4 ms·

The above comment seems unnecessarily vitriolic. > free reign to antagonize newcomers Nobody has "free reign to antagonize" anyone including newcomers. It's h

The above comment seems unnecessarily vitriolic. > free reign to antagonize newcomers Nobody has "free reign to antagonize" anyone including newcomers. It's hard to come to a new large community and project with somewhat unusual norms, and established editors should try to do a better job helping people learn the ropes, but at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out. If you (the generic you reading this comment) want to put a bunch of volunteer effort into finding newcomers who are having a tough time and helping them out that would be a valuable contribution. On an all-volunteer project people do what they are interested and unfortunately intermediating on newcomers' behalf is usually not it (I do try to help when I can). > in 2014, too, but it wasn't dominated by the problems [...] To my recollection is has been continually dominated by similar kinds of issues, since close to the beginning. It was then, and still is now, often a frustrating slog when multiple editors disagree about something, especially if there's some kind of (typically unstated) ideological motivation involved, e.g. promoting one ethnic group or nation. There are various dispute resolution processes, which work more or less, mainly by attracting more eyeballs any time there is a stuck conflict, but trying to form consensus with a pseodonymous global group of volunteers is just an inherently hard problem. The main differences between the first few years vs. today are that (1) many topics at least have some kind of article written about them (often still mediocre, especially parts from the early days that haven't seen much dedicated focused effort) which means that there's a bit more bias toward preserving what is already there (an understandable tendency in the face of a constant onslaught of vandalism and entropy), (2) people recently tend to demand a bit better sourcing for claims than was done up to about 2010, so there's sometimes a bit of a disconnect between the quality standard applied to existing material vs. newly added/changed material, and (3) there's a bit more focus than before on earning little gamified badges like stars or green + signs in the corners of articles.

cxr 2y ago
Your pivot from "newcomers who followed the rules [i.e. those who took the time to educate themselves beforehand about the speed limit so they don't break it]" to "newcomers who are having a tough time [because they need help learning the ropes]" isn't particularly artful or subtle. I'm referring specifically to experienced editors who take the stance that some action by a new/IP account is coming from an confused/uninformed place for no other reason than because it's an inexperienced editor—a bag of foregone conclusions and the kind of presumptuousness that, perversely, your comment exemplifies. And you're wrong about 2004 Wikipedia versus 2014 Wikipedia versus 2024 Wikipedia. It's much, much worse in 2024. (I began editing Wikipedia in 2004, by the way. I am not the newcomer described here, but I've absolutely seen other experienced editors behave this way, including in response to IP edits that I've made when I happened not to be logged in.) > at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out Uh, okay? So if in a group of totally unrelated persons who have nothing in common except for the fact that they're all inexperienced, at least half of them are in the wrong, then it supposed to cancel out or something? Even if 999 new editors behave badly and 1 new editor doesn't, then that 1 editor has a legitimate grievance when they're being wronged (instead than being the one who's in the wrong themselves). They have no control over and bear no responsibility for the actions of the other 999.
- jacobolus 2y ago
  Edit: Nevermind. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.
  - cxr 2y ago
    > same complaints and conflicts have been happening all along in broadly comparable ways You're really doubling down on this line of reasoning, even though once was already too much. I'll be even more blunt: it sucks. It's shoddy reasoning. Tammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. But she's wrong. They don't. Sammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. She's right. They actually do. Do you see how no matter how many Tammis there are, it doesn't negate whatever is true about Sammi? If you do, and you actually grasp the principle that "you have to actually go look at the specific examples before trying to draw broad conclusions from that", then what possible reason would there be, when Sammi appears or someone tries to discuss her case, to respond by bringing up how often Tammi has made the same complaint? It changes nothing, and it's a shitty thing to make Sammi deal with if she's already having a below-baseline-level experience. > please assume good faith Side quest: What does that phrase actually mean to you? I've literally only ever seen it used pre-emptively as an explicit or implicit accusation—violating the very guideline that the person invoking WP:AGF is trying to claim the other person is guilty of. The only reasonable conclusion is that they either don't know or don't care what it actually means, because it's accepted as the universal response when you want to bundle something up with WP:CIVIL, since it's free to allege WP:AGF violations and there are no consequences for accusing someone spuriously.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
chambers 2y ago
It would be nice to see how a long-time editor of Wikipedia avoids the abuses of power the GP speaks of. Would you be comfortable sharing your account? Or some other account that demonstrates non-collusive, even virtuous behavior.
Timwi 2y ago
> established editors should try to do a better job helping people learn the ropes Translation: you're not welcome unless you adhere precisely to established editors’ views and practices. There is no room for introspection, civilized discussion that questions the status quo, and hence, no room for improvement.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  Maintainer stance is understandable. They are the ones taking on the risks and who will be left dealing with consequences. Flyby contributors don’t know how much effort there is to keep things going even at good enough level. It’s up to the newcomer to convince that the new opinion matters and new risk is worth taking. Maintainers can’t distinguish between troll and flyby-contributor-never-to-be-seen-again and genius-that-will-sacrifice-everything-for-the project. I get that you can’t convince of anything if they don’t discuss, but that means one must earn the right to discuss, by becoming part of current organisation. Illustrative analogy from open source project (not mine). Project had top level directories like “ext” and “external” and “vendor” (which is confusing at the first glance). Potential contributor made PR to rectify it (memory slips on how; but seemed reasonable at first glance). Owner/Maintainer rejected this help. The would be contributor got frustrated, later complained here that the project did not care about code quality and best practices and is hostile to new contributors. I see Chesterton’s fence here and a bit of entitlement on the would-be-contributor’s side.
  - cxr 2y ago
    Editing Wikipedia is not the same as developing software, and they're different enough for the distinction to matter. Wikipedia is not Nupedia, and the comparison in this comment between Wikipedia and open source software maintenance is simply flawed from the start. Wikipedia explicitly does not have owners. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content> The statement that "one must earn the right to discuss" alone has the minor problem that it is totally antithetical to the actual policies and guidelines that Wikipedia aims to adhere to.

