3 ms·
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]"
by 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 agoEdit: 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]