Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

src: upload.wikimedia.org

The disposition of Esperanza's programs is displayed below...

• Wikipedia:Esperanza/Collaboration of the Month - deleted, for a time redirect to now inactive Article Creation and Improvement Drive, which now redirects to Wikipedia: Today's articles for improvement
• Barnstar Brigade - deleted
• Stress Alerts - marked as historical
• Admin Coaching - inactive *
• Coffee Lounge - deleted
• To-Do-List - redirected to inactive Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Userpage Award - archived
• Reach Out - archived
• Stressbusters - archived
• Tutorial Drive- inactive
• Trading Spaces- inactive
• Calendar - active, now part of the Birthday Committee

 * See also: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User

Video Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

Is community building still important?

Following Esperanza's deletion, is community building still important? The essay should answer this question - especially if the answer is yes. After all, since the essay adequately discusses the negative aspects of Esperanza (for example, the last paragraph), it fails to discuss the positive aspects of Esperanza, so someone reading the essay may get the impression that community building should not occur on Wikipedia. (If that's the case, I rest my case.) --Kaypoh 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Community building is important, but in Wikipedia, most discussions and the community should revlove around improving articles and policies. A downside of Esperanza was that there were areas devoted entirely to "socializing", and user page contests and barnstar brigades were a distraction from everything else. Also, the leadership, I heard was bureaucratic and is something Wikipedia is not. Those were some reasons why Esperanza was nominated for deletion back then.--Kylohk 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I think the essay should include that community building is still important but discussions and the community should revlove around improving articles and policies. --Kaypoh 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, community building is still important around here. Perhaps we can add a paragraph about the importance of community building, along with your suggestion about improving articles and policies. Moreover, we can add more information that would describe what Esperanza actually tried to do, as you suggested. While major aspects of ESP were bad, some parts of it did have positive effects on the community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a historical page isn't that historical if just mentions something "has been there". A detailed chronology might be a good idea for all those who appeared to click on those green links.--Kylohk 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful, there was a conflict about the contents of this essay that lasted for months and only ended recently. My thoughts regarding community building is that it develops quite naturally as a process of collaborating with other people in the development of the encyclopedia. Please reconsider your desire to change the essay. I strongly urge you to. If you don't believe me, look at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation to see just how divisive an issue this is. --Kyoko 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No need at all to re-write the essay, the recent mediation into this was a painful process and as Kyoko stated - it ony ended recently, the Esparanza project is a done deal - let's put it to bed and keep it that way. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Kylohk and Kaypoh are not aware that this essay has been the subject of edit wars. Any attempt to rewrite the essay or turn it into a detailed chronology would probably re-ignite the edit wars. Nevertheless, I support the addition of a sentence (or up to a paragraph) emphasising that community building is still important, but that the encyclopedia comes first. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a detailed chronology might not be necessary, but given that two uninvolved users were already confused about the essay, maybe we should consider their recommendations. I still stand strong on my opinion for community building and a short summary describing Esperanza's history.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's so confusing maybe we should put it back to the original then. There was nothing confusing about that. DevAlt 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be okay with the original essay as long as we add in some extra stuff about how Esperanza actually tried to improve the community, add sources, and still stay in check with the MfD. And why are you using an alternate account???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that might be going too far, but I recommend the following edit:

Its goal was to indirectly support the encyclopedia by providing support and other assistance for Wikipedians in need, and by strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. To fulfill this goal, Esperanza initiated numerous programs, which can be seen on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza.

This would then require us to remove the sentence that I proposed earlier this month. If this edit is made, then it would reduce the amount of confusion arising from other editors. On the matter of a community building project, I propose the following paragraph:

While Esperanza was decentralized for numerous reasons as stated in the second Miscellany for deletion nomination, it should be noted that community building is still important in Wikipedia because it encourages collaboration and cooperation. A large organization is not necessary to build the community that the average editor can build him/herself with other users. In addition, a Wikipedian community should be a cooperative movement to improve the encyclopedia, not a social chatting group.

