10 ms·

Here's how they define toxicity (only clearly described in their "Supplementary material"): https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/

• nomilk 3y ago
  > Toxicity: A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make people leave a discussion Rude and disrespectful are subjective. As a layperson learning biology for fun (e.g. Bob Sapolsky lectures) I often chuckle at how rude or shocking nature can be! I grimace at how nature videos (e.g. a pride of lions hunting a baby elephant) will garner comments like "you're sick for filming this!" or "do something to help!". Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that microscopic particles (what we now know as bacteria) on the hands and body were causing women and babies to become infected during birth. He was considered a misinformation-spreading pariah for a quarter century until links were made between germs and diseases. But for the 25 years it took the ideas to mature and reach mainstream, he was "toxic".
  • projektfu 3y ago
    I think looking at the examples and their rating of toxicity, there's a difference between a Semmelweis who says, "I think you're killing people with established practice" and a theoretical one who says, "You [expletive] [ethnic slur] ... should be shot like a dog in the street."
    • nomilk 3y ago
      The point is Semmelweis, whose information saved huge numbers of human lives, would be lumped in the same category (“toxic”) as your theoretical example, on account of Sammelweis being considered rude and disrespectful. In simplest terms, ideas that threaten orthodoxy can be considered rude and disrespectful, and thus “toxic”. So perhaps the definition of toxic needs more refinement, or toxicity isn't the right thing to be looking at, despite it sounding about right in everyday conversation.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• ern 3y ago
  The whole place is infused with passive-aggression (by policy) and toxic double-standards. There are some truly bizarre things that I've encountered on Wikipedia (editing for almost 20 years now). Admins handwave blatant mistakes away by their friends, citing [[WP:NOTBURO]] and other such shenanigans. It seems to be getting worse over time.
• throwaway2037 3y ago
  I very much like this post, but I would suggest a small edit: "toxic double-standards" -> "double-standards".
• projektfu 3y ago
  Is the definition begging the question? "A rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make people leave a discussion." I guess the question is whether they leave the discussion and continue editing or whether they take a break from Wikipedia altogether.
• tptacek 3y ago
  And yet it's one of the crowning achievements of the entire Internet, and a contender for one of the most important written works of the last century. This is always the challenge trying to dismiss Wikipedia: something they're doing is working, not just well, but well on a level that is virtually unprecedented.
  • harimau777 3y ago
    Give it time. As Wikipedia has become more and more obsessed with being "encyclopedic", I've noticed that they are increasingly ending up with articles that are stripped of any useful information.
    • _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • djmips 3y ago
        ^ toxic comment. - "People like you" - "always" - "You" "calling them a failure" - all hostile. Should have stopped after first sentence.
        • _a_a_a_ 3y ago
          Maybe I should have stopped after the first sentence, but there's always, every bloody time, someone there to drag you down with negativity. How wiki is shit, stackoverflow is shit, the web is shit, society is shit – they never offer evidence, it's just shit and they can't see good in anything. I'm tired of these people dragging me down. What is their fucking agenda other than to wallow in failure?
          • drekipus 3y ago
            People having an opinion on something doesn't affect you. Just relax. Swearing at them, calling them out, "people like you" etc, affects them. I have to have this exact same discussion with my 60yo bipolar neighbour who terrorizes a whole ecovillage, because someone planted carrots and "don't they know the seasonal pattern!!" - just relax, focus on your lane
• natpalmer1776 3y ago
  To some degree you see this pattern repeated over and over anytime you have an organization gain any sort of longevity. A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would disrupt the existing power balance or pose an existential threat to the organization. As time passes, more layers get added in response to various perceived attempts to subvert the organization until a critical mass is reached in which the organization suffers from a brain drain (via retirement, loss of interest, etc.) with the barriers too high and rewards too meager for new(er) qualified individuals to consider filling the void. The organization then continues forward in a zombie-like state until it either fails or becomes irrelevant.
  • throwaway2037 3y ago
    The reflection of human society.
  • Gare 3y ago
    I agree. Is there any way to "inoculate" organisation to prevent this failure mode?
    • 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      How about having a leader willing to make big bold bets? Whatever you may think about Zuck renaming Facebook to Meta, it certainly seems to demonstrate that his company hasn't fallen prey to stasis.
    • jltsiren 3y ago
      Probably not for existing organizations. Possibly for newly formed organizations, but it's unlikely to scale. I've seen volunteer organizations founded on mild anarchistic principles thrive for a few decades while occasionally reinventing themselves. The key is a culture focusing on people working together for a common purpose. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the organization is more important than the organization itself. There may be formal stakeholders and formal power hierarchies, but their role is kept to a minimum. Some people need to be in charge for legal and practical reasons, but leadership positions are not associated with high status. Ideally, the leaders are selected through a deliberative process, and they voluntarily step down after a while. Some people inevitably acquire high status within the community, but they are expected to recognize it and avoid being too vocal.
• EGreg 3y ago
  So basically, worse than StackOverflow? :-P Seems the nastier people are to contributors, the better the end product is for the 10000x more people reading it. You know all those cruel piano teachers in Russia? But the audience actually wanted to hear the pianists later in life! It's like that... but collaborating on content, with NO CELEBRITIES :)
• busyant 3y ago
  > IMHO, you have to be deeply weird to be a frequent contributor. Weirdo here. Actually, I don't contribute much to Wikipedia (aside from the occasional edit for clarity or grammar). But I do upload a number of images to Wikimedia commons. And I occasionally nominate some of my photos for evaluation as Quality Images and Featured Images. Some people definitely act as gatekeepers and can be harsh in their criticism. But in my experience, most people give courteous, constructive criticism--even when they're rejecting your nomination! I pretty much ignore the impolite people--or I try to point out that they could have leveled their critique in a better way.
• commandlinefan 3y ago
  > infused with passive-aggression (by policy) And the worst abuses come from moderators who are _encouraged_ to be abusive.