User:Mandruss
No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors.
—Gary Brooker, Keith Reid, Matthew Fisher
Userboxes
[edit]
|
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
Barnstars
[edit]Barnstars (high-speed connection recommended)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Who is Mandruss, anyway??
[edit]
I am a middle-aged male who has nothing better to do than sit around editing Wikipedia articles.
I was born in a log cabin that I built with my own two hands.[citation needed]
I believe I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least I'm not a spoon.
My girlfriend and I met through a radiocarbon dating website.
Please buy my new book, "How to Get Rich Writing Books About How to Get Rich".
I am 8,353rd in line to the British throne. If necessary, I intend to abdicate.
Currently in the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program.
My idols range from Albert Einstein to Steven Wright. This is not to imply that Steven Wright is not very smart, or that Albert Einstein was not very funny.
My interests include history, various sciences, aviation, humor, furry mammals, designing unreadable CAPTCHAs, and musing about the future of civilization.
More seriously, for anyone who cares ...
[edit]I'm just a somewhat competent mid-level editor, and I don't currently aspire to be more than that.
I strongly believe in the fundamental Wikipedia concept of collaboration, and I tend to show little tolerance for editors who do not collaborate, especially if they have some experience. Collaboration does not mean editing an article at the same time as other editors. It means discussion, give-and-take, and respect for consensus. I fully support the essay, Wikipedia:Process is important. I oppose risk-aversion and rigid adherence to convention, and I support "try it and see", innovation, and "thinking outside the box". I instinctively think big-picture and long-term. Wikipedia behavior policies and guidelines are effectively optional, and I opt in.
I believe that a certain level of humility is important at Wikipedia as well as in life; at the same time, I am often quite assertive in a discussion. In this game as in all games, I play hard but fair, never cheat, and know how to lose.
I work hard to know what I don't know—to know the limits of my Wikipedia knowledge—to avoid venturing too far into areas where I lack competence. I sometimes fail at that.
My greatest editing strengths lie in matters of form, not substance (I do not create articles, for example). I believe that matters of form are important in an encyclopedia, and I feel that Wikipedia gives them short shrift.
While editing has come to occupy quite a lot of my free time, I try not to become so invested in Wikipedia that I would find it difficult to quit. I created a personal userbox, mostly as a reminder to myself:
|
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia. |
Mini-essays
[edit]Assorted musings about Wikipedia. You're welcome to respond on my talk page, especially if you can articulately disagree with me or enlighten me. These are some of my opinions as of today, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
Culture of disrespect
[edit]Note: This section has become an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, at Wikipedia:Culture of disrespect. To avoid redundancy and duplication I have removed it here. —June 2019.
Development and evolution of this thinking
[edit]Copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales.
{ping|SageRad} (RageSad?), I lack the reading speed to read all of this, but I do share your general sentiments with regard to toxic environment. You're not going to change people's core personalities by reasoning with them, and remember that we are self-governed and "we" includes a large number of editors that oppose our positions. We have no idea whether they are actually representative of a majority of the whole community, since one's opinions count for nothing unless they are prepared to stand up in behavior-related meta discussions and take some heat. To my mind, that ensures that the most aggressive among the wider community will determine the rules (written and otherwise), and they will be rules that tend to tolerate aggression (or routinely forgive it and make excuses for it, which is essentially the same thing). Thus the toxic environment is the natural result of the system we use to set behavior standards. I strongly suspect a sociologist would support this view.
