The Guide to leaving Wikipedia forever, by WindyCityMike Options Rating

[JohnA]

(Note: WindyCityMike recently reset his blog and left behind in the Internet Ether blog posts like this. Since I'd like to see lots more former Wikipeons take his antidote to the Wiki Kool Aid, I reproduce it here. I hope Mike doesn't mind)

Leaving Wikipedia

First, to “tidy up” after yourself, tag for speedy deletion every single user page and user talk page you’ve created. You can get a list of your active pages by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/User:your user name and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefi...:your_user_name.

Open each of those pages using the edit link, and replace their contents with this tag:

{{db-userreq}}

This will tell the administrators that you wish to delete your user subpage. Don’t forget, however, to also do this not only with the subpages, but with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:your_user_name and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:your_user_name, as well.

Second, wrap up your affairs. Do it in the classy manner: don’t make a big production. Remember there are people who have made other choices than you to stick around. But if you are involved in other affairs, dialogues, or processes where your absence will impact things, briefly advise the individuals involved of your departure. Remember, do it like a (sober) Frank Sinatra would: the classy way. Don’t do it like a (drunk) Frank Sinatra would: making sure everyone can hear you as you slam your way out the door. It’s better for people to wonder “Where he’d go?” than to roll their eyes as you exit. In short, do your best to be remembered as a class act.

Third, once the administrators have gotten around to your user page and it’s been wiped clean, edit your user page again, and put this code in there:

<center><br><div style=”align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;”>
”’<font color=”white”>R E T I R E D</font>]”’</div><br></center>

<center>”’This user left Wikipedia in [the current month and year].”’</center>

There’s a final step before you leave Wikipedia. I liked the idea because it is a failsafe to make sure you don’t go back and embarrass yourself later. There is a user script you can place in your monobook.js file called the WikiBreak Enforcer. Install it …

… and set it for New Year’s Eve 2099.

You may have to log out, log back in, and then do a hard refresh (Ctrl-F5 on Firefox) on the first page you see (the page you see right after you put in your username and password) before it becomes fully operative. Don’t do it unless you’re sure you never want to come back, and don’t do it if you don’t know your way around monobook.js. (Still, it’s not that hard to do.)

Then … hit the logout button. You’ve left Wikipedia for good.

Removing Wikipedia from Your Reading Life

Slightly trickier, but not impossible if you’re using Firefox and Google. Download the CustomizeGoogle extension for Firefox. You’ll want to use its filter to add not only Wikipedia and the various Wikimedia projects, but also the myriad of websites out there that mirror its content.

To start off with, you can filter:

http://*.wikipedia.org/*
http://*.wiktionary.org/*
http://*.wikibooks.org/*
http://*.wikisource.org/*
http://*.wikimedia.org/*
http://*.wikiquote.org/*
http://*.wikinews.org/*
http://www.mediawiki.org/*
http://*.wikimediafoundation.org/*

That should take care of all the various Wikimedia Foundation projects. You can also consult this page to add most of the remaining mirrors out there. If you find later that one’s been missed, you can simply click on the “Filter” link next to the search result to add it.

After you’re done with that, any “filtered” result will still show up in your search results, but as a light gray, non-clickable URL easily ignored.

Edit: You can now also use BlockSite, a Firefox extension which I proposed and Erik van Kempen actually did the real work on and honest-to-gosh wrote (I’m still reeling), to filter out all links to the sites.

Miscellaneous

Be sure to (if you wish) remove any keywords, bookmarks, or search engine configurations that you might have to the site.

And if you’re a hardcore geek with a wry sense of humor, you can always use the “Jer’s Swear Naughty Word Remover for the non-Limbaugh fan” Greasemonkey user script on UserScripts.Org and have it replace any reference to the word “Wikipedia” with a different word … of your choosing. ;-)

That’s it for now.

I’M FREE!

This post has been edited by JohnA: Wed 31st December 2008, 8:41am

[Kennedy]

Heh, thats pretty well thought out. But you don't need to do the wikibreak enforcer thing. Just remove your email address, and change your password to something you will not remember (like a random string of numbers and letters)

[JohnA]

Heh, thats pretty well thought out. But you don't need to do the wikibreak enforcer thing. Just remove your email address, and change your password to something you will not remember (like a random string of numbers and letters)

Its easy to reset if you know your own e-mail address.

I think Mike was trying to put a near physical obstacle course in between his keyboard and Wikipedia. He recognized how compelling Wikipedia was to him.

This post has been edited by JohnA: Wed 31st December 2008, 12:53pm

[Doc glasgow]

Getting your pages deleted makes sense so as to minimise your online profile.

