3 ms·

"fairly obnoxious" itself is a characterisation, if they had meant "toxic" they would have said that. And "almost always right about the underlying merits in a

"fairly obnoxious" itself is a characterisation, if they had meant "toxic" they would have said that. And "almost always right about the underlying merits in a dispute" is not just "productive", unless that means more than raw output, but something like "constructive", which also doesn't seem very compatible with "toxic". A toxic person may be mean or or super friendly, but both as a means to lead away from the underlying merits in a dispute, prolonging rather than resolving it. Otherwise, what meaning does that word even have?

nullc 7y ago
Stated superbly. When I see "almost always being right on the underlying merits in a dispute, but going about it in a fairly obnoxious way" with regard to an editor I imagine things like finding someone doing something in violation of the policy then systematically going around and reverting them (instead of fixing the edits) and leaving them impersonal meat-bot "Your edits are bad and you should feel bad" notes, then when target flips out and starts accusing the correcting-editor of a vendetta, instead of backing off and bringing in help they just cite policy chapter and verse, escalating what could have been an education into an argument-- not because they get off on arguments, but because they suck at interacting with other humans online... Stuff like that. There is a super wide range for potentially less than great behavior on Wikipedia much of which doesn't overlap with what you'd otherwise consider unprofessional or uncivil conduct.
nl 7y ago
I don't understand what you are saying at all. For me toxic means unpleasant and harmful. It's slightly a stronger term that obnoxious (although I read "fairly obnoxious" in the British reading of the work "fairly", meaning "extremely"), but it's definitely on the same continuum. Both mean rude, difficult to work with and likely to be harmful to the community because people leave rather than deal with them.

nullc 7y ago

Stated superbly. When I see "almost always being right on the underlying merits in a dispute, but going about it in a fairly obnoxious way" with regard to an editor I imagine things like finding someone doing something in violation of the policy then systematically going around and reverting them (instead of fixing the edits) and leaving them impersonal meat-bot "Your edits are bad and you should feel bad" notes, then when target flips out and starts accusing the correcting-editor of a vendetta, instead of backing off and bringing in help they just cite policy chapter and verse, escalating what could have been an education into an argument-- not because they get off on arguments, but because they suck at interacting with other humans online... Stuff like that. There is a super wide range for potentially less than great behavior on Wikipedia much of which doesn't overlap with what you'd otherwise consider unprofessional or uncivil conduct.

nl 7y ago

I don't understand what you are saying at all. For me toxic means unpleasant and harmful. It's slightly a stronger term that obnoxious (although I read "fairly obnoxious" in the British reading of the work "fairly", meaning "extremely"), but it's definitely on the same continuum. Both mean rude, difficult to work with and likely to be harmful to the community because people leave rather than deal with them.