- It's true that not everything appearing prickly and unpleasant actually is prickly and unpleasant ***
"We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head."-- Posted in Wikipedia by a long-time Wikipedia editor, October 29, 2018 Bias? Nah. There's no us-versus-them bias in Wikipedia designed to cull politically Conservative editors - don't be ridiculous! (yes, that was sarcasm)
"The reality is that Wikipedia is not a grassroots collaborative crafted through the shared effort of People Like Us. Its rules are applied selectively and secretively. It is common to find articles on living persons written up as smear jobs, replete in some cases with outright libel but more often disguised as “neutral” assessments in which undue weight is given to negative evaluations and mischaracterizations of a person’s work while their defining achievements are minimalized or left out. Victims of these hit pieces have no opportunity to address the attacks on their reputation by anonymous editors whose qualifications are frequently nonexistent. Despite Wikipedia’s stated protections against character assassination – drawn up in the aftermath of a scandal which saw a journalist smeared as an accessory to the Kennedy assassination – the rules are selectively enforced and there is a clear bias toward individuals whose work supports the status quo, whatever their field...a cabal of ideologically-motivated editors control what can and cannot be uttered by the modern Oracle of Delphi with a Kafkaesque thicket of rules that morph to suit their purposes, locking outspoken anti-establishment voices in reputational cages from which there is no conceivable escape." -- From "Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle" by Helen Buyniski, on the Gary Null Show - 25 September 2018 [1]
The Facts stood in front of a crowd of Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers and said: "Hey, I'm The Facts, did you want me?"
The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers replied, "We only want the part of you that supports our opinion!"
The Facts replied naively, "Ha-ha, you can't just take a part of me, silly!"
After having a bite taken out of it by The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers, The Facts sadly and with tears dejectedly said, "But...they could. And did."
True story. Just look at the politically-based articles in Wikipedia and their related talk pages for evidence.
"It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that,” as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I’m offended by that!' Well, so fucking what?" --Stephen Fry
"Trust no one here or anywhere on the internet unless they are a personal friend or family member. People love to screw with others online, usually because they have empty, meaningless lives and want to take their personal misery out on others from their computer keyboards." -- Me
|
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important. |
Some wise words...
"...be mindful of...how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap...Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray..." -- written by a wise Wikipedian (who shall remain anonymous)
"You are a sloppy editor with little knowledge of either editing policy, sourcing or writing." -- A assessment of me offered by a former administrator that gives a perfect example of non-AGF behavior and totally violates Wikipedia's policy on "no personal attacks". This is the kind of thanks volunteer editors have to put up with all too frequently, and yet, we trod on.
"It's dressed up a little nicer, definitely has appeal to those with education and a desire to help others, but all-in-all, Wikipedia is still just the internet. Never forget that the internet can be a cruel, heartless place where even the most educated and seemingly decent of humans can act like total assholes and treat their fellow humans like shit. And they do it because they're just a bunch of nameless, faceless anonymous individuals online who use this medium to take out their hidden anger and inner ugliness on the world. In real life, they're probably well-liked and respected. If their friends only knew." -- written by another wise Wikipedian (who shall also remain anonymous)
 |
If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.
If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. Because being on the Autism Spectrum uffects everything I do (typo intentional), think, and say, whether it be in real life or on the internet, and since the reason why most people come to an editor's user space is to find out more about 'em, (typo intentional) I ask that you read the "The Autie Pact". Written beautifully by long-time editor User:ThatPeskyCommoner, the pact should be read by all neuro-typical Wikipedia editors in order to better understand how to work well and peacefully with non-neurotypical editors (such as myself). The pact is very complete, however, there are a couple of things I would add to them thar words frum Pesky (typos and grammatical errors intentional):
Those of us on the spectrum who enjoy editing Wikipedia want pretty much the same thing the neurotypical editors want: to add to Wikipedia and have fun doing it. And to edit in peace. Because unwanted drama and the stress that goes with it sucks. |
  I subscribe very strongly to the premise and points stated in the Wikipedia essay WikiBullying. Those who bully others as a way to assert article ownership, POV and agenda pushing are behaving in a despicable manner, period. Another detestable behavior in Wikipedia is that which is akin to circling sharks, looking for weakness, readying to pounce on the too-trusting, naive editor who is here believing everyone wants just to build an encyclopedia. Such shark-like behavior occurs at noticeboards where some editors go to wait for the kill and then tear editors to shreds. You can also see it at article talk pages. The behavior of each type (bullies and sharks) is at the heart of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Then again, some editors are just assholes and enjoy exhibiting their assholery because: it's easy to do when you're anonymous via a screen name and because this is the internet, where such behavior has become all too commonplace.