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

The only way to leave is to stop caring. Yes, right now stop caring. Scramble your password then buy a PS3 (or a dog) or have a kid, or get a life and NEVER look back.

Remember Lot's wife?

(Oh, and hanging about on Wikipedia Review is also a sign of a failure to break the habit. At best, this place is the methadone of wikiaddiction.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Wed 31st December 2008, 12:50pm

[JohnA]

Getting your pages deleted makes sense so as to minimise your online profile.

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

The only way to leave is to stop caring. Yes, right now stop caring. Scramble your password then buy a PS3 (or a dog) or have a kid, or get a life and NEVER look back.

Remember Lot's wife?

(Oh, and hanging about on Wikipedia Review is also a sign of a failure to break the habit. At best, this place is the methadone of wikiaddiction.

Not really. I see addicts giving up the habit and former addicts spending less and less time justifying their previous behaviour.

Of course, most of Wikipedia's silliness is mirrored here on WR, but without the outlet of failing to produce encyclopedia articles of any note. I said failing, because most of the time, most of the edits made by people fail to stay for any length of time to be noticed or even useful.

I've noticed one of the strongest addictive qualities to Wikipedia is because most of the time the articles are in such a pathetic state that you feel sorry for WP and start correcting them....and before you know it, you're on AN/I arguing the toss about sockpuppets and disruptive editing again.

Doc, you're on WR because you're in the recovery phase.

[Moulton]

Why Is It So Damn Hard to Change?
By Rebecca Skloot...

{Mod Note:

This thread has numerous copyvio issues. Moulton's post of an entire article readily available to link as Doc provides below is easily cured by redacting without loss to the discussion. JohnA's original post presents, as am certain Moulton is about to go on endlessly about, a similar concern but it is not easily curable via link . It is also more directly relevant to the topic, being in fact the actual topic. I share johnA's hope that WCM will not mind. It will also be removed if any complaint, proper take down notice or otherwise, is received from WCM. Please direct further discussion of this action to WRR. GBG.}

[Doc glasgow]

Why Is It So Damn Hard to Change?
By Rebecca Skloot

You want to exercise more. But rain,...

A link to the article would have sufficed. It would be less irritating and would also not suffer from being a copyright violation. Ever heard of flooding?

[Lar]

Why Is It So Damn Hard to Change?
By Rebecca Skloot

You want to exercise more. But rain,...

A link to the article would have sufficed. It would be less irritating and would also not suffer from being a copyright violation. Ever heard of flooding?

True. Especially the copyvio part.

But on the other hand, 1) this isn't IRC and 2) at least it was useful and interesting.

We should be positively rewarding Moulton whenever he does useful and interesting things, because his pathways for doing unuseful and uninteresting things are so VERY strong.

[Cedric]

Getting your pages deleted makes sense so as to minimise your online profile.

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

The only way to leave is to stop caring. Yes, right now stop caring. Scramble your password then buy a PS3 (or a dog) or have a kid, or get a life and NEVER look back.

Remember Lot's wife?

(Oh, and hanging about on Wikipedia Review is also a sign of a failure to break the habit. At best, this place is the methadone of wikiaddiction.

Well, yes and no. I guess that I am more of the "give them enough rope to hang themselves" school of thought. Instead of deleting my userpages, I did screenshots. The advice on avoiding drama during your exit is spot on, though. Fortunately for me, I had sense enough to decline an invitation to comment on Jimbo's talk page about the Essjay scandal. It is about the biggest drama center on Wikipedia outside of WP:ANI, and I cannot imagine that it would have ended very well.

On the subject of addiction, maybe I was just lucky there. I have never felt the slightest desire to edit any article since I left in March, 2007; not even the ones I started or substantially expanded. So for me, WR has never really been a recovery center, although I certainly have learned way more about the way WP really works here than I ever knew when I was still editing WP.

[Anonymous editor]

"Then … hit the logout button. You’ve left Wikipedia for good"

Not necessary. The Wikibreak enforcer logs you out if you set it correctly.

[EricBarbour]

Getting your pages deleted makes sense so as to minimise your online profile.
However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news.

"Tidying".

To all: wanna quit Wikipedia? Invite me to your house.
My baseball bat will cause a permanent inability to log in.

[Moulton]

My baseball bat will cause a permanent inability to log in.

Is it an aluminum baseball bat?

Do you want to trade it for a 2x4 that I've been soaking in motor oil since 1968?

[EricBarbour]

Is it an aluminum baseball bat?

