I am editing a Wikipedia article and this older gentleman is restating and adding content in a manner that is often not very readable. A lot of the time he adds just pure filler: additional words and terminology that don't add content or make things easier to read. He tends to just make the article long and more verbose which is the antithesis to what an encyclopedia should be.
My question is this:
I know people make products in all walks of life and have to deal with quality control, especially when you want the best product possible. How do you do it lovingly and without hurting people?
What you just stated. Say it. If that's the job you choose to do for that website, then do it. It is entirely up to that man to decide if he feels ok or upset about your editing.
Just because you do a thing lovingly in life, does not mean everyone will interpret it that way. All will react in their own unique way.
You can't know his exact reaction.. What you can do is approximate it by looking within yourself. Inform him with compassion and honesty, rather than trying to control his reaction.
Here's what I sent:
"First off: I love what you stand for. Your editing philosophy and your philosophy on service has my admiration. In fact, it comes with some remorse when I heavily revise your contributions because I see you are trying add a lot of detail.
Let me explain why I heavily revise, reduce and simplify your edits on Redacted: They are often very verbose and technical especially for the lead. As per the Manual of Style, the lead should be a brief summary and easily digested by most readers. In fact, you added information that was already stated in the same paragraph. The detail should be left for the rest of the article and it is mostly already there especially in the protocol section.
An encyclopedia isn't just technical documentation but a general reference that can be easily read by anyone. I appreciate your work but keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't only about putting information on a page but making it accessible for everyone.
Thank you for your service!"
It may not be the best social tactic, but I usually just go for blunt honesty in this regard. "Your writing style is extremely dull. And your grammar is terrible." When I ask people to edit my writing, I WANT them to be brutal, because I honestly want to know what could use improvement. It would be more embarrassing to submit something with all sorts of errors than to have someone point them out to me beforehand. I also tend to warn anyone who asks me to edit for them that I WILL tear the thing apart, and if they can't handle constructive criticism they should ask someone else. It's always worked fine.
Ha ha, it would probably read better: "Your writing style is extremely dull, and your grammar is terrible."
Bleh. This guy feels very threatened. He's now taking it personally and going as far as to say that sources don't matter on Wikipedia.
Quote:"The inaccuracies I found and corrected (and you undid) were errors in logic (common sense), that require no citation. We do not solely "go by" sources. We believe in logic, beauty, and good grammar. I'm not your friend. And you do not speak for "we." I'd be happy to discuss anything you thought incorrect in the transaction section or anywhere else, AFTER you undo your undo of my edits so the logic of the entire section can be considered as a whole. This edit war is not worth my time, but educating you might be, if you prove to be interested in learning. So far you have not."
Beyond the 'poor quality', I think the most loving thing to do is to drop attachment to this squabble and accept catalyst!
If you criticize people's editing, they will return that to you by framing it as an 'editing war' and sounding critical. His response is like a feedback of the game you're playing together.
My only attachment is that I want the article to be great. I wasn't really aware of why his edits seemed so bad until I realized he was deleting key pieces of information and overwriting them with filler.
His goal seems to be that he wants to show how much he knows about subjects rather than improve their articles.
If the article gets consumed, oh well. I tried.
(04-01-2013, 11:50 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be the best social tactic, but I usually just go for blunt honesty in this regard. "Your writing style is extremely dull. And your grammar is terrible." When I ask people to edit my writing, I WANT them to be brutal, because I honestly want to know what could use improvement. It would be more embarrassing to submit something with all sorts of errors than to have someone point them out to me beforehand. I also tend to warn anyone who asks me to edit for them that I WILL tear the thing apart, and if they can't handle constructive criticism they should ask someone else. It's always worked fine.
Ha ha, it would probably read better: "Your writing style is extremely dull, and your grammar is terrible."
That has probably more having to do with red ray blockages (if made in anger) /orange blockage, if personality/power issues than with honesty most of the time. Especially if you are not being honest with yourself stating "this is my opinion"). Moreover, it is not a balanced answer since it does not contain green radiating vibrations.
"The moment contains love"
(04-01-2013, 09:01 PM)Adonai-1 Wrote: [ -> ]My only attachment is that I want the article to be great. I wasn't really aware of why his edits seemed so bad until I realized he was deleting key pieces of information and overwriting them with filler.
His goal seems to be that he wants to show how much he knows about subjects rather than improve their articles.
If the article gets consumed, oh well. I tried.
Wikipedia is not reliable for many sensitive issues.
Focus on your reactions to this incident, that's the only thing you'll be able to change in the long-run.
(04-01-2013, 09:37 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Focus on your reactions to this incident, that's the only thing you'll be able to change in the long-run.
And hope that your plans "materialize" (that was a cosmic joke as you know, I just thought it was appropriate at this "nexus").
(04-01-2013, 11:50 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be the best social tactic, but I usually just go for blunt honesty in this regard. "Your writing style is extremely dull. And your grammar is terrible." When I ask people to edit my writing, I WANT them to be brutal, because I honestly want to know what could use improvement. It would be more embarrassing to submit something with all sorts of errors than to have someone point them out to me beforehand. I also tend to warn anyone who asks me to edit for them that I WILL tear the thing apart, and if they can't handle constructive criticism they should ask someone else. It's always worked fine.