|
|
I'm noticing more and more a very disturbing and encroaching trend among editors -- mostly newer editors and young editors: no one seems to understand what an encyclopedia is, what encyclopedic tone is, what makes for encyclopedic content and what doesn't. It seems to me that with most reading outside of school being done on the internet these days, people under 30-or-so have no concept of the difference between tabloid content and true encyclopedic content is. More and more, new and/or younger editors think because it's sourced, it should be included in Wikipedia. Some believe (and this includes editors who have been here a while and know better) because it's news, it's article- or inclusion-worthy. Anything in the news belongs in Wikipedia. Anything that is quoted from an online source or a celebrity is reliable. They think anything found in a reliable source is automatically trustworthy and inclusive. This is what will continue more and more to be a real problem with Wikipedia and keep its reliability factor in the toilet. And all because some folks just don't know the difference between a true encyclopedia article and People Magazine. |
|
An almost robotic recitation of "We only go by what the reliable sources say" when the reliable sources are really, really wrong. This, in part, is due to "news" being available anywhere on the internet and each news group vying to scoop the other. In the rush to post that news scoop, investigation for completeness and truth is lacking. That's on the news agency, of course, but it is also up to the Wikipedia editor to realize that just because a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia purposes, they aren't infallible. This indicates not only a lack of common sense but a lack of honesty in editing. One would hope that with talk page discussion a compromise could be reached with the common sense solution prevailing. That is happening less and less in Wikipedia from what I can tell. Political agendas, personal agendas that are about opposing editors at any cost... the integrity of content in Wikipedia is forgotten or intentionally set aside for these purposes. It's disturbing, to say the least. Especially when, in the course of doing so, the importance of BLP guidelines are completely set aside. |
|
This is always a great essay for a good laugh -- especially after you see a user try to employ it! [2] The takeaway? "Blaming disruptive edits made from your account on your little brother or anyone else may seem like a good idea, but it isn't. It's a very common excuse, and we have no way of verifying it, and won't bother to try. You are responsible for all edits made from your account."
Found this at the userspace of an editor who had just accused me of something I wasn't doing (no good faith there), called me a jerk (civility and maturity?) and threatened me after repeated repostings of content I deleted off my own talk page. Funny stuff. :-)
|
|
Regarding Wikipedia's Good Article and Featured Article status': Before feeling all giddy that you have nominated an article for GA or FA status and such status was granted, remember it's a "distinction" that is contained solely within Wikipedia. In other words, no one's getting a Pulitzer or other journalistic prize with a GA/FA stamp of approval. GA and FA only mean that a Wikipedia editor who likely has no writing, journalistic, or editorial training had an article they have created/contributed to gone over, judged, and evaluated by another Wikipedia editor who likely has no writing, journalistic, or editorial training. Further, it's important to remember GA/FA is a within-Wikipedia "award". Which, in the real world means... ...nothing whatsoever. Remember that next time you think you're all that because you have a (or another) GA or FA notch on your Wikipedia belt. |
|
The following is taken from a talk page message left by a wise administrator following an editor block for continued and escalating personal attacks as well as incivility and battleground behavior. I find what he has to say to be the best explanation yet of why remaining civil and cooperative in Wikipedia is the imperative gold standard: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created not by any one individual, but by a cooperative community. It is mandatory that you cooperate with the community in editing Wikipedia. Attacking people and insulting them incessantly, as you have done, serves no good purpose. It disrupts the community, it drives people away from the discussions, and in the long term degrades the value of your own contributions." Another administrator quote that contains more truism and sage advice: "...administrators don't care about your content dispute. Administrative tools are intended to prevent disruption." Not an administrator who wrote this, but it's some of the best and most completely accurate analysis of how difficult Wikipedia can be and what one can do to survive it: "It's time to start building bridges and coalitions composed of editors who will no longer stand idle while others are being attacked and denigrated. Just be mindful of...how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap, don't make any reverts and use the talk page to engage in calm talk. If you must revert, do so only once a day, if at all. Don't respond to incivility with incivility, respond with kindness and a polite reminder about the civility policy. Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray. If you can't avoid conflict, reach out to likeminded editors and admins for support. Find allies and make friends, and stay positive." And finally, more great advice that I will refer back to from time to time, no doubt: "...do not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble." (Yeah - damn that signal-to-noise ratio, anyway!) Regarding edit warring: Not always so cut-and-dried. For example, if you are repeatedly reverting someone you point a finger at and accuse of being an edit warrior - guess what? You're being an edit warrior, too. Duh. |
|
Wikipedia is all about teamwork. It's not about winning or delivering a "Checkmate!". Editors must work together to build a reliable encyclopedia, not try to prove themselves to be "better" than others, not to show off grammar and writing skills and knowledge of language. Just to improve the encyclopedia with others who are here to do the same. In the spirit of teamwork and Wikipedia working as much like a well-maintained engine as possible, I believe administrators should be a good example and here to help -- sadly, this isn't always what happens. I've seen some administrators who are kind, patient, and bend over backward to retain good editors. I've also seen some administrators who behave disruptively and treat Wikipedia's volunteer editors with unbridled disrespect and animosity, even when undeserved. That's not how cooperation is modeled or encouraged. Prevention, not punishment. Working together, not winning. Respect, not revilement. Resolution taken into your own hands rather than running to noticeboards and talk pages whining and posting a laundry list of reversion diffs or record of past infractions, errors, and perceived wrongs. Keep the long-term goal in mind. Do your part to make things better and the rest will fall into place. Divas and chronic victims need not apply. |
|
|
Wikipedia is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important. |
|
