Architecttype (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 273: | Line 273: | ||
:And we all know why this will never happen. Power and control. Those who have it will never relinquish it. This gives them the basis to believe that they are the righteous ones who carry the torch of ‘truth’ and justifies any ruthless and inconsistent behavior as an editor. '''Which brings us full circle, to why editors leave Wikipedia.''' People who first come here are doing so for altruistic reasons ... they want to help ... but once they pull the curtain back on the charade and they witness George Orwell’s ''1984'' in full bloom, reality slaps them in the face. A few choose to stay and fight. Others, including most of the smart ones, have better things to do, and they leave. Most of those left are zealots who push the ''consensus'' agendas you see on Wikipedia. They keep the torch burning.[[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype|talk]]) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
:And we all know why this will never happen. Power and control. Those who have it will never relinquish it. This gives them the basis to believe that they are the righteous ones who carry the torch of ‘truth’ and justifies any ruthless and inconsistent behavior as an editor. '''Which brings us full circle, to why editors leave Wikipedia.''' People who first come here are doing so for altruistic reasons ... they want to help ... but once they pull the curtain back on the charade and they witness George Orwell’s ''1984'' in full bloom, reality slaps them in the face. A few choose to stay and fight. Others, including most of the smart ones, have better things to do, and they leave. Most of those left are zealots who push the ''consensus'' agendas you see on Wikipedia. They keep the torch burning.[[User:Architecttype|Architecttype]] ([[User talk:Architecttype|talk]]) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
It’s really not that bad. Your issues were with notability. The articles you wrote are for the most part viable and require some editing. If we can learn from this, I think we might more respectfully address newcomers who may or may not be experts in something. One way to do this might be to ask people about their particular field of interest as part of our default welcome message and in greeting newcomers. That way we could direct them to work with people who are more suited to editing the material they bring to the encyclopedia while at the same time offering a more personal touch to our method of establishing contact with new editors. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 16:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:15, 1 January 2019
Editor Retention | ||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them
This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.
Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."
- Wikipedia:First contact
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#The decline is caused, at least in part, by increasing rejection of good-faith newcomer contributions
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28#What is editor retention?
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A note from some guy
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#A suggestion for welcoming new editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#My experience as a new wiki editor
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29#SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#The elephant in the room
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Loss of core editors
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 30#Newcomers and contests
Wishlist proposal on one-click inline cleanup tags
The best editor-retention idea I've seen is proposed in the current Wishlist Survey. It suggests making it as easy to tag (with "citation needed" etc.) as it is to rvv, using semi-automated tools. There is evidence[1][2] that being tagged rather than reverted will cause more new editors to stick around and improve their edits and skills. Having their edits tagged for cleanup actually makes editors more likely to stay than if their edits go untouched. It should also be faster to tag than to write custom comments in a good-faith revert, so semi-automated tool users will be motivated to tag more, especially if they then see new editors fixing their edits. Our editor numbers started declining when we introduced automated vandal-fighting tools (see research, and graph); adding new functionality to those tools could reverse that change, and give us record retention rates, faster editor training, and better content. Please consider voting on the wish. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...
This thread took place in the past 48 hours in the Teahouse and should serve as a case study on how and why editors are lost ...