Louisville Slugger. Real thing. I'm old school.

When I torture forum trolls, I use HIGH voltage.
Car batteries are for pussies.

Do you want to trade it for a 2x4 that I've been soaking in motor oil since 1968?

dOOd! You tempt me! Is that your royal scepter?

[Moulton]

I know why the caged word swings.

Is it an aluminum baseball bat?

Louisville Slugger. Real thing. I'm old school.

When I torture forum trolls, I use HIGH voltage.
Car batteries are for pussies.

If you use an aluminum baseball bat, you can deliver 220V through it without melting it.

Do you want to trade it for a 2x4 that I've been soaking in motor oil since 1968?

dOOd! You tempt me! Is that your royal scepter?

I keep that in reserve for when atrocious song parodies fail to do the job on Los Fascistos y Los Obliviados.

[Zeraeph]

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

I don't know, that is true in some circumstances, but not in any and all of them.

If you are leaving Wikipedia because of "creative" and/or "ideological" differences with any part of the project itself...I agree.
If you are leaving Wikipedia because your partner has a packed suitcase on the couch and grasps the handle every time you pick up your laptop case...I agree.
But if there is any element of interpersonal unpleasantness (on Wiki) causing you to leave you need to go case by case.
Sometimes you can cause yourself a lot of extra trouble by making a big noise out of leaving...but other times you can save yourself a load of trouble that way...

In my experience it is hard to generalise.

[JohnA]

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

I don't know, that is true in some circumstances, but not in any and all of them.

If you are leaving Wikipedia because of "creative" and/or "ideological" differences with any part of the project itself...I agree.
If you are leaving Wikipedia because your partner has a packed suitcase on the couch and grasps the handle every time you pick up your laptop case...I agree.
But if there is any element of interpersonal unpleasantness (on Wiki) causing you to leave you need to go case by case.
Sometimes you can cause yourself a lot of extra trouble by making a big noise out of leaving...but other times you can save yourself a load of trouble that way...

In my experience it is hard to generalise.

All I know is that for many people, realization dawns one day that editing or interacting with Wikipedia is doing more harm than good, that Wikipedia dominates their lives with what turns out to be a cruel confidence trick, and they want to leave and put Wikipedia as far away as possible from them.

That number continues to grow.

[Proabivouac]

However, "tiding your affairs, notifying people, and leaving "retired" messages is bad news. Whether you are "tiding", or you are leaving in a drama-queen exist, both are a sure sign that you are still going to care about the project and what people are thinking about you on the project. And if you care, you'll look back to see what the impact of your departure is, and then you'll do it again, and then you'll find someone messing with an article you care(d) about, so you'll e-mail someone to make sure it is spotted, and then you'll make a few edits to fix something yourself, and then you'll....... you'll be back.

Trust me, I know.

The best way is to pledge to yourself that you will not allow Wikipedia administrators to push you around. Pledge to yourself that you will only deal with them as an equal.

Sooner or later, you will be sanctioned or banned (SlimVirgin, Giano, etc.)

Understanding and confronting how one's volunteer labor is rewarded the project's leadership focuses the mind. In my case, I found myself refusing as a matter of principle to contribute any substantial labor to the project.

My watchlist became their watchlist = not my problem. Here and there I feel a tinge of outrage when I see the misinformation and idiocy which would have been confronted were I still active, but then I turn it around and think, what a lousy job these Arbitrators are doing without me. That works wonders.

By saying, "we will go relatively easy on you if you contribute vast amounts of quality material for free," as they do to Giano, and now to Peter Damian, the empowered trolls of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee cement this relationship of unwarranted and unearned dominance, where profuse praise and gratitude would be more appropriate.

If you can walk away, and think of it no more, do it. If you can't get what happened to you out of your mind, fight back. You'll feel better about yourself teaching your would-be exploiters a lesson.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sat 3rd January 2009, 10:09am

[Gold heart]

If you can walk away, and think of it no more, do it. If you can't get what happened to you out of your mind, fight back. You'll feel better about yourself teaching your would-be exploiters a lesson.

The more one does for Wikipedia, the less thanks one gets. It's the age old principal that the people who care the most, are ones least appreciated. That can cause a sense of hurt in many editors who have tried to improve Wikipedia. WP is going nowhere this last 3 years, it's being controlled at the upper echelons by some ego-centric personalities. Once one realises that Wikipedia is a near 'basket case', and is really going nowhere positive, and seemingly completely incorrigible too, then it's much easier to pick up the pieces and walk away. And unfortunately, it does take time for 'new editors' to cop-on to these deficiencies.