I am a wikipedia editor, here me cry!

I will not deny that wikipedia has many problems, some more severe than others, though I'm not really familiar with any of them in any great detail. Why is that? Because I am a simple editor for wikipedia, and I want to speak out for the silent majority (well, hopefully, here's hoping this doesn't sound like some right-wing political rally) of users on wikipedia. I am not a 'wikipedo', I am not a 'wikipediot', although I do admit the latter is rather catchy.

All I do is edit articles, and not even contentious ones at that; I focus on WWII military history mainly. Sometimes I revert vandalism, and I've voted in various XFD areas. And I'm not pretending to be perfect; look through my contributions and I'm sure you'll find some that are less than perfect. But all I do is edit non-contentious articles, make no real fuss, and just contribute to trying to improve my small area of wikipedia; for me, it's a hobby. And I'd like to think I speak for a majority of silent wikipedia editors, who do the same. Yes, there are vandals, trools and people who have worrying/damaging agendas, but I don't think the majority of us are.

I'd just like this to be a plea, to the more jaded members of this community in particular, to remember us before using 'wikipediot' or 'wikipedo' in a thread; to me, at least, that's not what the majority of us are. We're just beavering away, trying to improve wikipedia. Perhaps not successfully, but at least we're trying.

Welcome to WR!

You realise of course that one of the reasons you are here is because you can speak about Wikipedia freely in a way you can't on Wikipedia?

Wikipedians coming here is usually the first stage of a process in which they are fighting a losing battle with themselves.

I second JohnA's welcome.

I think most of us realise that there is an iceberg of relatively normal human beings pottering about and most gratuitous insults are aimed at the vocal "community" who espouse some strange beliefs in the name of mob rule. However, there is a significant faction here who would see unwitting participation in the world's biggest defamation and fantasy generator somewhat idiotic - and would recognise themselves as being in your position before they wised up.

Anyway, feel free to contribute to correct any misapprehensions the readership might have. A constructive dialogue with a representative of the silent majority always has the chance of triggering some interesting thinking about the State of the WikiNation.

A tissue for your tears, sir. Welcome to the Review.

A bit of advice: The part I snipped read like something I would have written pre-adminship. Avoid the mop and keep WP a hobby. Adminship kills the enjoyment.

If you like writing articles... adminship really can put a dent in the amount of article writing you get to do. Sometimes in this regard I envy my wife, who steadfastly refuses adminship... she gets a lot more written article-wise than I do.

Welcome to WR. I have recently attempted to stay away from "Wikipidoit" etc in my posts. Apart from being uncertain of the spelling, I think refraining from its use helps the dignity of my posts. I mostly stick with Wikipedian. I also try to stay away from "Jimbo" and variations as too familiar and not reflecting a proper distance. I usually now opt for "Mr. Wales." Sole Flounder ™ is just too good to pass on, however.

None of this signals any moderation of position and sometimes I am sorely provoked. I let go with a rare F bomb (and worse) just yesterday.

I have also heard it said here, and not disputed as far as I recall, that military history is one of the most benign areas in all of Wikipedia. Again welcome.

I think there are notable exceptions to that (mostly where MH intersects something else... for example USS Liberty, or Japan's WW II history, or whatever) but I'd tend to agree.

It might be instructive to try to examine why that is, and if there are applicable lessons for elsewhere. The MH project has some of the most elaborate structures, leadership, processes, templates, etc. etc. of any project (and project leadership was in the path that at least 2 arbitrators took on their way to winning an AC election). (as a note, most projects have no leadership at all. Just a few templates and lists of things that need working on, and things are decided by whoever turns up... not by elected coordinators)

Is that WHY the project is successful? Is rigid control/process/procedure a route to tranquility? Or are the project's attributes more symptomatic of the sort of folk that most enjoy working in this area?

Cause, or effect, in other words... and what does it tell us?

I used to say "I am a recovering wikipedian".



Unfortunately, I relapsed.

