4 ms·
I don't know what "mods" are but perhaps you mean "modifiers" as in "editors". One main aspect in play here is that we're dealing with over 300 sets of Wikiped
by AStonesThrow 1y ago
I don't know what "mods" are but perhaps you mean "modifiers" as in "editors".
One main aspect in play here is that we're dealing with over 300 sets of Wikipedia editors in different projects. Each Wikipedia language-based project is siloed, with its own complement of editors, admins, policies and guidelines. Sure, you can edit more than one Wikipedia from a single account, but there is typically a true community that coalesces in each one, and they set the culture and the rules of behavior.
I have found that many are less deletionist and less vigilant and more welcoming of new content in general. The majority of these articles may be under the radar for them. They may not detect anything wrong with the articles. They may not care. They may have too few editors patrolling in general, to clean up minor issues like this.
Another thing about the small communities that have formed, they often understandably do not always enjoy when an editor comes cross-wiki to combat some perceived abuse or vandalism. It is not what some user did on another wiki that matters to them, if a local user is not being disruptive, per se, then they should not be subject to any disciplinary action.
So if anyone were to pursue this seemingly minor issue of single-article spam, they'd need to pursue it more than 300 times in 300 different ways, subject to 300 separate policies and guidelines interpreted by that many communities of editors and admins. That's sort of a radioactive task for anyone there.
- KomoD 1y ago> I don't know what "mods" are but perhaps you mean "modifiers" as in "editors". Moderators
- AStonesThrow 1y agoWikipedia doesn't have anyone called "moderators", at least not in English nor in any sense of userrights. "Mods and admins" is usually something an ignorant non-community-member resorts to appealing when something is wrong there. The truth is that Wikipedia content is not governed by a hierarchical administration, and all ordinary editors collaborate there to achieve consensus. Administrators on Wikipedia have the responsibility for administrative tasks, privileged things, and disciplinary actions. Not content, not choosing what sort of articles to delete, not cleaning up articles. See, I tried to give benefit of the doubt and a favorable interpretation, and someone who isn't the GP chimes in to perpetuate the myth. I'm curious about the myth: where does it come from and how do so many people sincerely just believe this is how Wikipedia works? Is "mods and admins" the default "go-to group" that cleans up other websites? Is it a specific meme from Reddit or some other forum type place? "Moderators" are usually the ones who execute discipline on forum discussions and users. That's not even a relevant role in terms of Wikipedia. But even within the noticeboards and talk pages, newbies come in all the time to appeal to "mods and admins", please address our problem. It's interesting how uniform the myth becomes!