4 ms·

"Toxic" would not be the thing I'd start with. I'd start with "being told no for the first time", which might or not have an overlap with toxicity. But I think

by vasco 3y ago

"Toxic" would not be the thing I'd start with. I'd start with "being told no for the first time", which might or not have an overlap with toxicity. But I think it's much more likely that someone will start making edits, only get uninterested comments or bot engagements, keep editing, then at some point someone reverts the edits - tells them no, and so they stop. Potentially this scenario even catches situations like: 1. User registers 2. User adds a bunch of promotional edits to multiple pages 3. At some point someone discovers this, reverts something, tells them to go away 4. User was "caught" so abandons the account and re-registers If #3 is classified as toxic, this paper would find the same results I think.

snoopsnopp 3y ago
I find this happens with a lot of forums. The most critically minded users eventually get exasperated and become toxic after repeated bans to “kamikaze” accounts.
notahacker 3y ago
I suspect the system for scoring "toxic" comments is less likely to flag the bureaucratic "I have reverted your edit for a second time because it does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Please be aware of WP:3RR and be prepared to discuss any further changes on the talk page" comments about reversion and more likely to flag the sort of very angry and personal comments that come up when the page being edited is related to the culture war or actual longstanding war. Whether the recipient of the angry messages was previously a constructive contributor to that topic is an open question, of course.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The system almost certainly doesn't address the primary problem, which is that a small group of people consider a page or topic to be their personal fiefdom and they're experts at snowballing people with the most obscure wikipedia policies. A shining example of this would be the page for Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a small legion of accounts 'defending' it. The accounts espouse, vocally, a victimhood complex - that AA is targeted by people "harassing" and "discrediting" the program. The page is brutally censored of any negative information - such as their problems with predation ('thirteenth stepping') and sexual assault, the fact that the program has no basis in science and is repeatedly demonstrated to be amongst the worst options for addiction treatment. The result is a page which is wildly not NPOV - it contains only material positive about the founder, program and organization. Someone tried to add mention of a documentary and the prick editor claimed the film did not meet notability guidelines because it hadn't been screened in the right kind of film festivals and thus its existence could not be mentioned.
  - pinusc 3y ago
    Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"? They have a section on effectiveness citing a few studies and the Cochrane review. I'm not well-equipped to determine if that's conclusive, of course. Is there overwhelming evidence to the contrary? As someone else pointed out, there is a section on thirteenth stepping. Do you find it insufficient, or is it a recent addition..? I am not invested either way, I am just curious. If what you're saying is accurate, it's a stark reminder that Wikipedia articles may _look_ well-researched and still ignore or hide enough evidence to fundamentally change the story. This is something I have a hard time coping with: that no matter how many sources are cited, there is no way of knowing how many are missing... in some cases a few minutes of research can uncover obvious lies (and it's already a titanic effort to cursorily check most of your beliefs), but in others it takes actual expertise in the topic to know. Edit: After a better look at the Criticism section, the article seems less-than-neutral in listing critical sources. "In the past, some critics have criticized 12-step programs as pseudoscientific". I would object to the use of "In the past" here: the sources cited are from 2015 and 2010 (although both of them are prior to the 2020 Cochrane review, which the Wikipedia page seems to consider conclusive. Still, unclear wording which spins the opinions as outdated). Similarly, two sources of criticism are listed under the "Popular press" section. Perhaps a better wording would be "Non peer-reviewed". If you believe that AA _is_ ineffective, then this wording is certainly a misdirection. If you believe that the sources in its favor are conclusive, then it's adequate. Neutrality is tricky, and while it's extremely important in some topics, it should not be entertained in others (should the article on Earth be "neutral" and faithfully cite flat-earthers as a reasonable side?) Again, I don't know which way this should go, as I don't have any degree of certainty either way, because I know absolutely nothing about the subject.
    - jeremyjh 3y ago
      > Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"? Do you know anything about it? The primary source I'd cite would be their own literature. It doesn't claim to be based in science. Sobriety is only possible by giving up your ego and embracing a higher power.
  - 3y ago
novaleaf 3y ago
my son created an account and tried to add a page for his middle-school, only to have the page deleted and told it's not notable enough to have a page. after that my son hasn't tried editing Wikipedia.
- gopher_space 3y ago
  I think this is the central issue with both Wikipedia and stack overflow, and a bit of a problem for HN. I don't need people less interested in a subject than I am deciding what I read about. I've worked on two separate projects where having every middle-school in the state on wikipedia would've helped, so tell your son I appreciate his work!
- Washuu 3y ago
  Similar here. I corrected some statistics on a page for a vehicle. I had multiple different years of the owner and service manuals in had to verify these facts and able to source them. Nope, some overlord of the page just kept reverting it with no recourse. I never bother to try editing again. It is not worth my time to deal with that.
  - Tomte 3y ago
    Similar. I use Wikipedia a lot, but will under no circumstances whatsoever contribute anything, after a bad experience with my first edit.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    The trick with any sort of halfway controversial edits is to discuss at length your planned contribution on the talk page, wait until nobody complains, then make the actual edit. If you do get reverted, you can point out that you had announced the edit in the talk page and no objections had been raised. It helps to post on the message boards for relevant WikiProjects too. Yes, Wikipedia policy pages say to be "bold" with editing, but that only really works for things like fixing typos. If you know that someone might object, you should focus on in-depth discussion and let concerns be addressed that way.
Ensorceled 3y ago
They are using an established tool to measure toxicity ("A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make people leave a discussion.") and extreme toxicity ("A very hateful, aggressive, disrespectful comment or otherwise very likely to make a user leave a discussion or give up on sharing their perspective. This attribute is much less sensitive to more mild forms of toxicity, such as comments that include positive uses of curse words.") not what you are saying.

by vasco 3y ago

snoopsnopp 3y ago

I find this happens with a lot of forums. The most critically minded users eventually get exasperated and become toxic after repeated bans to “kamikaze” accounts.

notahacker 3y ago

I suspect the system for scoring "toxic" comments is less likely to flag the bureaucratic "I have reverted your edit for a second time because it does not meet WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Please be aware of WP:3RR and be prepared to discuss any further changes on the talk page" comments about reversion and more likely to flag the sort of very angry and personal comments that come up when the page being edited is related to the culture war or actual longstanding war. Whether the recipient of the angry messages was previously a constructive contributor to that topic is an open question, of course.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
The system almost certainly doesn't address the primary problem, which is that a small group of people consider a page or topic to be their personal fiefdom and they're experts at snowballing people with the most obscure wikipedia policies. A shining example of this would be the page for Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a small legion of accounts 'defending' it. The accounts espouse, vocally, a victimhood complex - that AA is targeted by people "harassing" and "discrediting" the program. The page is brutally censored of any negative information - such as their problems with predation ('thirteenth stepping') and sexual assault, the fact that the program has no basis in science and is repeatedly demonstrated to be amongst the worst options for addiction treatment. The result is a page which is wildly not NPOV - it contains only material positive about the founder, program and organization. Someone tried to add mention of a documentary and the prick editor claimed the film did not meet notability guidelines because it hadn't been screened in the right kind of film festivals and thus its existence could not be mentioned.
- pinusc 3y ago
  Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"? They have a section on effectiveness citing a few studies and the Cochrane review. I'm not well-equipped to determine if that's conclusive, of course. Is there overwhelming evidence to the contrary? As someone else pointed out, there is a section on thirteenth stepping. Do you find it insufficient, or is it a recent addition..? I am not invested either way, I am just curious. If what you're saying is accurate, it's a stark reminder that Wikipedia articles may _look_ well-researched and still ignore or hide enough evidence to fundamentally change the story. This is something I have a hard time coping with: that no matter how many sources are cited, there is no way of knowing how many are missing... in some cases a few minutes of research can uncover obvious lies (and it's already a titanic effort to cursorily check most of your beliefs), but in others it takes actual expertise in the topic to know. Edit: After a better look at the Criticism section, the article seems less-than-neutral in listing critical sources. "In the past, some critics have criticized 12-step programs as pseudoscientific". I would object to the use of "In the past" here: the sources cited are from 2015 and 2010 (although both of them are prior to the 2020 Cochrane review, which the Wikipedia page seems to consider conclusive. Still, unclear wording which spins the opinions as outdated). Similarly, two sources of criticism are listed under the "Popular press" section. Perhaps a better wording would be "Non peer-reviewed". If you believe that AA _is_ ineffective, then this wording is certainly a misdirection. If you believe that the sources in its favor are conclusive, then it's adequate. Neutrality is tricky, and while it's extremely important in some topics, it should not be entertained in others (should the article on Earth be "neutral" and faithfully cite flat-earthers as a reasonable side?) Again, I don't know which way this should go, as I don't have any degree of certainty either way, because I know absolutely nothing about the subject.
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    > Could you point me to any sources that discuss how the program "has no basis in science"? Do you know anything about it? The primary source I'd cite would be their own literature. It doesn't claim to be based in science. Sobriety is only possible by giving up your ego and embracing a higher power.
- 3y ago

novaleaf 3y ago

my son created an account and tried to add a page for his middle-school, only to have the page deleted and told it's not notable enough to have a page. after that my son hasn't tried editing Wikipedia.

gopher_space 3y ago
I think this is the central issue with both Wikipedia and stack overflow, and a bit of a problem for HN. I don't need people less interested in a subject than I am deciding what I read about. I've worked on two separate projects where having every middle-school in the state on wikipedia would've helped, so tell your son I appreciate his work!
Washuu 3y ago
Similar here. I corrected some statistics on a page for a vehicle. I had multiple different years of the owner and service manuals in had to verify these facts and able to source them. Nope, some overlord of the page just kept reverting it with no recourse. I never bother to try editing again. It is not worth my time to deal with that.
- Tomte 3y ago
  Similar. I use Wikipedia a lot, but will under no circumstances whatsoever contribute anything, after a bad experience with my first edit.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  The trick with any sort of halfway controversial edits is to discuss at length your planned contribution on the talk page, wait until nobody complains, then make the actual edit. If you do get reverted, you can point out that you had announced the edit in the talk page and no objections had been raised. It helps to post on the message boards for relevant WikiProjects too. Yes, Wikipedia policy pages say to be "bold" with editing, but that only really works for things like fixing typos. If you know that someone might object, you should focus on in-depth discussion and let concerns be addressed that way.

Ensorceled 3y ago

They are using an established tool to measure toxicity ("A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make people leave a discussion.") and extreme toxicity ("A very hateful, aggressive, disrespectful comment or otherwise very likely to make a user leave a discussion or give up on sharing their perspective. This attribute is much less sensitive to more mild forms of toxicity, such as comments that include positive uses of curse words.") not what you are saying.