6 ms·

> On the other hand, the only toxic comments I experienced on Wikipedia were from an editor. Isn't everyone an editor on Wikipedia? By definition, you need to

by rewmie 3y ago

> On the other hand, the only toxic comments I experienced on Wikipedia were from an editor. Isn't everyone an editor on Wikipedia? By definition, you need to be an editor in order to leave comments. Who other than editors would leave toxic comments?

itishappy 3y ago
Am I a marathon runner because I'm theoretically capable of it, or do I need to actually run one first?
- Thorrez 3y ago
  Leaving a comment on Wikipedia involves editing the talk page. So commenting is performing an edit, thus making the commenter also an editor. Also, anyone who is knowledgeable enough to edit a talk page most likely has edited regular articles in the past as well.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? Your second point is a great one.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      > Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? It's not semantics. Accusing Wikipedia editors of doing something in an attempt at portraying Wikipedia in a negative light has the same meaning as blaming wikipedia for accepting changes from everyone in the world who stumbles upon a page. By definition, an editor is anyone who edits anything at all on Wikipedia. In wikipedia, you don't even need to be logged in to edit articles or leave comments.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      >Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? I think the article is using "editor" in a broad way meaning all users with accounts. I think we are arguing semantics in a way the article isn't. From the article: >A user’s talk page is a place where other editors can communicate with the user either on more personal topics or to extend their discussion from an article talk page.
Semaphor 3y ago
I took this to mean those with special rights, so everything beyond automatically granted standard access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
- Thorrez 3y ago
  Skimming the article, the article isn't using that definition. The article's definition seems to be "anyone with an account" or "anyone with an account who is active". > In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia
- rewmie 3y ago
  > I took this to mean those with special rights (...) I know that wikipedia supports granting special rights to some editors. I have those. That's why I'm stating that an editor does not have special rights, because everyone is an editor. And by the way, in general Wikipedia's "special rights" granted to non-administrator user accounts aren't that special. They unlock some UI features like bulk editing to fight vandalism, move pages, mark edits as minor, etc. See for yourself, and compare the difference between the permissions granted to Administrator accounts, everyone in the world (all users, registered accounts), and other groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#T... Claiming that an editor posted a toxic comment has the same weight as claiming that a random passerby shouted at you in the street.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    The special rights include reverting edits, which is pretty powerful when the person in question can insult you, but revert whatever you reply. And I already edited the original comment, explaining that I misunderstood.
    - howenterprisey 3y ago
      FYI anyone can revert any edit just by manually undoing changes; what's gated is the one-click button to do so ("rollback").
sebstefan 3y ago
There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" who have more permissions and can do things such as edit protected pages >User is automatically added to the group when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
- Thorrez 3y ago
  The original article doesn't seem to be making a distinction between regular users and extended confirmed users. It seems to call them all editors.
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    Yes, I gathered they meant extended confirmed users because I can read context clues
    - 9question1 3y ago
      tfw you see a snarky comment on a discussion thread about toxic comments
      - sebstefan 3y ago
        Guilty... I made a wikipedia edit 2 hours ago, too, but there was no snark in it
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      >they Are you talking about Semaphor or about the original article's authors?
      - sebstefan 3y ago
        I was talking about Semaphor
jandrese 3y ago
This hasn’t really been true for years. Most new editors have experienced like this: They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. A few hours later the editor adds their work back, but under their own name.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > This hasn’t really been true for years. No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor. > Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits. Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety. I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.
- someone7x 3y ago
  > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. My 2 day wikipedia career in a nutshell, I guess I'm not alone.

by rewmie 3y ago

itishappy 3y ago

Am I a marathon runner because I'm theoretically capable of it, or do I need to actually run one first?

Thorrez 3y ago
Leaving a comment on Wikipedia involves editing the talk page. So commenting is performing an edit, thus making the commenter also an editor. Also, anyone who is knowledgeable enough to edit a talk page most likely has edited regular articles in the past as well.
- itishappy 3y ago
  Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? Your second point is a great one.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? It's not semantics. Accusing Wikipedia editors of doing something in an attempt at portraying Wikipedia in a negative light has the same meaning as blaming wikipedia for accepting changes from everyone in the world who stumbles upon a page. By definition, an editor is anyone who edits anything at all on Wikipedia. In wikipedia, you don't even need to be logged in to edit articles or leave comments.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    >Sure, but do you really think that's the intent of the article, or are we arguing semantics? I think the article is using "editor" in a broad way meaning all users with accounts. I think we are arguing semantics in a way the article isn't. From the article: >A user’s talk page is a place where other editors can communicate with the user either on more personal topics or to extend their discussion from an article talk page.

Semaphor 3y ago

I took this to mean those with special rights, so everything beyond automatically granted standard access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels

Thorrez 3y ago
Skimming the article, the article isn't using that definition. The article's definition seems to be "anyone with an account" or "anyone with an account who is active". > In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia
rewmie 3y ago
> I took this to mean those with special rights (...) I know that wikipedia supports granting special rights to some editors. I have those. That's why I'm stating that an editor does not have special rights, because everyone is an editor. And by the way, in general Wikipedia's "special rights" granted to non-administrator user accounts aren't that special. They unlock some UI features like bulk editing to fight vandalism, move pages, mark edits as minor, etc. See for yourself, and compare the difference between the permissions granted to Administrator accounts, everyone in the world (all users, registered accounts), and other groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#T... Claiming that an editor posted a toxic comment has the same weight as claiming that a random passerby shouted at you in the street.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  The special rights include reverting edits, which is pretty powerful when the person in question can insult you, but revert whatever you reply. And I already edited the original comment, explaining that I misunderstood.
  - howenterprisey 3y ago
    FYI anyone can revert any edit just by manually undoing changes; what's gated is the one-click button to do so ("rollback").

sebstefan 3y ago

There's regular users and then there's "Extended confirmed users" who have more permissions and can do things such as edit protected pages >User is automatically added to the group when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels

Thorrez 3y ago
The original article doesn't seem to be making a distinction between regular users and extended confirmed users. It seems to call them all editors.
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Yes, I gathered they meant extended confirmed users because I can read context clues
  - 9question1 3y ago
    tfw you see a snarky comment on a discussion thread about toxic comments
    - sebstefan 3y ago
      Guilty... I made a wikipedia edit 2 hours ago, too, but there was no snark in it
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    >they Are you talking about Semaphor or about the original article's authors?
    - sebstefan 3y ago
      I was talking about Semaphor

jandrese 3y ago

This hasn’t really been true for years. Most new editors have experienced like this: They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. A few hours later the editor adds their work back, but under their own name.

rewmie 3y ago
> This hasn’t really been true for years. No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor. > Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits. Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety. I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.
someone7x 3y ago
> They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. My 2 day wikipedia career in a nutshell, I guess I'm not alone.