the community tolerates a reasonable degree of non-encyclopedic content. Examples include certain humor pages that are not derogatory, userboxes, and a wide range of user page designs.

However, pages that stray too far outside this are frequently deleted under community processes. This is especially the case if it appears to the community that their primary author is not mainly here to write an encyclopedia. Examples include social network pages and promotional material in user-space, negative pages about other users, "laundry lists" of complaints, cliques and self-selecting or "restricted membership" user-created bodies, and non-project material likely to prove overly disruptive or divisive.