Enhance Wikipedia: Decline Reason For Resumes & Discussion

Hey guys! Ever felt like creating a Wikipedia article is like navigating a maze? Well, you're not alone. One of the trickiest parts is ensuring your submission aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. Today, we're diving deep into a specific area: how to handle submissions that read more like resumes than encyclopedia entries. We'll explore a new decline reason and a discussion category designed to streamline this process. So, buckle up and let's get started!

The Resume Dilemma: Why They Don't Fit on Wikipedia

Wikipedia articles should be comprehensive and neutral, think of them as objective summaries of a topic, backed by reliable sources. Now, resumes, on the other hand, are inherently promotional. They highlight an individual's achievements and skills, often relying on self-published sources. This creates a conflict with Wikipedia's core principles.

When you're writing an encyclopedia entry, it's all about presenting a balanced view. This means drawing information from a range of independent, reliable sources that provide secondary analysis of the subject. Resumes, however, typically list individual accomplishments and lean heavily on self-published information. This can lead to an undue focus on positive events and a failure to present a complete picture. Imagine reading a biography that only talks about the good stuff – you'd miss a lot of the story, right?

Think of it this way: encyclopedia articles are like documentaries, while resumes are like personal ads. Documentaries present a broad perspective, while personal ads showcase the best aspects of a person. The former requires rigorous fact-checking and diverse sources; the latter is all about putting your best foot forward.

Another key difference lies in the sources used. Wikipedia emphasizes secondary sources – articles, books, and other materials that analyze and interpret primary sources. Resumes, by their nature, often rely on primary sources (like personal testimonials) or self-published sources (like personal websites). This creates a challenge in meeting Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. So, when you're contributing to Wikipedia, always remember to prioritize those independent, reliable sources.

Moreover, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) adds another layer of complexity. This policy requires a high degree of accuracy and neutrality, especially when dealing with self-published sources. Resumes, which are often self-authored or heavily influenced by the subject, can struggle to meet these requirements. The goal is to ensure that information presented is fair, accurate, and reflects the consensus of reliable sources. If you're working on a BLP article, extra caution and meticulous sourcing are crucial.

Introducing the New Decline Reason: "Reads Like a Resume"

To address this common issue, a new decline reason has been added to the Articles for Creation Helper (AFCH). This decline reason specifically targets submissions that resemble resumes rather than encyclopedia articles. The message associated with this decline reason clearly explains the problem and provides guidance on how to fix it.

The new decline reason is a game-changer because it offers specific feedback to submitters. Instead of a generic decline, they now receive a tailored explanation of why their submission isn't quite ready for Wikipedia. The message highlights the need for independent, reliable sources and emphasizes the importance of secondary analysis. This is super helpful for new editors who might not fully grasp Wikipedia's guidelines.

The full message associated with the "Reads Like a Resume" decline reason is pretty comprehensive. It explains that encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources that provide secondary analysis of the subject's life in context. It contrasts this with resumes, which tend to list individual accomplishments and rely on self-published sources. The message also links to relevant Wikipedia policies, such as the policy on reliable sources, secondary sources, and biographies of living persons. This ensures that submitters have all the information they need to revise their work.

Furthermore, the decline message encourages submitters to rewrite their submissions to comply with Wikipedia's policies. It specifically mentions the concept of writing Wikipedia articles backward, which involves starting with reliable sources and building the article around them. This is a great tip for new editors, as it helps them avoid the trap of writing a biased or poorly sourced article. By focusing on sources first, they can ensure that their submissions meet Wikipedia's standards from the outset.

The Significance of Adding This to AFCH (Articles for Creation Helper)

The Articles for Creation Helper (AFCH) is a crucial tool for managing and reviewing new article submissions on Wikipedia. Adding the "Reads Like a Resume" decline reason to AFCH makes the process more efficient and consistent. It ensures that reviewers can easily identify and address submissions that don't meet Wikipedia's standards. This, in turn, helps improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia.

When a reviewer declines a submission using the new reason, the submitter receives clear and actionable feedback. This is far more effective than a generic decline, which can leave submitters confused and discouraged. The specific guidance provided in the message helps them understand what went wrong and how to fix it. This can lead to a higher rate of successful submissions in the long run. It's like having a helpful mentor guiding you through the process!