I'll use this post to reply to everyone, if that's okay; it gets confusing otherwise! Firstly, thanks for the welcome, very kind of you. Honestly, I don't know enough about potential censorship on wikipedia to agree or disagree with whether or not I could criticize on the website. Perhaps it's better I not go down that road, it seems like too much hassle. As to adminship, I've no desire for it; it seems complex, difficult to achieve and anyway, I only like writing articles. Finally, I do think the Military History wikiproject does have virtues no other wikiprojects I've seen possess. I think it's the strong but friendly/helpful leadership combined with good templates, help-pages and a talkpage which is constantly in use; I've seen other wp talkpages that contain messages from 2006 in some cases.

I don't consider that I'm fighting a losing battle against myself, in specific response to the first post; but, then again, you might consider denial to be one of the further steps. I'd deny it, but that would only confirm what you think, so I don't think anyone can win here. To be honest, I agree with a lot of what is said here (and on wiki, believe it or not), and wanted to start posting to test out my belief that Wikipedia Review is 50% genuine criticism that should be taken into account by Jimbo et al, 30% criticism from people with huge chips on their shoulders, and 20% conspiracy theories of the kind I usually see on UFO-believer forums. Testing the water, as it were.

Good job by you, sir. Avoiding unnecessary attacks and childish name-calling increases the effectiveness of your posts.

Good post, and welcome. I don't necessarily endorse Lara's "don't go for the mop" point of view, since I've done most of my best article writing since being adminned, and yet would strongly prefer not to lose the mop. Her advice might parse better as "don't get too involved in Wikipolitics"; that's correlated with going for the mop, but not really the same thing.

Thanks for your reminder about tone, too. Sometimes I find myself railing so bitterly against elements of Wikipedia on here that I forget that I'm actually, broadly-speaking, a Wikipedia supporter (and I am).

I don't think many (possibly not any) Wikipedia non-supporters here would argue that all Wikipedians are bad. The more common position seems to be that Wikipedia as a whole is bad, and that people like you, while not doing any direct harm, legitimize the whole thing beyond what it deserves. A lot of them also seem to consider typical Wikipedians as essentially being victims of the whole enterprise, since they're donating their labour to an entity not worthy of it (I don't view myself as "donating" anything; I do what I do for my own amusement and satisfaction, except for the BLP stuff which is my attempt at doing some small actual good).

Finally, as for JohnA's suggestion that you can speak about Wikipedia more openly here than you can on Wikipedia, I reject it, mostly. While it's true that you can say things here that you can't say on Wikipedia - you can "out" people here, personally insult administrators, etc. - most of it isn't what I'd consider to be especially productive anyway. The censorship card has, like the cabal card, been badly overplayed by Wikipedia's detractors, and I think helps delegitimize the many good points that they have to make. Anyway, I make a point of saying nothing here that I couldn't say at Wikipedia, and I think the policy's served me fairly well.

Welcome.

It's no surprise to me, really - never has been! The key thing here isn't simply "leadership" - it's the acceptance of leadership, and that requires a form of discipline (of both the social and "self-" varieties) that most of Wikipedia just doesn't have, and isn't likely to obtain any time soon. And if we assume that most people who are into military history are people with actual military experience, then it stands to reason that they'd be more likely, as a group, to see the value in maintaining the kind of discipline required to have an orderly, structured working environment in which leadership is accepted and (to some extent at least) respected.

Military people are also likely to be more respectful of others in general, because most of them know the consequences of starting a conflict, particularly an unnecessary one. That should be particularly true on the interwebs, since you really have no idea what the other person is capable of. Since accurate predictions of an opponent's behavior and capabilities are the key to any successful strategy, it's usually best to avoid those things altogether.

Obviously there will be those who will interpret the foregoing as an espousal of some kind of rigid/authoritarian/fascistic hierarchical "command structure" that would take over WP and "whip it into shape," but that's not really what I (personally) would want to see at all. A desire for more self-discipline on the part of certain editors and admins doesn't imply a desire for authoritarianism, or at least it shouldn't, IMO.


Maybe a couple of years ago, but that's really only true now if there's a good reason, and if you can convince us that you're not just making the whole thing up.

Well, there you go - WR now hates freedom every bit as much as Wikipedia.

HATE HATE HAT!

Also, am I the only Canadian poster here who, upon reading the title of this thread, was reminded of that nausatingly unself-aware Molson Canadian commercial of a decade or so ago?

