5 ms·
This is hopefully a wake up call, and the editor can take a step back and remember that while he's passionate about it, wikipedia is a website. sometimes taking
by jrnichols 10y ago
This is hopefully a wake up call, and the editor can take a step back and remember that while he's passionate about it, wikipedia is a website. sometimes taking a huge step back is what you need to do.
i've had friends say the same thing about Facebook. The environment became so overwhelmingly toxic and negative that it was affecting them personally.
Even I've had that happen. Took a lot of un-liking pages and unfollowing constantly angry people and bailing out of Facebook groups that were constantly argument ponds.
I'm glad the editor is doing better now.
- astrodust 10y agoAt least Facebook is something you can actively avoid. Wikipedia, for better or worse, has become the de-facto source of knowledge on the internet. Is there a way to solve the Wikipedia problem of toxic politics and it being a battleground for opposing groups?
- kevin_thibedeau 10y agoDon't use Wikipedia for contentious topics. I know I'm going into a minefield when visiting the abortion or Donald Trump pages. Don't bother.
- astrodust 10y agoThey do helpfully flag those when they're being assaulted by heavy edits which is usually a sign to run screaming from the page. I'm more concerned about the persistent efforts to subvert certain pages.
- rvern 10y agoThe articles on Donald Trump and abortion both seem very factual to me. They might have inaccuracies, but I doubt there exists any more objective source of information about Donald Trump or abortion on the Web.
- kakarot 10y agoI decided deleting mine was the best thing to do. it became so toxic