Ha ha, it would probably read better: "Your writing style is extremely dull, and your grammar is terrible."
I was thinking about this and reviewing some of the material. This might be an honest response for some people but I do not think it is a balanced response. For example see this Q/A:
Quote:41.19 Questioner: Thank you. In yesterday’s, or the day before yesterday’s session, you mentioned variable speed of rotation or activity of energy centers. What did you mean by that, speed of rotation?
Ra: I am Ra. Each energy center has a wide range of rotational speed or as you may see it more clearly in relation to color, brilliance. The more strongly the will of the entity concentrates upon and refines or purifies each energy center, the more brilliant or rotationally active each energy center will be. It is not necessary for the energy centers to be activated in order in the case of the self-aware entity. Thusly entities may have extremely brilliant energy centers while being quite unbalanced in their violet-ray aspect due to lack of attention paid to the totality of experience of the entity.
The key to balance may then be seen in the unstudied, spontaneous, and honest response of entities toward experiences, thus using experience to the utmost, then applying the balancing exercises and achieving the proper attitude for the most purified spectrum of energy center manifestation in violet ray. This is why the brilliance or rotational speed of the energy centers is not considered above the balanced aspect or violet-ray manifestation of an entity in regarding harvestability; for those entities which are unbalanced, especially as to the primary rays, will not be capable of sustaining the impact of the love and light of intelligent infinity to the extent necessary for harvest.
For some, honest response would be to express this anger (red) ray blockage --called by some "blunt" honesty, however, it is not properly balanced.
The "proper attitude" mention could be worth another whole thread.
Re: red ray/imbalance
I guess if the other person knows you're going to be blunt and that is how you prefer to interact with others/have an agreement to be blunt, then I don't see a problem. I ultimately have to be honest with myself and take responsibility for my own reactions to other person's bluntness. If I start blaming or diagnosing others as having imbalances for their bluntness, then is that not an imbalance?
(04-01-2013, 09:49 PM)almostdone Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2013, 09:37 PM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Focus on your reactions to this incident, that's the only thing you'll be able to change in the long-run.
And hope that your plans "materialize" (that was a cosmic joke as you know, I just thought it was appropriate at this "nexus").
LOL!!
Thanks for the light and the rest of your post. Loved it!
Sorry almostdone, I don't understand your joke.
(04-02-2013, 02:17 AM)rie Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry almostdone, I don't understand your joke.
As I understood it: you said "Focus on your reactions to this incident, that's the only thing you'll be able to change in the long-run." Since this is the only thing that you can change, almostdone added the aspect of hope, that you can always hope that your plans will "materialize", which is a joke that Ra made during the contact. If I remember this correctly, Don, Jim and Carla joked when the contact with Ra was ongoing about them perhaps being a cosmic joke, when they were calling Ra. It was something about Ra doing its stuff, perhaps like riding in a car or something like that, and then suddenly receiving a call from them on his cellphone. I don't remember it all, but it was something very, very funny!
And so, in the next session Ra (always hearing them I'd guess) provided them an example of what they saw as cosmic joke. It was both funny and very, very loving. And I also thought that it was hilarious how almostdone put it at this "nexus".
(04-01-2013, 11:50 AM)Brittany Lynn Wrote: [ -> ]It may not be the best social tactic, but I usually just go for blunt honesty in this regard. "Your writing style is extremely dull. And your grammar is terrible." When I ask people to edit my writing, I WANT them to be brutal, because I honestly want to know what could use improvement. It would be more embarrassing to submit something with all sorts of errors than to have someone point them out to me beforehand. I also tend to warn anyone who asks me to edit for them that I WILL tear the thing apart, and if they can't handle constructive criticism they should ask someone else. It's always worked fine.
Ha ha, it would probably read better: "Your writing style is extremely dull, and your grammar is terrible."
"Brevity is the soul of wit". Strive for economy and force in writing.
By the way, Lynn..."anyone" is
singular, and "they" is
plural. Insure that you achieve agreement between pronoun and antecedent.
Pwned by the master. Lol.
If you really have to tell him/her this one time, you could try to fill your heart with love and whatever you say will contain the vibration of love. The best scenario is to contain this love in all interactions, so people wouldn't be that threatened when hearing non-positive things about themselves.
I think HOW you tell someone is completely up to you. Just be honest, and say what you feel in your heart. If your intention is not to hurt them, alright. Share what is on your mind and they will decide to handle it how they choose. Maybe you could give them some advice that you feel could help them improve their way of writing, rather than just saying "I don't like the way you do this".
By telling them their work quality sucks. When you start to think of their reaction you are implying that they are not only a "bad worker" but an "incapable of regulating own emotions worker" which I would personally always consider offensive.
Personally I prefer "Your work sucks here*points at*, do it better."
to "two longwinded pages of text where somewhere I imply that this area there might be a tad bit poor".
Saves everyone time and you can get to the heart of the issue quicker for all parties involved. If they make an issue of your straightforwardness, its their problem. You can direct them to a anger management / general counselor if they react.