Now I'm going to have to go back to return your gift to the haberdasher.

I agree. The whole "wikipediot" thing, however it's spelt is silly. Regardless of how crazy you think they are for participating in that site, they're still people (exceptions noted), and referring to them as such surely isn't too hard to do.

Welcome, Skinny87.


Wikipedia Review has better emoticons than Wikipedia. Another reason to sign up to the cause.

I've actually done most of my best article writing since becoming an admin as well, but editing has not been the same since gaining adminship. The amount of extra drama one takes on as an active administrator is overly distracting (just in the new message bar alone!). It drains you. Well... it drains me. There are many aspects of adminship that I enjoy. More that I used to enjoy. However, much like I burned out of article reviews and improving the GA project before requesting adminship, I've burned out on... well, almost everything at this point.

I'm now left in an odd frame of mind. I believe we need more admins, and I want things on the project to change to allow more editors to successfully request adminship, but I wish the burden on no one. I don't want to see good editors leave, but at the same time, good for them. I hope they avoid the temptations, weather the withdrawal and find something more meaningful and productive to do with their lives.

Regardless, at this time, RFA is so jacked up, going for the mop is only for masochists.

Check out the idiots controlling the WWII article. Classic Wikipedia.

e.g.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=265860944

Sorry about all the name-calling, but can you see why we're tempted?

That's OK. That's why we have the 12 step course and not the 1 step.

I'm really sorry, I don't see what's wrong with this. Can you explain?

Well, what can I say, a Wikipediot realizing that drinking Jimbo Juice can leave an empty feeling inside. Wikipedia is not a encyclopedia any more. Very little effort is expended on "article writing". All Wikipedia is these days is a MMRPOG of "Kafka" or "1984". Nothing more.

Understand this, son, Wikipedia is a failed project and the simple test of this truth is this...
Most of the energy and effort expended on Wikipedia is on "DRAMA" The alphabet soup of letters, which all contribute to conflict, hatred and other general purpose waste of time as well as tons of minutiae written by turf feuding gangs and circle jerking administrators. Every wants to be KING and no one can be king.

Typical Wikipediot Ad Huminum Attack...


AS it is not already clear, and self evident, I have absolutely no respect for Wikipedia Administrators and others with editorial power and control at the Wiki Media Foundation.

I think, you are very very foolish to be associated with such a disreputable enterprise like Wikipadia. I would strongly suggest, as you may seem to be a nice person, to leave it.

Wikipedia will bring you no good in you life, harm your job/career prospects - as most educated and enlighten people consider Wikipeida to be a stain on the internet and a punch line to a joke plus draw negative attention on you as well.

partial proof of this is the almost religious effort to hid true identity of those who administrate and edit on wikipedia.

(see Essay and other for how involment on wikipedia has help them)

Under stand this, and I really mean you no malice, you are just a slave to Jimbo's effort to populate his bank account with Ben Franks and a well paid job for Sue Gardner and her buds.

ad hominem

Wikipedia actually brought much good to my life (as a side-affect, however), but I understand your point and I do question the benefits of continued participation on the site.

It has bought only pain, hurt, to me and my friends due to Wiki gang like environment, were rule of law is non-existent and were might makes right, and were consensus is more important than truth and fairness. Wikipeida is fundamentally flawed and with those who run it are without any soul or concern for people life's, or their work's, they are nasty, mean, power dunk jackasses. Wikipedia enables defamation and plagerization of other peoples works on a vast scale. Wikipeida, to me, is a parasitic virus of the internet.

You are a foolish young lady, smart, but lacking experience and judgment. Wikipeidia WILL bring you no good in the long run.

Finely, as typical of Wiki trained Juice drinker, you point out and correct one word I misspelled, and bush aside all my questions .

Actually, amongst your name-calling, I've been pretty mild in my responses, while addressing actual points I can make out among your many misspelled words. When it comes down to it, I think you're a either a teenage boy who should be at school right now, or you're a jackass.

I corrected a misspelling and then addressed your post, actually agreeing with you to a point. You didn't ask any questions, moron.

i here u …

knot wit a rore …

butt wit a crie …

ja, ja, ja

Magnifico!

Hey Jon!