Wikipedia Teahouse thread
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9)
- Originally from WP:Teahouse#Perceived_Flyspecking_Editors_..._Is_This_Normal?, I've just re-pasted the wikitext version, to preserve the formatting Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The following conversations took place simultaneously on the author's user talk page and article talk page
"Talk:Guy Peterson" thread
|
---|
|
"User talk:Architecttype" thread
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC+9)
- Just pinging the other editors (@Nick Moyes, Edaham, David notMD, Bellezzasolo, Theroadislong, SovalValtos, and Ariconte:) whose comments/posts are being referenced above as a courtesy in case they wish to further clarify anything that was written. For reference, the links where most of the above took place, in addition to the Teahouse discussion, are Talk:Guy Peterson#Image use and User talk:Architecttype#Cardinal rule is be nice; there were. however, some posts at User talk:SovalValtos#Guy Peterson, and User talk:Ariconte#Autobiographical ... which are also related. Just for future reference, it probably would've be better to just link to the relevant pages instead of copying and pasting entire threads onto this page so as to make it a little easier for others new to the discussion to follow. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do have a comment actually. User:Architecttype To new editors in general who have information in a specialist field to contribute: if you were contributing information to any other literary body, it would be a job, with submission guidelines and a review process. An author probably wouldn’t have the final say in what got printed if they were writing copy for a dictionary or text book. It would be edited by different departments with different concerns in mind. Because parts of Wikipedia somewhat resemble social media and you don’t have to face a job interview to get on board, lots of people have the idea that it’s going to be easy to contribute or that they have a free right to see their efforts go to print.
- you don’t have a right to see your work in print. That’s not why we contribute. We don’t write articles to see them stand as a memorial of our effort. We get to be a part of an editorial process. That’s the reward.
- it’s not easy. Nor would any similar job be expected to be easy. If you jump straight into article writing, get used to the bold-revert-discuss cycle pretty quickly or bang your head on the table trying, if you believe that standing guard over your work is the way to keep it template free and unedited.
- Wikipedia is the least dystopian and most inclusive body of staff in the world. It takes a good run at it to get yourself pushed out of the project. For the most part editors who would be out on their heel if this were a company are allowed to continue to contribute freely. Wikipedia is easy to fix not difficult to break, and for this reason it can afford to accommodate the odd muppet or two. This also means that policies have to cover non-standard contributions and new editors often find that their writing doesn’t quite fit the guidelines to start off with.
- lastly: policy across Wikipedia CANNOT be consistently applied. We are volunteers trying to do our best for the most part. We are lucky if a group of concerned editors take it upon themselves to standardize and apply policy and manuals of style across a select category, but you can surely see the fact that an open project of this nature and scale is vast, flexible and evolving at different speeds in different areas. It’s unreasonable to make a complaint that because one article looks more poorly written, that an article you created, or to which you contributed ought to be left alone. It’s both a necessity and a compliment that, having written an article, editors want to get involved with your contributions and work with you. Again, that’s the reward and the merit of contributing to this project!
- having said that it looks like You have got off to a flying start. In this respect, trust me you are having one of the better experiences a new editor can have if you have passed that many articles through AfC. Well done there. Please try to adjust to the idea of being part of a process, and embrace BRD. The editors who come at your work from different perspectives are not irrelevant. They all have experience in some facet of policy and aim to improve the articles you are creating. Thanks for your contributions this far. I’m in architecture myself. I enjoyed reading your articles but can also understand some of the criticisms you’ve encountered. Edaham (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- After several edit conflicts and loss of input. There might be more than one editor, the ostensible subject of this thread, being lost. Which editor is the intended subject at risk?SovalValtos (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Apologize if I caused the edit conflict. I was trying to sort out the formatting to make the thread somewhat easier to read without as I believe it was originally intended. The multiple signatures copied and pasted also might have confused those new to the discussion as to who actually starting the thread. It would've really been better to simply add links to these discussion threads than copying and pasting them all onto this page. Anyway, hopefully I didn't make things worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Architecttype: I just want to respond the purge point (User talk:Architecttype), this definitely isn't an attempt to purge you from the project. You've already got a Barnstar, I've only ever received a grand total of 2 in near enough 10,000 edits. And you've got a level 1 warning (notice level) with respect to talk page conduct. I rather suspect that what is happening, to an extent, is that people are recognising that you know your subject matter. What you don't have experience with is editing Wikipedia, and the associated processes. Naturally, your interaction with editors is going to reflect that, to the extent that it may seem that there's a huge focus on process - observation bias. Process is important, but with a little time it'll come easily. That's absolutely not a purge, rather, high standards beget high expectations. Most editors involved want to see you become an experienced Wikipedian, as soon as possible. But rookie errors certainly won't be held against you. They're pointed out as a learning process, not to berate you. On the wider issue of editor retention, a workplace culture might clash with that, and having mistakes pointed out be seen as WP:BITEey. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- A few thoughts: First, we are talking about a serious problem here, of which a major contributor is 'policy obsession' ... and yet, some people are still reminding me that I did not follow policy properly when I filed this very complaint at this site. They are making my point. But beyond that, there is an insidious dark side to it. Policy is a firewall, a bulwark, that gives power and leverage to those who wield it as a weapon (particularly senior editors and administrators). It becomes inside baseball. 'Policy' is used to manipulate. It is used to intimidate. It is used to justify subjective actions under the guise of 'objective' guidelines. "Policy states that this architect is not entitled to have an image gallery on his page" ... never mind that the majority of architects in Wikipedia (at least the ones I looked up: Gehry, Calatrava, van der Rohe, etc) all had image galleries. My subject simply didn't rate ... or at least that is what was implied. Policies and standards are not applied uniformly ... not even close. One editor said that Wikipedia pages were supposed to be brief summations; heavily-edited, very concise, and short ... but then any given celebrity article on Wikipedia runs upwards of 6,000 words and includes what they ate for lunch yesterday. So when one sees the complete capriciousness and inconsistency with which policies are implemented, especially when authors like me are scrutinized and flyspecked for each and every image, link, and footnote, it makes you shake your head and realize how corrupt this whole process is.
- Second, the more serious issue centers on power and control. Nothing makes some senior editors more happy than telling an author that their subject is not notable-enough (gatekeepers), or slapping huge 'warning' banners at the top of certain articles (wiki-cops). It's fun for them to have so much anonymous and unchallenged power, apparently. In my case, they couldn't challenge the notoriety of my subject, but they did immediately slap two warning banners on it. When I told them that I was not the subject, in fact had never met the person (and then removed the banners myself) ... whoa ... that seemed to set off the alarms in the hive and about a half-dozen angry editors swooped in. One of them recommended removing the architect's image gallery. While I was busy trying to respond to him/her on the 'talk' page, someone else slashed in and deleted the whole thing anyway. When I reverted the change, he began erasing the images one by one. Several sections of text were also unilaterally erased, no discussion. Gone. Another editor required me to footnote each and every architectural honor and award listed on the page (as opposed to one footnote linking to the AIA Design Award Summary/Index Page), which I did. Then half of them were removed anyway, because someone decided they were not significant-enough. It was clear to me that they had already determined that this person was only worthy of so much space, and so many photos. I could sense that their goal was to compress the article down to about two short paragraphs. It took me weeks of research to properly prepare that article. There was no respect at all in the destruction that article experienced in its first six hours. If I weren't there battling on its behalf, I seriously believe it would have been reduced to maybe two or three sentences.
- The combination of policy and power, both feeding off each other, have created a highly aggressive and hubris-laden cadre of editors, who in their virtuous minds believe that they carry the flame and hold the real truth, and it is their sacred duty to protect Wikipedia from rogue outsiders (like me). It's their turf. It's their rules. And by god, if someone is going to challenge them in any way (like removing banners) ... there will be hell to pay. Being a Wikipedia editor is the most important thing in some of these people's lives. It has become their religion and it is clearly reflected in their pius banter and actions (please sir, next time abide by policy number 511a and use the proper sandbox#WP.SANDBOX). Protected by a plethora of arcane rules and policies, they have become self-righteousness, and calmly talk about civility. But in truth, the entire process is a thinly-veiled exercise in power and control. I assume that there are very few truly objective readers out there, and much has already been written about this. Still, someone has to address the elephant in the room.
- And to think, all I was doing was trying to help Wikipedia by writing better articles about architecture. Its not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- First I'd like to sympathise with @Architecttype:. If Wikipedia had been as it is today when I started editing thirteen years ago I doubt I would have stuck around. The points made here are absolutely at the core of why Wikipedia is hemorrhaging editors. Editors behave badly and get away with it. Policy has been weaponised. Warning messages are used with abandon. While long time editors will reply that warning notices are used because there is so much to be done and it is faster to slap on a template or a notice, I ask them to stop and consider that a reason there is so much to do is that editors are being driven away by the use of such notices. They are the opposite of creating a friendly environment.