Moreover, integrating this decline reason into AFCH helps maintain consistency across reviews. Different reviewers might have slightly different interpretations of Wikipedia's guidelines. By providing a standardized decline reason, AFCH ensures that all submissions are evaluated against the same criteria. This promotes fairness and reduces the likelihood of inconsistent decisions. Think of it as ensuring everyone's playing by the same rules.

In addition to the immediate benefits for reviewers and submitters, this change also has long-term implications for the quality of Wikipedia. By proactively addressing the issue of resume-like submissions, the community can prevent poorly sourced and biased articles from entering the encyclopedia. This helps maintain Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable and neutral source of information. It's all about keeping the encyclopedia as accurate and trustworthy as possible.

Introducing the ResumeDiscussion Category: A New Space for Collaboration

But that's not all! In addition to the new decline reason, a ResumeDiscussion category is being added. This category will serve as a central hub for discussions related to submissions that have been declined for reading like resumes. It's a space where submitters and reviewers can collaborate, ask questions, and work together to improve articles.

The ResumeDiscussion category addresses a critical need: providing a dedicated space for constructive feedback. When a submission is declined, submitters often have questions or need further guidance. This category offers a place to ask those questions and receive support from experienced editors. It's like a virtual workshop where people can learn from each other.

This new category will also facilitate knowledge sharing among reviewers. By centralizing discussions, reviewers can learn from each other's experiences and develop best practices for handling resume-like submissions. This can lead to a more consistent and effective review process. Imagine a team brainstorming ideas – that's the kind of collaborative environment this category aims to create.

The ResumeDiscussion category is also designed to encourage submitters to revise and resubmit their articles. The collaborative environment can make the revision process less daunting and more enjoyable. Submitters can receive feedback on their drafts, identify areas for improvement, and learn how to incorporate reliable sources. It's like having a support group cheering you on!

Furthermore, this category can serve as a valuable resource for documenting common issues and solutions related to resume-like submissions. Over time, the discussions and insights shared in the category can be compiled into guidelines and best practices. This will help new editors avoid common pitfalls and contribute more effectively to Wikipedia. It's about building a collective knowledge base for the community.

Implementing the Changes: On-Wiki Templates and Beyond

To fully implement these changes, it's not just about adding the decline reason to AFCH; it also involves updating relevant on-wiki templates. These templates are used in various places on Wikipedia, such as talk pages and project pages. By updating them, we can ensure that the new decline reason and discussion category are consistently used across the encyclopedia.

Updating on-wiki templates is crucial for maintaining consistency in communication. When a submission is declined, a template is often used to notify the submitter. By incorporating the new decline reason into these templates, we can ensure that submitters receive clear and accurate information about why their submission was declined. It's about making sure everyone's on the same page.

These template updates also help to direct submitters to the ResumeDiscussion category. The templates can include links to the category, making it easy for submitters to find the support and guidance they need. This streamlines the revision process and encourages collaboration. It's like providing a clear pathway to the right resources.

In addition to templates, other areas of Wikipedia might need to be updated to reflect these changes. For example, documentation pages and help guides might need to be revised to include information about the new decline reason and discussion category. This ensures that new editors have access to the latest information and can contribute effectively. It's about keeping the encyclopedia's infrastructure up-to-date.

Moreover, these changes might require some community outreach and education. It's important to inform editors about the new tools and resources available to them. This can be done through blog posts, social media updates, and discussions on relevant project pages. The goal is to ensure that everyone is aware of the changes and knows how to use them effectively. It's all about spreading the word!

Conclusion: A Step Towards Higher-Quality Wikipedia Articles

So, there you have it! The addition of the "Reads Like a Resume" decline reason and the ResumeDiscussion category are significant steps towards enhancing the quality of Wikipedia articles. These changes provide clear feedback to submitters, promote collaboration, and help maintain the encyclopedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. It's all about making Wikipedia a better resource for everyone.

By addressing the issue of resume-like submissions head-on, the Wikipedia community is demonstrating its commitment to quality. These changes will help ensure that articles are based on reliable sources and present a balanced view of the subject. This, in turn, will enhance Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness as a source of information. It's a win-win for everyone involved!

Remember, creating a Wikipedia article is a collaborative effort. By working together, submitters and reviewers can ensure that articles meet Wikipedia's standards and provide valuable information to readers. The new decline reason and discussion category are just two tools in this ongoing process. So, let's use them wisely and continue to build a better encyclopedia together. Keep contributing, keep collaborating, and keep making Wikipedia awesome!