I believe that the situation will change (1) when WMF takes a stand and intervenes, simply out of the principle that this kind of behavior is fundamentally counter to the project's goals, or (2) through gradual attrition and evolution. I think the latter is more likely, and it would certainly be less traumatic for the community. Perhaps my little personal essay will have some beneficial effect in that regard, without being disruptive. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that this is inevitable. There are certainly such feedback loops as you outline, like those who are willing to spend endless time gaming a system to control it, often do end up controlling it. Those who have less scruples often succeed in a Machiavellian sense. I do not see any way that attrition will change it, though. In fact it's more the opposite -- the attrition of good editors with good and civil manners is what i see, thus hardening the current situation. Thanks for your comment. SageRad (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Re attrition, my sense of hope is based in the premise that the anger-laden, hypercynical old-timers are the product of an era where things were a lot rougher than they are today, if you can imagine such a thing. I wasn't here then, but I've heard mention of it. Either that, or they were simply tough enough to survive it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for hearing me. I appreciate the essay you wrote and linked to above. I still think that we can expect people to treat each other with a basic respect, and somehow change the culture to enforce that reasonably. I think the existing policies are adequate for that, but we need an unbiased forum for judging behavior that will really stand up to the task. The rule of the most aggressive is not the best way to determine the way we write knowledge down within our culture. We need to actually apply and enforce the policies that we have. SageRad (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
unbiased forum for judging behavior
- Yeah, there's the rub. Who decides what's unbiased? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)- The Wikimedia Foundation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Are you saying WMF already decides what is unbiased, or that you feel they should intervene? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Intervene. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, what we think about it doesn't matter a whit. If it did, it would be subject to community consensus, and guess which way that would go. If they did it, it would be no matter what we thought. Anyway ... I just took a shot at kind of playing that intervention out in my mind, including its off-wiki effects, and writing a comment about what I saw. It was so ugly I've decided not to post it. But think Armageddon. On that basis, I'm withdrawing any support for that that I once harbored. Attrition and evolution. In the meantime, Zen. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Intervene. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Are you saying WMF already decides what is unbiased, or that you feel they should intervene? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mandruss, that is a good question but it's not a conundrum with no answer. It really is possible to have judgment of editors based on their behavior with little bias compared to the very blatant bias that we have now. It's not impossible. Please don't make it seem like it's a fool's errand. Sure, i understand that there is relativity in how everyone judges everyone else, due to different points of view. That's a given in human social life. But it is most certainly possible to have a forum for judging that is generally accepted as fair and unbiased. You do have to pay attention to those who see the bias and are vocal about it, and truly wish to reform. It's perhaps similar to issues with the justice system and policing in the U.S. People are speaking up about bias in the system, and some people hear them while other people are more like "Shut up! Everything's fine!" -- Well we need to be like the people who hear the critique, and not the ones who want to shut up the critique. Human social interaction is a multi-node complex network of various points of view, but it's possible to find nodes that are meaningful, and to find general consensus about fairness if you're open to the critiques as well as the yes men. SageRad (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The aggressive vocal majority will defeat anything that would require them to modify their behavior. Using very legitimate self-governance process. Full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, unless others organize and apply enough pressure to cause change. Is this an age-old question about governance in general? Also the word "legitimate" here -- defeating integrity by established rules may be legitimate in one sense but not in another sense. In a "by the book" sense but not in a moral or good sense. Anyway, do you think we are trapped in a local maximum, trapped in the current state, and therefore unable to attain improvement because we're "locked in" by the existing power structure having become entrenched? That is where i think we're at. SageRad (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
unless others organize
- That means mobilizing some part of the non-aggressive silent majority. How would you do that? For the most part they aren't even watching pages like this one and the Village Pumps, so you would have to find some way to contact them and solicit their support. I believe that would violate WP:CANVASS, seeking out a particular group specifically because you believe they will support your position.In a "by the book" sense but not in a moral or good sense.
- Again, morality and goodness are subject to community consensus. There is no absolute morality at Wikipedia or anywhere else. Just thousands of years of wars between factions who each believed their morality was absolute.do you think we are trapped in a local maximum, trapped in the current state, and therefore unable to attain improvement because we're "locked in" by the existing power structure having become entrenched?
- Yes. Although I'm not sure of the precise definition of "power structure". They are simply a self-reinforcing majority in a self-government. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, unless others organize and apply enough pressure to cause change. Is this an age-old question about governance in general? Also the word "legitimate" here -- defeating integrity by established rules may be legitimate in one sense but not in another sense. In a "by the book" sense but not in a moral or good sense. Anyway, do you think we are trapped in a local maximum, trapped in the current state, and therefore unable to attain improvement because we're "locked in" by the existing power structure having become entrenched? That is where i think we're at. SageRad (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The aggressive vocal majority will defeat anything that would require them to modify their behavior. Using very legitimate self-governance process. Full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia Foundation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for hearing me. I appreciate the essay you wrote and linked to above. I still think that we can expect people to treat each other with a basic respect, and somehow change the culture to enforce that reasonably. I think the existing policies are adequate for that, but we need an unbiased forum for judging behavior that will really stand up to the task. The rule of the most aggressive is not the best way to determine the way we write knowledge down within our culture. We need to actually apply and enforce the policies that we have. SageRad (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Re attrition, my sense of hope is based in the premise that the anger-laden, hypercynical old-timers are the product of an era where things were a lot rougher than they are today, if you can imagine such a thing. I wasn't here then, but I've heard mention of it. Either that, or they were simply tough enough to survive it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that this is inevitable. There are certainly such feedback loops as you outline, like those who are willing to spend endless time gaming a system to control it, often do end up controlling it. Those who have less scruples often succeed in a Machiavellian sense. I do not see any way that attrition will change it, though. In fact it's more the opposite -- the attrition of good editors with good and civil manners is what i see, thus hardening the current situation. Thanks for your comment. SageRad (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I can suggest one simple change that might help. WP:CPUSH should be renamed polite POV-pushing, and it should be made absolutely clear that polite POV-pushing, embodying as it does the refusal to heed consensus, is inherently uncivil. A lot of the "incivility" identified in discussions on this page stems from exactly that problem: people getting burned out defending policy-based content against the relentless pressure of polite POV-pushers. Some of the complainants here are actually topic banned due to exactly that, and their complaints of "incivility" read like attempts to get another kick at the can by instituting a policy of WP:MAKETHENASTYMANGOAWAY. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
people getting burned out defending policy-based content
- Maybe my experience is too limited, but my feeling is that the solution to that is WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DE, and WP:ANI, not hostile harassment outside process. The former may take longer, I don't know. ANI may be "broken", but not completely so in my experience, and I see people trying to do it right. I do believe that ongoing, repeated DE (as determined at ANI) should be dealt with more harshly, and that would eliminate much of the perceived need for the other approach. It shouldn't take two years and hundreds of editor-hours (article talk + ANI + AN3) to indeff one chronic disrupter.
In other words, I think the focus should be on WP:CONSENSUS, not content policy. The point is not that they persistently violate content policy, but that they persistently fail to respect consensus, which should arise out of content policy. This makes the ANI complaint fairly straightforward. Here's the clear consensus. Here's the clear violation of it. Done. No content debates at ANI. If WP:CONSENSUS is not sufficient to protect content, Wikipedia fails and we all go home.
To emphasize this relationship, WP:CONSENSUS could be promoted to Wikipedia's only super-policy. All other policy application, including IAR, is, or should be, subject to consensus. This is not say that explicit consensus must be established before we can do anything, only that I can't say that my unilateral IAR application trumps your guideline x because IAR has policy status. If you dispute my IAR, I have to get consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)- And when they have already been through that? And on to ARbCom? And they didn't get what they want so they keep on and on and on about it and eventually get topic banned? And they decide that this is all bullying so they come here and complain about how the evil admins are oppressing them? Guy (Help!) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- It shouldn't take two years and hundreds of editor-hours (article talk + ANI + AN3) to indeff one chronic disrupter. So fix that. You'll have my wholehearted support, and likely a lot more. You can't say that the approach I described in my second paragraph is being used much, and that's the key element, in addition to faster escalation of block duration, and elimination of all this ideological aversion to indeff.
Oh, and we also need to eliminate "preventative not punitive". If they disruptively failed to respect consensus, the fact they have stopped while the ANI complaint is in progress shouldn't earn them a pass. Punitive is preventative by virtue of its deterrent value. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- It shouldn't take two years and hundreds of editor-hours (article talk + ANI + AN3) to indeff one chronic disrupter. So fix that. You'll have my wholehearted support, and likely a lot more. You can't say that the approach I described in my second paragraph is being used much, and that's the key element, in addition to faster escalation of block duration, and elimination of all this ideological aversion to indeff.