- Architecttype is absolutely correct when they say that policy is not implemented consistently and that editors are power tripping and ganging up on others. It's an endemic problem that can be best seen when cases come to arbcom and the same tribe of editors stick up for editors who have breached so many rules so many times but keep being given another chance, and another, and another. The case of Jytdog is a classic example of this.
- Editors behave really badly and harass others but are not chastised because they are "good editors". A high edit count is not the way to decide if an editor is good. A good editor who is a serial harasser is not a good editor, no matter how many edits they have, and no matter if they agree with one's POV or not. Wikipedia has a serious governance problem. Editors will not take things to admins or to arbcom because they do not trust the process, and they are right not to given the amount of bias that such cases as that of Jytdog demonstrate. Taking things through the dispute resolution process is nothing more than an invitation for an extremely adversarial shit fight.
- I will say to you Architecttype that you have actually gotten of lightly. Your subject area is not controversial. If you want to see an example of what happens in a controversial area look at this page. I particularly draw your attention to the fact that editors are here arguing that experts cannot be cited because they are experts in the topic. The reason being that these editors have decided that the topic is pseudoscience and they then proceed to advance the argument that anyone who is an expert in a thing they have decided is pseudoscience is obviously not to be trusted and can't be cited no matter how high quality the work or the journal it is published in. And that's not even a really controversial article. Don't even look at Talk:Parapsychology...
- Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking of myself, I would gladly "harass" vandals and violators of WP:ARBPS. There is no reason to compromise with bigots and POV-pushers. Sometimes editors understand that Wikipedia is biased against pseudoscience and leave because of that; that's none of what we should fix. We do not seek to be friendly to WP:FRINGE pushers. We should be WP:CIVIL but not tolerant of pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh look, an editor admitting they would harass someone... Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
- "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
- So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
- We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
- We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
- We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
- We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
- We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
- We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
- We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
- We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
- We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
- We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
- We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
- We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
- We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
- We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
- We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.
- Oh look, a bunch of editors decide to harass me at my talk page and here because I expressed an opinion they don't like. This is a case study in why Wikipedia is loosing editors. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Jimmy Wales is the L. Ron Hubbard of Wikipedia. And his dictum listed above is evidence of it. Each article should be assessed individually, and preferably, editors should have no bias.Architecttype (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- People without bias don't exist. We have to have some defense mechanisms against people who claim that magnetized water has healed them of cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't it funny that the people who condemn others for ignoring the 'science' of climate change are often the same ones who want us to think there are more than two genders. (It all depends on the agenda you are pushing).Architecttype (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have no dog in the fight between those gender factions. If you need more info, see WP:ABIAS or even the older essay WP:MAINSTREAM: we have to know what Wikipedia stands for, it stands for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. Most editors have already gotten that point and the others fight guerilla wars against WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia shouldn't 'STAND' for anything!! That's the point. It should be merely a repository of information. It's an online encyclopedia. That's all. "Standing' for something means preconceived bias ... and there are far too many editors STANDING FOR SOMETHING!! Thats the problem!!Architecttype (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the guy who posted the manifesto above, Guy Macon, is a member of the WikiProject Dispute Resolution, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and had previously been involved as a mediator. Seriously? If he believes what he posted, how can he actually perform dispute resolution? Someone please tell me how this can happen?Architecttype (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- We have to uphold WP:PAGs. Fringe pushers could either learn to refrain from pushing fringe views or vote with their feet; the choice is entirely theirs, the WP:RULES are ours and do not tolerate pushing fringe views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- When is someone providing an alternate (and useful) POV ... and