Dammit, you've been missed.

side-affect = lateral inhibition

or, why it's harder to doo yer biz when ders ∑1 stalling nearby

ja, ja, ja

What I'd say to all that is that there is a **different** kind of political correctness required here than there. That's all. Not better or worse (necessarily), just different.


Oh absolutely! I can't **believe** the fiendishly clever lengths I've went to in order to keep my identity a secret... you have to read at least 5 sentences on my user page before you spot it! How devious is that??? And my wife too! She just changed her userid from Epousesequicido to her real first name! That should DEFINITELY keep people confused for years and years. Well, some people anyway.


Good analysis. I too would hate to see the wrong lessons drawn from it.

yeah, i'll bet …

∃ bin weigh 2 muck unco guid spelling hear l8tly …

i finally cudnt cowntenants ne more …

b-sides …

wut wit poetaster gone now & all …

i tawt we we were keeping the crying games in the support grope …

ja, ja, ja

Hey, welcome back, man!

I thought about moving this thread to the Support Group, but it developed a few decent points along the way that probably belong where the public can see them.

I did re-title it, though, to make it clear who was saying "I am Wikipedian" - people should try to avoid using the first-person in thread titles in general, of course, as a courtesy to the rest of the membership.

ja made me day man

tanks, harry, tanks a heap …
uno i e-preci8 side-affects …

ja³

Sue Gardner (hey! Gardener! Geddit?!) grows her own buds? Who doesn't, eh?! Free the Weed! Doobtastic!!!


In one of his/her other posts he/she claimed to have a teenage boy. Not that I'm claiming she/he's a jackass. I fear his/her wrath.

It's the most significant battle of WWII reduced to a corny, bewildering run-on sentence. Count how many times the word Stalingrad appears. Ask yourself why the Soviets would make a stand anywhere else than in the path of the advancing German armies. Was anyone with the Germans? Hmmm. WTF is a "second winter counter-offensive" or a "Rzhev salient". Why isn't the Volga River mentioned? Why are the Battles around Stalingrad and Moscow crammed into this tortured little sentence when the authors of Wikipedia just spent the previous paragraph writing about relatively minor actions in Burma?

Welcome back JA.

WR just wasn't the same without you.

Welcome Skinny87, good to see another MILHIST editor here. I believe that the main themes expressed here in this forum, and others can correct me if I'm wrong, are that:

- The Wikimedia Foundation has some transparency and accountability issues, and doesn't always seem consistent in serving its supposed mission of building a free source of knowledge for the online world.

- Some prominent en.Wikipedia administrators are corrupt or act unethically and abuse their privileges, whether because they apparently have narcissistic personality disorders and use their admin actions for personal gratification or are trying to push POV, the Prem Rawat and Israeli-history articles being some notable examples.

- Wikipedia's management of biographies of living persons is an absolute disgrace, unnecessarily exposing real people to career and reputation-damaging actions beyond their control.

- The Wikipedia model itself is counterproductive to intellectual advancement, that the model, as currently operated, produces mainly mediocre articles, with many inaccuracies, using shallow sources, and doesn't promote reasoned, careful, in-depth, well-written coverage of topics.

- The lack of an effective governance process in en.Wikipedia facilitates ridiculous role-playing and power-gaming among its addicted editors and admins, which in the end appear to overshadow and deemphasize the supposed goal of writing quality articles and actually building an encyclopedia. It has been noted that many of the project's most prominent administrators appear to have a clear aversion to actually writing any articles and openly display contempt towards those editors who mainly write articles and otherwise don't engage in the wiki-game playing.

It's true that one can honestly enjoy participation in Wikipedia by keeping one's head down and working on building quality articles as a hobby or pasttime. For my first year editing I stayed in the protective and comfortable cocoon of the MILHIST project. It wasn't until I stumbled across this forum, read about some things that were going on that I wasn't aware of, and went to see for myself, that I found that there were some rotten things going on in Wikipedia that needed to be addressed and corrected.

Her old user name was actually spelled Epousesquecido, not Epousesequicido.

epouse - French for wife
esquecido - Portuguese for forgotten

A rather odd user name, isn't it? Maybe that's why she changed it.

Compare "Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados".