4 ms·
Not just that, but you will often be summarily blocked from editing by a determined and experienced editor, no matter how good your edit. Admins now largely ma
by chris_wot 10y ago
Not just that, but you will often be summarily blocked from editing by a determined and experienced editor, no matter how good your edit.
Admins now largely make their decisions without much consideration for the issue that is in dispute. It's actually often worse than this: often they claim you are violating even core policies, but they have completely not understood the policy on which they base their claim, and sometimes they even show little evidence they have read the policy at all!
The great irony of all if this is that the policy and guidelines are solid. If they were actually followed then I don't think there would be much of a problem. But if you can be blocked indefinitely for not violating a policy but for being accused of violating a core policy alone, regardless of the basis of the accusation - well, then it's hardly worthwhile making the necessary effort to contribute quality material that conforms to Wikipedia norms and requirements!
- sambe 10y agoI've seen this in almost every online community I've been part of. Online moderation seems to attract a certain kind of person: very picky but with some logical flaws, lack of common sense, relatively poor social skills. Eventually the bad money drives out the good. Usually they act in a way that isn't technically wrong (or borderline) but still cause damage. Strange thing is that I'd expect Wikipedia to be one of the exceptions. HN and Reddit are: the quality goes down a bit with more low quality contributions, downvote-disagree etc. as the community expands. But overall pretty stable. I always thought this was due to size: at some point there are enough people "in power" that a reasonable number will see the bigger picture. Haven't had enough bad Wikipedia experiences to comment, but find it surprising.