when is it fringe-pushing? Should any individual editor have the power to decide that? What is fringe? Maybe your definition is different than mine. In this country right now, we can't even define what mainstream is, so defining 'fringe' is primarily an exercise in subjective censorship on the part of one editor towards another, is it not?Architecttype (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Architecttype Thank you so much for that post. That is absolutely priceless. I could not stop laughing, as I have no doubt everything you said is true. And, I apologize so much that you had to experience all of that. Many of us have suffered this and know the feeling all too well. Can I copy and paste that and quote you? May a title: "A new editor tries to post well-researched material on Wikipedia". --David Tornheim (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yup, learning how to edit Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. That's why newbies are well advised to being with small and uncontroversial edits, stay out of quarrels, gain experience, learn the etiquette, learn to anticipate how experienced editors will view their edits and in the end become productive editors, who know the WP:RULES and abide by them in all their edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do you even realize what you have just said? You are the living epitome of everything I have been saying for the past two days. I hope that responsible administrators at this site can appreciate the contempt implied in that statement. "You must be properly indoctrinated before you become useful, fall in line and be a good soldier, and maybe you might earn a barnstar someday." I don't think Wikipedia was founded on these principles. But sadly has morphed into this.Architecttype (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, editing Wikipedia has become complicated, because people have spelled out rules for what it means to have a high-quality encyclopedia. But you should always mind that from this demand follow all the rules, they aren't arbitrary, but a response to real problems that have plagued Wikipedia in the past and the community chose to address. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Re: "Is he serious? If he believes what he posted, how can he actually perform dispute resolution? Someone please tell me how this can happen?", the problem is that User:Architecttype does not understand what Wikipedia dispute resolution is.
"Dispute resolution" does not mean "tell someone who refuses to follow Wikipedia's rules that it is OK to violate the rules" and "editor retention" does not mean "try to retain editors who refuse to follow Wikipedia's rules".
User:Morgan Leigh is a far simpler case. He wants us to not follow our rules and instead treat acupuncture as a science. Not going to happen.
To both of the above individuals I have a clear message: We would very much like to retain you as editors by convincing you to follow our rules. You can even argue against our rules but when it becomes clear that the consensus is against you you need to stop beating a dead horse. (I wrote an essay of this at WP:1AM.) If you are not willing to abide by our rules, then we have no interest in retaining you as an editor. Sorry to have to be so blunt. but you both need to face the truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[ Public Service Announcement ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- DEAR WIKIPROJECT EDITOR RETENTION: I REST MY CASE. MY WORK IS DONE HERE ...Architecttype (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
\
- "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
- And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
- or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
- 'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
- --The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel
- --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- "In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
- Even the Friedrichshof Commune had rules, why do people find strange that Wikipedia has rules? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- You guys would be funny if not for the damage you are doing to Wikipedia. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: As I said here where one of your compatriots was arguing that an IPD meta review, the gold standard of systematic review, was not a reliable source but was pseudoscience.
Once again you declare your innocence of what science even is. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"Science is a method, not a list of things that are right and things that are wrong. The scientific study of any phenomena is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is bad science. Science not done right. If the method is followed it is ipso facto science, no matter what it is studying."
Break for the New Year
Once again
A completely unrelated wiki project page has been derailed and sequestered into your collection of battlefields where you get to crap all over the wikipedia project and the people who work here because scientists who matter didn’t say the right thing about your pet project. Since you repeatedly state that you don’t have a COI, I can only assume that’s what it is. This is too much. You’re sinking too much of everyone’s time and taking up too much room with this. You are handing out barnstars to new users as rewards for attacking what you perceive as editorial hurdles similar to the ones you are facing, in an effort to exacerbate their confusion and problems with contributions. At this point I don’t even know what guidelines cover this but if you continue to derail unrelated policy pages with this subject I’ll take it up at ANI. Yet another one for your collection. Edaham (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey!!!!