This paragraph combines the ideas from the original essay, my statements, Dev's statements, and the ideas of other editors who have participated in the debate. I hope that this will be satisfactory to all parties...-Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change the essay any further than the Steve Block version, for reasons that are obvious even on this very page. If you feel that you must state something about the community, I suggest adding this on at the very end, after the "Let this essay be a warning...":

"Despite the dissolution of Esperanza, community remains an important and even necessary part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Community building should however be a byproduct of the cooperative work on the encyclopedia, rather than the primary goal of Wikipedians. Editors should also remember that Esperanza did not have a monopoly on community spirit; any person who has ever greeted or complimented another person is displaying a sense of community."

Yes, the added text has a POV, but hopefully this will address the concerns about community spirit while making it clear that the community is more than Esperanza.

And yes, I know I had said that I was ready to walk away from this essay, but I'm trying to nip this conflict in the bud. Serves me right for having a watchlist with over 2030 items. --Kyoko 16:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't support that at all. And from now on, I refuse to accept any blame whatsoever for the extension of this dispute. Everything was dead, a version was agreed upon, the mediation was closed... and Ed decided to start it up all over again. Leave the article protected and ignore him. DevAlt 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of wanting to avoid future conflict, that's fine with me too. People who want to understand Esperanza should make the effort actually read the MfDs anyway. I'll tell Ryan. --Kyoko 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to blame here! The initial post in this discussion was not mine. Dev, what exactly do you have against a paragraph on community building?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you, and you are correct that the discussion was initiated by other people. I decided to go along with the existing text because I don't want to see a repeat of the mediation. --Kyoko 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion from someone with no prior involvement in this issue but thinks it has gone on long enough: The essay here stays as is. Anyone with additional thoughts can put them on a subpage in his or her userspace, and put a link to that page here on talk. Newyorkbrad 17:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• claps* Best idea yet in this whole affair! Thanks! --Kyoko 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, Brad got it in one there - Esparanza has finished now, we had the mediation - everyone agreed with the outcome - there is no need to show off the community in the essay - let it rest in peace. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently not "everyone"...Kylohk and Kaypoh, and now me, dissent...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

Community building paragraph

On Ryan's recommendation, I'm continuing discussion regarding the addition of a paragraph that discusses community building. Kyoko's proposal above is a good example of something that we can add:

Despite the dissolution of Esperanza, community remains an important and even necessary part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Community building should however be a byproduct of the cooperative work on the encyclopedia, rather than the primary goal of Wikipedians. Editors should also remember that Esperanza did not have a monopoly on community spirit; any person who has ever greeted or complimented another person is displaying a sense of community.

Because Esperanza was so closely associated with community building, we must establish the fact that community building is still important, despite Esperanza's decentralization. Dev and I have both stressed the importance of community building here, even though our thoughts about it differed at the time. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and because the expansion of the encyclopedia depends solely on the contributions of its editors, semi active editors, and anons, the details describing the community's importance shouldn't be left out.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not expect that my question would cause such heated discussion. I am not asking you to rewrite or make major changes to the essay. I am only asking you to add one sentence or paragraph about whether community building is still important. Ed, your paragraph is good. Add it. --Kaypoh 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

take it to userspace

Even after the Esperanza page has been submitted to mediation, argued over, agreed upon, and protected, it is still creating conflict. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the only way to satisfy all parties is to do the following:<

1. Leave the current essay unchanged and indefinitely protected.
2. If you want to say something beyond what the current essay says, write your own text on a subpage within your own userspace.
3. Leave a link to your subpage on this talk page.

Please don't press for any changes to the main Esperanza text. It has already been the source of far too much discord. The deletion debates about Esperanza, and the further debates about how it should be described have pretty much guaranteed that Esperanza will be known more for the arguments it engendered than any good it may have done for Wikipedia. --Kyoko 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is what is to be decided, then I think we should add an extra sentence to the essay saying "User written essay can be found on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza." That way, all of us can write our own essays about EA, which could then be published here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not published, linked to, as in Why I left Esperanza. That's an important distinction. --Kyoko 22:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm only linking that page here to illustrate what I mean. It's not the essay that I would write about Esperanza. I don't even know if I would write one. --Kyoko 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined - No user essays are going on the main page, they can go on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. If we are going to have user essays, we should have a link from the front page to the talk page. All of the user essays will be linked from this talk page. Let it be known, however, that Kyoko and I are still discussing the matter of a community building paragraph.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. I had submitted my paragraph suggestion on the assumption that:

1. It would be accepted by all the major participants in the mediation.

2. Its addition would be the final edit to an overly discussed page.

3. Everyone, including myself, would be able to just move on as was the intent behind the closure of Esperanza.

My submitted paragraph has already faced opposition, so it fails number 1 on that count. Furthermore, I am very concerned that if the essay is unprotected for further editing, that will only open the way for more drastic and more controversial changes.

I am unwilling to participate in any further discussion about changes to the essay. I can't speak for other people, but thanks to the MfDs, the deletion review, the drawn out mediation, and the attempts to reopen the discussion, Esperanza has caused me far more stress than it has alleviated. I don't want to subject myself to any more stress on its account. Please leave the essay alone and let the whole matter rest. --Kyoko 21:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyoko, let me remind you that I already have deminstrated that all of us are in agreement with the paragraph. I have inferred this from the various statements and edits that everyone participating in this debate made. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Stupid me for keeping this on my watchlist: DevAlt said she didn't agree to the paragraph. Goodbye. --Kyoko 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but DevAlt really hasn't said anything in the past few weeks, has she? What a shame...it's a pity that she doesn't have the guts to explain herself.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're pushing it, Ed. --  $P?INGr?g?  12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Grammar/style issue

{{editprotected}} The last sentence of the essay says:

This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza.

The ending is poor style and includes grammar issues. It should say:

This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's.

Thank you. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Seeking copy-editors

I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.

In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent.

I am looking for a copy-editor who:

• Is a native speaker of British English. It goes without saying that the copy-editor's command of English should be far better than mine, and since I contribute to Singapore-related articles, and Singapore was once a British colony, British English should be used in Singapore-related articles.
• Has actively contributed to the English Wikipedia for at least three months and made at least 1000 edits. This criterion ensures that the copy-editor is reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's content policies.
• Has an IRC (freenode), MSN Messenger or Google Talk account, logs in to it almost every day and is not afraid to disclose the account to me. If I want a copy-editor to look through articles I write, I could simply file a request with the League of Copyeditors, although they usually take a long time to respond to requests. Having copy-editing done in real-time through instant messaging has several advantages. There are times when the copy-editor may need me to clarify the intended meaning of a sentence or provide some background information or context. Moreover, the copy-editor could explain why a sentence is grammatically incorrect, instead of just correcting the error.
• Is aged between 16 and 25 (inclusive) and friendly. Singaporeans are notorious for focusing on the result rather than the process, but I will do my best to avoid being a slave-driver. The copy-editor should be a friend, not just a copy-editor, and should be able to explain to me the more subtle aspects of English grammar in an easy-to-understand manner.

Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New community proposal: m:Wikicommunity

Please see m:Wikicommunity for a proposal for a new Wikicommunity. This one would not be on Wikipedia itself; it would be a whole new wiki within the Wikimedia aegis. If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

src: cdn-content-oz1.storbie.com

Deletion of sentence

I recommend deletion of this sentence: "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." It seems inappropriate to include such an imperative since consensus was not reached on adding such a thing to policy as far as I can tell; consensus can change; and there were other reasons cited for deleting Esperanza besides transparency and hierarchical structure.

Failing that, I think we should put the standard essay template up there, warning that it "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Why is this page still protected, anyway? It seems unnecessary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

src: cdn-content-oz1.storbie.com

I have an idea

Request delete Esperanza and make a new Esperanza on http://www.editthis.info or at http://request.wikia.com . Iswatch20 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested during the original deletion, but there wasn't really enough support for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Remove interwiki link

Please remove the simple interwiki link, as it was deleted over there, thanks. 68.2.110.48 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

src: cdn-content-oz1.storbie.com

In regards to the historical bar at the top

WP:ACID is now inactive. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

This page...

It is a perfect symbol of human nature. We make something great, social, only to destroy it. Hmmm... CHEW ON THAT, DELETIONISTS!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this, might I ask? bibliomaniac15 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, this sounded great, then it was destroyed. Nero did it to Rome. We did it to Esperanza.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nero did not destroy Rome. Rome started off as a great idea, slowly built itself up into a great power and then was weakened and eventually destroyed by the weight of its own incontinence and hedonism. If that was the analogy you were trying to convey, it seems accurate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatevs, yeah, that's what I meant, except for the incontinence and hedonism part! I wish we could make...uh...Esperanza II or something...--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 08:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SOGODOIT. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Esperanza is not destroyed, either. It's simply in hiding right now. bibliomaniac15 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only hidden, but thoroughly protected as well. ;) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about...Esperanza:Reloaded...no, wait! Dawn of The Esperanza! Uhh? Uhh?! And bibliomaniac WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE TO CORRECT MY PHILOSOPHY!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS

I only just realised. I wasn't talking about the fall of the Roman Empire, but Nero's orders to burn down the city of Rome!

The idea

I still think that the core idea of Esperanza (the promotion of Wiki-Love, and the support of the community which is building this encyclopedia) is a good one. (And the name was, in my opinion, an excellent choice.)

Noting that, there are several initiatives, programs, and "drives" which operate throughout Wikipedia userspace and projectspace.

I'd like to see Esperanza restarted as a "noticeboard", and possibly, even (presuming interest) a newsletter.

I'm looking over Template:Cent and thinking that something similar would be useful for this.

Why resusitating the "name" Esperanza? I have several reasons:

Before I became aware of its faults, Esperanza made an impact on me as a wikipedian. The newletters in particular. It really "grabbed" me in how collaboration was fostered, and individuals seemed to be cherished, and supported in Wiki-Love.

In addition, this wasn't the work of a single individual. The creation of Esperanza was honestly a tribute to the "wiki way". Even the logo was. And I believe that Esperanza (in name at least) was/is something that was unique to Wikipedia.

I think that this concept should be able to be revived in a way to embrace the great goals of Wiki-love and the spirit of collaboration, while avoidng the creation of a some exclusive "club". We're all Wikipedians here, and as such, we're all invited to support each other in the spirit of Esperanza.

One thing I ask is to please not shoot at this idea merely out of a sense of the past hurts involved with the previous structure of Esperanza as an organisation. Our goal should be to build toward the future, while remembering the mistakes of the past, not wallowing on them unhealthily.

As such, the main of my proposal would be to move this page and its subpages (to retain the as an historical archive, but to be separate of this proposed "new" Esperanza).

In short, this new proposed Esperanza would be inspired by the many noticeboards, the signpost, and template:Cent, among other things. A centralised discussion board (and possible sub-boards), and possibly even a newsletter for those who may be inetrested.

I welcome discussion on any issues. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. - jc37 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about reviving Esperanza and researched its impact on Wikipedia, and I think you have a good idea, but what would the noticeboard and other newsletters cover? What would be the goal? bibliomaniac15 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I suggested above, Wiki-Love, and fostering positive collaboration.

As for they would cover, I think that there have been many issues and discussions which concerned Wikipedians. For one thing, a centralised link list for things like barnstars and the birtday committee, localed all in one location would seem to be helpful.

The Signpost (while awesome) seems to fit a specific niche of (almost, but not really) representing Wikipedia to the Wikipedians (and the rest of the world). As such it lists things like featured content and bug fixes, and so on. It's an excellent newspaper/journal for Wikipedia. But Esperanza's focus would be on the Wikipedians. It's about Wiki_love between editors, not simply love of Wikipedia.

In addition there have been many attempts at "community-building" which have foundered due to lack of "interest" (in that most people didn't know that the initiating page even existed).

I'd also note that quite often these Wikipedian building initiatives often help develop Wikipedia building initiatives.

We're a community who has a purpose to build an encyclopedia. And supporting our community is a means to that end as well.

Does that help clarify?

(Note, none of this is "set in stone". But I kinda of like where the thought process is heading : ) - jc37 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I'm going to get involved in this discussion, but, regardless of that, anticipating possible opposition, I can see how the idea might overlap with a number of already other created things/noticeboards on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Community Portal comes to mind. Just a thought. -- Natalya 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking over the community portal (again : ) - it looks mostly like a place of: "Here are some articles/pages you could help with, and here are some related policy/guidelines, and here are some WikiProjects. That's all great, but I'm seeing this as a bit more than that. Again, it's interesting that the community portal (mostly) targets articles, not editors. The plan here is (roughly) to focus on the editors. The pointing to the WikiProjects is a step in that direction, but it's mostly topic-based. Not editor interest-based. (This involves one's perspective.) - jc37 01:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Esperanza's passing

I've been quite disturbed as of late by the recent, almost radical attempts to resurrect Esperanza (not including jc37's offer), so I feel as a former Esperanzian that I have a duty to set things straight. I understand how the users who want to recreate Esperanza feel; I felt very much the same way when the first MFD came across. However, I feel that their motives are incorrect. Instead of trying to recreate it as a function of a Wikipedian community, it seems that they want to do it only to spite the "deletionists" or to recreate something akin to the cabal debacle we had a while back.

Esperanza was created at a time when Wikipedia was experiencing massive growing pains, the year of 2005. At this time, infamous vandals roamed the wiki, and many admin actions came into question, of which the userbox affair and the VFD deletion stand out. It was therefore natural that Esperanza, an organization of goodwill and thankfulness to help keep users in, was created. Esperanza was readily received by a drama-wracked community, swelling to include an admin committee (actually a caricature of ArbCom, and not so much the bureaucracy it was derided as), the famous (or infamous) coffee lounge, and several other activities that have gone to survive to the present day, including admin coaching and the tutorial drive. I readily admit Esperanza was what got me hooked on Wikipedia. I fondly remember participating in coffee lounge banter, while checking recent changes and my watchlist, working on articles and reverting vandalism while waiting for the next random thread. When Esperanza met its first MFD, I was rather shocked. I expected it to be something that would last as long as Wikipedia existed. The event shook me to the core, but I thank Robth for initiating it, because it caused me to grow out of my juvenile shell and move on. I suddenly became cognizant of policies I had never learned of, and how the community really is divided by terms of inclusionist and deletionist. For this very reason, I thank Esperanza for keeping me on Wikipedia, and I thank the MFDs for helping me finally mature as a user.

Why do I relate this story? Because Editor510, you misinterpret why Esperanza was finally disbanded. Esperanza managed to serve the purpose for which it was created back in 2005, but it could only distract after serving its purpose. It was inevitable that some member of the community start an MFD. Its deletion was not the result of some mean, misanthropic deletionists who had nothing to do but ruin others' fun, nor was it the result of "incontinence and hedonism" weakening it. It was simply the natural, almost Darwikian process that Wikipedia goes through. Consensus changes. And with that consensus, we are obliged to move along with it. Perhaps sometime, consensus will change and a new Esperanza will be created. Perhaps the community will beget something very similar to Esperanza. When I said that Esperanza was hidden, I did not mean a cabal or secret society. I meant that its spirit of camaraderie and of collaboration continues to live on even without a banner where Wikipedians can rally behind. Every nice word, every barnstar is, in a sense, continuing Esperanza. Esperanza means "hope" in Spanish. It is the hope that Wikipedia's quest for knowledge will continue on, and I hope that you will understand that. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said, and good memories. I especially like your last point; just because the organization of Esperanza no longer exists doesn't mean that editors can't still carry on the friendliness and caring that they found there to their day-to-day editing. -- Natalya 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nicely said. - jc37 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man! I was one of those who tried to resurrect it and-are those stones...is that a PAINTBALL GUN?! YARRRGHHHH!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A.C.I.D now active

{{editprotected}} Could the note about the article creation and improvement drive being inactive be removed? It has recently been revitalized.^[WP:ACID]--Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's about time. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One more request: admin coaching should now be marked as inactive.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It...isn't. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's smack there on the page!--Ipatrol (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As of 04:46, the tag has been removed from that page. So let's leave it for now. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} ACID has gone inactive again. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning?

{{editprotect}} I stumbled onto this page and was rather displeased that the Esperanza page is acting as a "warning":

• "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times...."

I would find it better to act as a well-meaning "notice":

• "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times...."

That seems to be more in the spirit of Esperanza if you ask me. --64.85.222.193 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

I've greatly enjoyed this talk by Anthere at Wikimania, which is (also) about this project (see video). --Nemo 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So did I :) -SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Downhill

You can really put your finger on when Wikipedia started to go downhill, and it was when they closed Esperanza. Sad times... 82.11.95.194 (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

• Yep. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are joking....right? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.170.65 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, 82. It was when people started to forget its spirit that Wikipedia started to fade. bibliomaniac15 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And it is by remembering its spirit that it will revive. -SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Slightly revise wording

"This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" should probably be worded "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times and not be overly hierarchical lest they meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" Tisane (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the last sentence belongs on this page at all, and would just remove it. -SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - make link to Wikipedia:Teahouse

Wikipedia:Teahouse is a new project serving the same purpose of Esperanza. I propose that this page have a link to the Teahouse so that users can see another form of this kind of organization implemented elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a bit about it. Please suggest possible improvements in wording and placement! bibliomaniac15 06:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not submitting this as a draft. Thanks for writing what you wrote - this is exactly what I had in mind and I have no ideas for improvement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Teahouse belong in this essay?

Although Esperanza and Teahouse share the belief that Wikipedians need support and wikilove, from what I've seen (I wasn't around in the days of Esperanza, but I've read through the documentation that remains) the 2 projects are otherwise quite different. With all due respect to those who requested and added Teahouse to this page, I don't really think that a note about Teahouse does belong on the Esperanza essay. Because of Esperanza's checkered history, and because it appears that the crux of this essay is, as it says, to "serve as a notice...lest (other projects) are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's", I feel it would be more informative if there was some explicit mention of how Teahouse differs from Esperanza as well as noting similarities, if others feel a mention of the Teahouse project does belong here. We've given comparisons between the 2 projects some thought. I'll be curious to hear what everyone else thinks! Thanks Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As the original person who got Esperanza shut down, the reason I did it was because Esperanzans were becoming separatist in nature, seeing their primary purpose on Wikipedia as promoting Esperanza rather than editing, and putting little green es in their names, and most heinously as far as I was concerned, suggesting that Esperanzan members should be given control of the mediation process as if Esperanzans were somehow better than the rest of us.

Teahouse appears to be about supporting new editors as they learn about Wikipedia, and as the aim is to encourage them to get involved in editing, I think that it's quite different from Esperanza in that respect. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sooo no one has given a counterargument to Siko's suggestion, and the person who got Esperanza shut down agrees. I think it sounds like consensus to me.  Done Steven Walling o talk 00:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse is supported by WMF to remedy the "female editor" problem and to increase editor retention. It's already been declared a success, without any data, so in that sense it's not like Esperanza. Also, it's run by an WMF person who does most of the work. She recently got the Teahouse welcome added to the Twinkle welcome template, decreasing her workload considerably. I do think it's faddish, as feedback on the WMF person's page by some participants suggests. Editors will get tired of answering questions, so it will probably just wither away of it's own accord, and no shut down will be needed. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Siko did not make a suggestion and certainly did not suggest that anything like this edit be made. Where did you find a proposal, Steven? I feel like nothing except prestige comes to the Teahouse project from the excellent comparison with Esperanza and I would like the removed text restored. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what's being talked about here. But it's true Sarah encouraged email contacts and many editors objected. There is a recent post on her page from an editor who refused her request for email communications, stating he wanted communications transparent and on wiki. So we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I think it's pretty obvious what Siko suggested by asking, "Does Teahouse belong in this essay?" and then making a case the answer was no. As the staff point of contact for the project, she thinks it's an unhelpful comparison. I'm particularly convinced by Dev920's comments, as the person who originally lead to the charge to rein in Esperanza. I don't really see that there was a wide consensus to include it in the page, and if people who are intimately involved in both forums object to the comparison, then the common sense thing to do is hold off on including it. Steven Walling o talk 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to email you right now with my phone number. Could you call me? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep everything on-wiki if possible, though I appreciate your sincerity on the matter. Steven Walling o talk 04:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The link between Esperanza and Wikipedia should be emphasized for the following reasons, any of which could be disputed:

1. The link is sufficiently strong
2. It is worth mentioning
3. It is in the best interest for the future of Teahouse to make the link

For the first point, I assert that there has never been an established project on Wikipedia so similar to the Teahouse as was Esperanza, and no project so similar to Esperanza as Teahouse. Their similarity merits a link between the two. This page Teahouse/Esperanza_comparisons has a line which says, "After this point the two projects diverge:" which is an ambiguous qualifier. If that line were changed to read "Look at the similarities between the projects:" then nothing else about the table would need to be changed to use this table as supporting evidence for similarity instead of divergence because the table is neutrally created. It is my opinion that if that table were shown without a qualifier most people would be more likely to say that it represented a comparison between like projects rather than a contrast between radically different ones.

For the second point, the connection is worth mentioning because Wikipedia culture and Western culture precedent is to provide attribution to all contributors to an idea, and to be encyclopedic in describing things, and to make information easily accessible to those who search to find it. Mentioning Esperanza as a precedent to Teahouse satisfies these traditions, assuming that point 1 is correct.

For the third point, I assert that Teahouse is harmed when this link is not present. The Esperanza trial demonstrated that the community demanded a friendly community forum on Wikipedia in 2005, and the loss for such a place has been felt since then. The problems with Esperanza explain why the Teahouse was not developed sooner despite community demand. Also, it explains why WMF intervention in collaboration with thoughtful researchers was required when typically programs like this come directly from the community. I assert that frequently the WMF is perceived in the Wikipedia community as being insensitive to community demand or impetuous in starting projects without first getting community opinion, and the tie between Esperanza and Teahouse demonstrates that the community has wanted such a project. For so long as people have access to information about Esperanza and any other precedents to Teahouse, previous problems and successes can provide guidance to prevent bad and promote good in the future.

I fail to identify an argument in previous commenters' posts as to why the link should not be present. I propose to reinsert it. Forgive me for this, but can you restate the arguments for removing it more simply and more obviously? Might you like to refute any point which I have asserted? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I was around for Esperanza, and assure you that you don't want any project which helps editors associated with it. Esperanza began with admirable stated goals, but quickly degenerated into a social club with easter egg hunts, and complex online games with prize, and IRC meets which had nothing whatsoever to do with helping editors or improving Wikipedia in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC) , who also misses Jeffpw, and wishes Dev920 hadn't put that in his sig. Saw his name in blue and it really took me back and made me very sad in the next instant when my brain caught up.

Edit request on 14 May 2012

Admin coaching is inactive and should be crossed off like so:

Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV History?

I see Esperanza referred to all of the time on Wikipedia, not in positive ways (some call it "cultish"). The main page barely scratches the surface of why a program that clearly a lot of Editors had high hopes for and put a lot of energy into, lasted such a short period of time and was ultimately deleted.

Even though it appears to be inactive for 6 years now, is it still too controversial to write a NPOV article assessing it, its contributions and the backlash that seems to have doomed it? In particular, a timeline would be useful. I think being a little more forthcoming and specific would assist other Wikipedians considering embarking on new WP Projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that this project is a significant part of the history of the Wikipedia community. I also think its significance should be documented because it was not an isolated idea, but rather an idea which lots of people independently have continuously. For reasons I do not understand it does seem to be taboo to acknowledge that this project ever existed or that it might have influenced any of Wikipedia culture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If you view the history, there was once a much longer version explaining just that, but Ed (who was 14 at the time) was very unhappy about it and fought me over three months across discussion forums (AN/I, Pump, etc.) and talk pages trying to get his eulogy included. It culminated in this mediation, at which point Ed gave up, announced he had cancer and has never been seen again. As it has now been seven years, we could *probably* go back to the version without incident, because I believe it was only him that minded. He just minded a lot. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 December 2014

Please unprotect. I don't have any edit in mind, but after so many years, protection isn't needed here anymore. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia