3 ms·

This was posted by another HN reader to the other thread, but I feel it's more relevant on this more sensationalist article. >Honestly, I don't mind if you rev

This was posted by another HN reader to the other thread, but I feel it's more relevant on this more sensationalist article. >Honestly, I don't mind if you revert all of my edits, delete my articles, and ban me from the wiki for good. I've already found out that my "contributions" have angered countless people, and to me that's all the devastation I can be given, after years of my thinking I was doing good (and yes, obsessively editing). I was only a 12-year-old kid when I started, and sometimes when you start something young, you can't see that the habit you've developed is unhealthy and unhelpful as you get older. I don't care about defending myself, I only want to stop being harassed on my social medias (and to stop my other friends who have nothing to do with the wiki from being harassed as well). Whether peace can be achieved by scowiki being kept like it is or extensively reformed to wipe my influence from it makes no difference to me now that I know that I've done no good anyway. I can imagine it's quite a punch to the gut to find out an activity you were doing for _years_ was literally the wrong thing, and major news outlets are piling on.

daveslash 6y ago
Agreed, thank you for posting. I'd also like to add: I wish this article had been title had used the word "Incorrect" instead of "Fake". I generally attribute things called "Fake" as having had some sort of intentional incorrectness. "Fake" doesn't always imply _malicious_ intent (think "fake houses" for nuclear testing), but it does imply knowing intent. This kid was well intentioned, tried his best, and got it wrong. To me, that's "incorrect", not "fake". [Edit: Spelling]
jancsika 6y ago
> I can imagine it's quite a punch to the gut to find out an activity you were doing for _years_ was literally the wrong thing, and major news outlets are piling on. Other than the news outlets, what you are describing is something most people in the arts go through at a similar age. The quality of previous work may not be as literally wrong as it is here, but it can feel just as wrong at the time. The difference is that artists have some semblance of friends and loved ones helping to extend trust to mentors who help guide the artist through that despondency at any stage in their development. For this kid, however, we've replaced mentorship with unregulated digital slot machines of psychological torture that we call social media. That is the gut punch.

daveslash 6y ago

Agreed, thank you for posting. I'd also like to add: I wish this article had been title had used the word "Incorrect" instead of "Fake". I generally attribute things called "Fake" as having had some sort of intentional incorrectness. "Fake" doesn't always imply _malicious_ intent (think "fake houses" for nuclear testing), but it does imply knowing intent. This kid was well intentioned, tried his best, and got it wrong. To me, that's "incorrect", not "fake". [Edit: Spelling]

jancsika 6y ago

> I can imagine it's quite a punch to the gut to find out an activity you were doing for _years_ was literally the wrong thing, and major news outlets are piling on. Other than the news outlets, what you are describing is something most people in the arts go through at a similar age. The quality of previous work may not be as literally wrong as it is here, but it can feel just as wrong at the time. The difference is that artists have some semblance of friends and loved ones helping to extend trust to mentors who help guide the artist through that despondency at any stage in their development. For this kid, however, we've replaced mentorship with unregulated digital slot machines of psychological torture that we call social media. That is the gut punch.