This discussion can only have value if it returns to the case study in question. Perhaps the editors who want to soapbox their own point of view can start a separate discussion. Where it began: Architecttype became an editor recently, created four articles and made major and minor edits to others, all closely related to an obvious area of expertise: Florida architecture. Then, posted a complaint at Teahouse, which triggered a flurry of replies by Teahouse managers and freelancers (including me) on what the guardrails are: no copyright violations, no original research, no using content written by or interviews with the subjects of biographies, etc. More complaining, more push-back. Without a (mostly) agreed upon set of rules, Wikipedia deteriorates into a hot mess. If people can write about themselves, it becomes Wiki-LinkedIn. If what people say about themselves can become referenced content, it becomes Wiki-LiarsRule (imagine citing Trump on Trumo). Allow original research and synthesis - no matter how expert the contributors - and it becomes Wiki-DebatingSociety. Will Architecttype return to creating and editing articles? I hope so, but I don't know. Should every expert who joins Wikipedia be given free reign to write about their area(s) of interest? No. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- To the contrary. The majority of this entire thread is a living and breathing example of precisely what I was taking about. This discussion about the case study has BECOME the case study. The judgement, the contempt, the power trips, the use of rules and policies to censor and shut down openness and debate. It just so happens that the conversation veered into science/pseudoscience, but it could have easily been “why certain architects deserve image galleries while others do not” or “why an architects’ lifetime achievements seem to be less important than Kim Karshian lying about being Armenian.”
- What we see here are the exact same issues. Uneven and capricious application of rules and policies in order to fit personal agendas ... I don’t agree with what a particular contributor wishes to present, so I’ll interpret the rule book in such a way to shut it down. It’s the arbitrariness. Yes, both sides have agendas here, but why does one side have the power to shut the other down? Wikipedia is about providing information so that an intelligent and thoughtful reader can decide for themselves ... we should not be publishing a work of propaganda and taking political stances with this project. That is exactly what happens when one side shuts another down in the name of 'righteous policy'. The space available on the internet is potentially infinite, so it's clear that the only reason all points are not being heard is censorship, plain and simple. If you have true confidence in what you believe, there is no need to prevent another's argument. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is a resource, it’s not the Bible. Contrary to popular opinion.
- The above debate has revealed my other point, too. The deleterious behavior of editors, created primarily by rules, policies, and the weaponization of consensus. It emboldens certain editors to stomp on others ‘on principle’ when actually, it is because they simply disagree with the other’s worldview. Read the above thread again. The arrogance and contempt of some editors, generally the ones who have succeeded in using Wikipedia’s framework to quash others ... and the frustration of the others who learn the hard way that their agenda will never see the light of day. The bitter fact is, there is no ‘absolute truth’ in this world, only agendas. Wikipedia justifies consensus the same way that pure Democracies justify majority (mob) rule. The minority is silenced. Is it any wonder why there is so much vandalism here? What Wikipedia should be is a Republic ... a Democracy that protects the rights and viewpoints of all citizens, including minority ones. Republics are far more egalitarian than Democracies. True ‘civility’ can only occur when everyone has a voice.
- And we all know why this will never happen. Power and control. Those who have it will never relinquish it. This gives them the basis to believe that they are the righteous ones who carry the torch of ‘truth’ and justifies any ruthless and inconsistent behavior as an editor. Which brings us full circle, to why editors leave Wikipedia. People who first come here are doing so for altruistic reasons ... they want to help ... but once they pull the curtain back on the charade and they witness George Orwell’s 1984 in full bloom, reality slaps them in the face. A few choose to stay and fight. Others, including most of the smart ones, have better things to do, and they leave. Most of those left are zealots who push the consensus agendas you see on Wikipedia. They keep the torch burning.Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It’s really not that bad. Your issues were with notability. The articles you wrote are for the most part viable and require some editing. If we can learn from this, I think we might more respectfully address newcomers who may or may not be experts in something. One way to do this might be to ask people about their particular field of interest as part of our default welcome message and in greeting newcomers. That way we could direct them to work with people who are more suited to editing the material they bring to the encyclopedia while at the same time offering a more personal touch to our method of establishing contact with new editors. Edaham (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)