- And when they have already been through that? And on to ARbCom? And they didn't get what they want so they keep on and on and on about it and eventually get topic banned? And they decide that this is all bullying so they come here and complain about how the evil admins are oppressing them? Guy (Help!) 13:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- (I note that my arguments just above would seem inconsistent with my discussion with SageRad, in which I referred to the aggressive vocal majority. This is me looking at the problem from both perspectives. And until Guy's comments above, I had never seen a calm, unhostile, unsnarky, reasoned argument from that camp, so I had assumed they were not capable of giving one.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
On MoS
[edit]A style guide establishes standard style requirements to improve communication by ensuring consistency both within a document, and across multiple documents [read "Wikipedia articles"].
That is our MoS's sole reason for existence, which means that we should use it that way or get rid of it as the mother of all monumental time sinks. I support the former, since (1) a professional-quality encyclopedia is consistent on matters of style (that's hardly disputable), and (2) I believe that Wikipedia is a quasi-professional-quality encyclopedia.
Editor freedom-of-expression should not be a factor in this, nor should alarmist and hyperbolic arm-waving about "tyranny".
Finally, no editor is required to conform with MoS, contrary to continuous unhelpful distortions to that effect; they are merely expected to stay out of the way of editors who are conforming with MoS. That's something we can literally do in our sleep, and hardly an undue or unreasonable burden. —June 2019.
The PAGs paradox
[edit]We really have no community consensus as to the role of policy and guideline, a consensus that should form the bedrock for everything else. Some will say that PAGs guide our actions, so we can speak of violations of them. Others say that PAGs reflect common practice, and a policy or guideline should be updated if there are enough editors ignoring it or unaware of it; in that case it follows that speaking of violations impedes the community's ability to change consensus. Ample support for both concepts can be found in policy and common practice. I have never understood how both can be true, but that's what we appear to have. If the paradox has been explained anywhere, I've yet to run across it. —October 2017.
Changing your mind, changing your !vote
[edit]Are you prepared to change your mind in a discussion? Or, are you surrendering to confirmation bias, failing to consider opposing arguments fairly, being unwilling to show fallibility, and/or putting your need to WIN first? I suspect it's the latter in almost all cases.
(I also believe, with no scientific basis that I've seen, that our brain structure and function make it difficult to change our minds. If that's so, both psychology and neuroscience are involved. Going even deeper into an area where I don't belong, our psychology is probably just a manifestation of our brain structure and function anyway.)
If your opposition presents stronger arguments, and you recognize that, do you change your !vote? Or, do you simply go silent, hoping the closer reads your silence as "I'm right, but I'm not going to argue with you anymore", or that you got distracted elsewhere and never returned? Which better serves the project?
I almost never see someone else change their !vote, and that seems wrong to me. I probably change mine about 5 percent of the time, and I'm working on increasing that number. I am not perfect, and I am not immune to these tendencies. —May 2016.
Relief valve
[edit]Sometimes an editor deserves a pointed and direct response to un-Wikipedian behavior. Sometimes I give it. It would be a really bad idea to totally surrender the project to that stuff. Also, my response is read by more editors than its target, and many newer editors need to see somebody objecting to that lest they follow the example.
Other times, I choose to ignore the un-Wikipedian behavior, to avoid inflaming a situation further, because I know the response would be pointless with that editor, or both. In these cases, I've found that I can "get it off my chest" to a large degree by composing my pointed and direct response in a text window (Windows Notepad, for me) but not posting it. If it helps me, it might help you. You could even save all your pointed and direct responses in a text file for self-congratulation, but I haven't felt the need. —February 2018.
Selective burden of proof
[edit]Avoid placing the burden of proof on your debate opponents, unless you are prepared to self-impose that burden in similar situations. Or even in that situation—they have not "proven" their assertion true, but have you "proven" it false?
We all make judgments based on instinct, experience, and reasoning, and in many cases it is not reasonable to demand that your opponent produce "proof" of their assertions. If they spent the hours of work required to assemble such proof, even where it's possible to do so, many would then spend a few minutes finding holes in the proof, and this could go on forever. To one who uses this tactic, no amount of proof would be adequate.
This is another example of unfair play, conscious or unconscious, that serves our need to WIN more than it serves the project. —May 2016.
TL;DR tactics
[edit]This intersects the essay, Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, but adds some personal opinion and necessary directness.