cxr 2y ago

Your pivot from "newcomers who followed the rules [i.e. those who took the time to educate themselves beforehand about the speed limit so they don't break it]" to "newcomers who are having a tough time [because they need help learning the ropes]" isn't particularly artful or subtle. I'm referring specifically to experienced editors who take the stance that some action by a new/IP account is coming from an confused/uninformed place for no other reason than because it's an inexperienced editor—a bag of foregone conclusions and the kind of presumptuousness that, perversely, your comment exemplifies. And you're wrong about 2004 Wikipedia versus 2014 Wikipedia versus 2024 Wikipedia. It's much, much worse in 2024. (I began editing Wikipedia in 2004, by the way. I am not the newcomer described here, but I've absolutely seen other experienced editors behave this way, including in response to IP edits that I've made when I happened not to be logged in.) > at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out Uh, okay? So if in a group of totally unrelated persons who have nothing in common except for the fact that they're all inexperienced, at least half of them are in the wrong, then it supposed to cancel out or something? Even if 999 new editors behave badly and 1 new editor doesn't, then that 1 editor has a legitimate grievance when they're being wronged (instead than being the one who's in the wrong themselves). They have no control over and bear no responsibility for the actions of the other 999.

jacobolus 2y ago
Edit: Nevermind. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.
- cxr 2y ago
  > same complaints and conflicts have been happening all along in broadly comparable ways You're really doubling down on this line of reasoning, even though once was already too much. I'll be even more blunt: it sucks. It's shoddy reasoning. Tammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. But she's wrong. They don't. Sammi says that she's the kind of person that others usually end up taking advantage of, especially at work. She's right. They actually do. Do you see how no matter how many Tammis there are, it doesn't negate whatever is true about Sammi? If you do, and you actually grasp the principle that "you have to actually go look at the specific examples before trying to draw broad conclusions from that", then what possible reason would there be, when Sammi appears or someone tries to discuss her case, to respond by bringing up how often Tammi has made the same complaint? It changes nothing, and it's a shitty thing to make Sammi deal with if she's already having a below-baseline-level experience. > please assume good faith Side quest: What does that phrase actually mean to you? I've literally only ever seen it used pre-emptively as an explicit or implicit accusation—violating the very guideline that the person invoking WP:AGF is trying to claim the other person is guilty of. The only reasonable conclusion is that they either don't know or don't care what it actually means, because it's accepted as the universal response when you want to bundle something up with WP:CIVIL, since it's free to allege WP:AGF violations and there are no consequences for accusing someone spuriously.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

chambers 2y ago

It would be nice to see how a long-time editor of Wikipedia avoids the abuses of power the GP speaks of. Would you be comfortable sharing your account? Or some other account that demonstrates non-collusive, even virtuous behavior.

Timwi 2y ago

> established editors should try to do a better job helping people learn the ropes Translation: you're not welcome unless you adhere precisely to established editors’ views and practices. There is no room for introspection, civilized discussion that questions the status quo, and hence, no room for improvement.

stoperaticless 2y ago
Maintainer stance is understandable. They are the ones taking on the risks and who will be left dealing with consequences. Flyby contributors don’t know how much effort there is to keep things going even at good enough level. It’s up to the newcomer to convince that the new opinion matters and new risk is worth taking. Maintainers can’t distinguish between troll and flyby-contributor-never-to-be-seen-again and genius-that-will-sacrifice-everything-for-the project. I get that you can’t convince of anything if they don’t discuss, but that means one must earn the right to discuss, by becoming part of current organisation. Illustrative analogy from open source project (not mine). Project had top level directories like “ext” and “external” and “vendor” (which is confusing at the first glance). Potential contributor made PR to rectify it (memory slips on how; but seemed reasonable at first glance). Owner/Maintainer rejected this help. The would be contributor got frustrated, later complained here that the project did not care about code quality and best practices and is hostile to new contributors. I see Chesterton’s fence here and a bit of entitlement on the would-be-contributor’s side.
- cxr 2y ago
  Editing Wikipedia is not the same as developing software, and they're different enough for the distinction to matter. Wikipedia is not Nupedia, and the comparison in this comment between Wikipedia and open source software maintenance is simply flawed from the start. Wikipedia explicitly does not have owners. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content> The statement that "one must earn the right to discuss" alone has the minor problem that it is totally antithetical to the actual policies and guidelines that Wikipedia aims to adhere to.