4 ms·

This seems to be a commonly-aired complaint when these discussions come up. My guess is that it happens when people dive in to fix something that they "know" i

by snori74 11y ago

This seems to be a commonly-aired complaint when these discussions come up. My guess is that it happens when people dive in to fix something that they "know" is wrong, and feel strongly about - and then get upset when it's reverted because they provided no evidence. No one likes rejection, but some take it far too personally. If your first foray led to escalating to dispute resolution then maybe you don't have the right temperament. Not everyone is well-suited to being an encyclopedia editor, and there's nothing wrong with that. (Pro tip: Post your suggestions/argument in the "Talk" page first). While the system is easy enough to use, there are also cultural/social/bureaucratic skills to learn. BTW: The articles on "politically charged subjects" are the result of years of work and are generally pretty OK, if bland. Undoubtedly you could change them in ways you would find more acceptable, but it's unlikely that those of an opposing viewpoint would agree.

martey 11y ago
> My guess is that it happens when people dive in to fix something that they "know" is wrong, and feel strongly about - and then get upset when it's reverted because they provided no evidence. I think that it is more interesting that the article suggests that this is (at least partially) the result of an increase in paid editing: "What changed in his absence, Wood says, is that employees of public-relations firms began to understand the value of a Wikipedia page, and tried going in to make edits themselves, with little regard for the site’s standards. The result was that the burden of proof became even heavier on newcomers, and, Wood says, even valid information was getting rejected out of hand by seasoned editors."
- sparkzilla 11y ago
  This is a false argument because the number of PR edits is so small in comparison to the total number of edits. The culture is toxic, period. See my other post on this thread.
sparkzilla 11y ago
It's a commonly aired complaint because it's true. It's interesting you immediately blame the editor for fixing something "they feel strongly about but have no evidence". What if he did have well-sourced information? Why do you question his temperament? Why should that be a requirement to add information to a site? There are examples on probably every page of Wikipedia (ie millions of examples) of well-sourced information that is censored. Biased pages are the standard, not the exception. Editors are routinely harassed on both contentious and non-contentious topics, just ask any woman using the system. I was harassed online and offline for well over a year for trying to add completely factual and well-sourced information to the site. I was targeted by one of the site's most famous admins because I dared challenge one of the many ambiguously worded policies on the site. During that process I learned a lot about Wikipedia's culture and I realized that on Wikipedia "might is right' and only the most aggressive and fanatical editors survive. If you're not prepared to fight then you won't get anywhere. BTW, any Wikipedia editor knows your suggestion to post suggestions to the talk page is completely useless. Most people simply don't want the hassle, and to be honest, the fact that new editors are scared off so quickly probably does them a favor. Why waste months trying to get factual information onto the site when faced with a bunch of opponents who will use very wiki rule available to deny you, bend the rules when necessary, and will bully and harass you? It's not worth it. But while that may entrench the power of the people who survive, it's no good for the long term future of the project. So please stop trying to blame the newcomers. Blame the toxic culture and the crap software that it is built upon. Maybe then it can perhaps be fixed.
beeboop 11y ago
I'm not sure my temperament is wrong for wikipedia, I didn't escalate things out of anger, it was just the provided solution when dealing with editors who aren't following guidelines and refuse to budge. I left ultimately because I'm not going to waste my life playing by the rules of a system that favors the militant vocal minority. I very much agree with the rules and know them and follow them very well, the community is great at getting around them, though.

by snori74 11y ago

martey 11y ago

> My guess is that it happens when people dive in to fix something that they "know" is wrong, and feel strongly about - and then get upset when it's reverted because they provided no evidence. I think that it is more interesting that the article suggests that this is (at least partially) the result of an increase in paid editing: "What changed in his absence, Wood says, is that employees of public-relations firms began to understand the value of a Wikipedia page, and tried going in to make edits themselves, with little regard for the site’s standards. The result was that the burden of proof became even heavier on newcomers, and, Wood says, even valid information was getting rejected out of hand by seasoned editors."

sparkzilla 11y ago
This is a false argument because the number of PR edits is so small in comparison to the total number of edits. The culture is toxic, period. See my other post on this thread.

sparkzilla 11y ago

It's a commonly aired complaint because it's true. It's interesting you immediately blame the editor for fixing something "they feel strongly about but have no evidence". What if he did have well-sourced information? Why do you question his temperament? Why should that be a requirement to add information to a site? There are examples on probably every page of Wikipedia (ie millions of examples) of well-sourced information that is censored. Biased pages are the standard, not the exception. Editors are routinely harassed on both contentious and non-contentious topics, just ask any woman using the system. I was harassed online and offline for well over a year for trying to add completely factual and well-sourced information to the site. I was targeted by one of the site's most famous admins because I dared challenge one of the many ambiguously worded policies on the site. During that process I learned a lot about Wikipedia's culture and I realized that on Wikipedia "might is right' and only the most aggressive and fanatical editors survive. If you're not prepared to fight then you won't get anywhere. BTW, any Wikipedia editor knows your suggestion to post suggestions to the talk page is completely useless. Most people simply don't want the hassle, and to be honest, the fact that new editors are scared off so quickly probably does them a favor. Why waste months trying to get factual information onto the site when faced with a bunch of opponents who will use very wiki rule available to deny you, bend the rules when necessary, and will bully and harass you? It's not worth it. But while that may entrench the power of the people who survive, it's no good for the long term future of the project. So please stop trying to blame the newcomers. Blame the toxic culture and the crap software that it is built upon. Maybe then it can perhaps be fixed.

beeboop 11y ago

I'm not sure my temperament is wrong for wikipedia, I didn't escalate things out of anger, it was just the provided solution when dealing with editors who aren't following guidelines and refuse to budge. I left ultimately because I'm not going to waste my life playing by the rules of a system that favors the militant vocal minority. I very much agree with the rules and know them and follow them very well, the community is great at getting around them, though.