If one summarizes for conciseness, their argument is criticized as flawed and uncompelling, the necessary gaps in it located and exploited to advantage. If they take the time to craft the more complete argument, the same people will often dismiss it as tl;dr.
Such practice is bad-faith and unethical—either way it goes, you score a debate point in the minds of many readers. As such, it is counter to the project's goals and interests.
I believe that some are doing this out of unconscious habit. But they fail to self-reflect, recognize the problem, and fix it, which is no more excusable than using the tactics consciously.
And some are surely doing it consciously, believing that the end justifies the means, this rooted in their Machiavellian (un)ethical systems. There is no Wikipedia policy against these tactics, therefore they are fair play. Incorrect.
I never invoke tl;dr in a serious discussion. I'm a slow reader; if it was too long for me to read, I simply leave it for others to respond to. —May 2016.
Wikipedia contradictions
[edit]Wikipedia things grow organically. If something is good, it "catches on" and becomes widespread. But we shouldn't do X, as it's different from how things are normally done.
Wikipedia is not a democracy. But consensus can be established by simply editing without any discussion at all (beyond the "discussion" in edit summaries, if any). Community consensus resulting from thorough, evidence-based scrutiny at community level means nothing if editors choose to ignore it. In fact, any PAGs resulting from that kind of consensus are invalid if contradicted by how a majority of editors want to do things without that thorough, evidence-based scrutiny.
If an editor seeks clarification of a policy question in a community forum, they need to point to a specific case for context; it is not useful to speak to hypothetical generalities. But the editor is forum-shopping if their question is connected to a dispute in which they are involved.
Micro-essays
[edit]If you see it as your mission to protect article content from the POV overzealousness of conservatives who don't care about Wikipedia policy, you are as POV as they are. If you see it as your mission to protect article content from the POV overzealousness of liberals who don't care about Wikipedia policy, you are as POV as they are. If you see it as your mission to protect article content from anyone who doesn't care about Wikipedia policy, you are a good Wikipedia editor. How often do you edit against your own bias? —June 2016.
A principle selectively applied, only when it serves your purpose, is not a principle but a weapon. —October 2016.
High intelligence is counterproductive in the absence of wisdom. —November 2016.
Neutrality looks like bias to those who don't recognize their own bias. —December 2016.
Speaking very emphatically, always with 100% unwavering certainty, does not make one more convincing. If anything, less so. No human can be that certain of anything in this infinitely complex world. The words "in my view" are golden. —January 2017.
In Wikipedia editing, the existence of bad stuff does not justify or excuse the addition or retention of other bad stuff of the same kind. Not all consistency is good consistency. —January 2018.
Challenging another editor's competence on some specific issue is not a failure to assume good faith. Good faith has exactly nothing to do with competence (look it up). I mention this only because this misapplication of the WP:AGF guideline is so widespread—even by some experienced editors—with very negative effects on collaboration. AGF is core to the project despite being only a guideline, so it's important to understand it and apply it correctly. Don't be one of those who get this wrong. —February 2018.
The product of 17 years of self-selected self-governance, Wikipedia PAGs are a tangled labyrinth of watered-down and self-contradictory principles. For any proposition A, A and !A can usually be argued with equal PAG support. That renders PAGs useless as a guide. So-called policy-based discussions are in reality nothing more than editor viewpoints, and might as well be democratic voting. We are suffering from mass self-delusion, my friends. —May 2018.
Widespread good things should persist because they are good, not because they are widespread. "This is how it's normally done" is a terrible argument for anything, allowing widespread bad things to persist. Instead of making that argument, explain why it's better than the alternatives. Change is not a bad thing, and resistance to change impedes progress. —May 2019.
Hyperbolic language (exaggeration for effect) is a sign of hyperbolic thinking, and hyperbolic thinking is irrational by definition. What we think influences what we say, and vice versa, in a feedback loop. Avoid hyperbolic language and thinking. —May 2020.
Please do not bite the newcomers unless they are clearly wrong, unwilling to learn, and unresponsive to a gentler approach. In those cases, please bite with increasing force until they improve or leave. Always bite with basic human respect; the object is not to demean or humiliate although that is often the unfortunate effect. —August 2020.
Being retired is being tired again. —May 2023.