Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal? There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear. They seem to be on a power-trip at times. I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs) Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply. Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere. The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page. I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another. We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here. If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT. I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS. As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I deleted that, not because it was original work on your part, or accused of being autobiographic (that was a different editor's error), but specifically because it was from an interview with the subject of the article. Interview content is not appropriate. What people say about themselves - interviews, their own blogs/websites - is not usable content. It's not personal, it's just Wikipedia (to loosely paraphrase The Godfather). David notMD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC) @Architecttype: Continuing to refer to others as "wiki-enforcers", "wiki-cops" and "wiki-bullies" and assume they are only interested in browbeating others or are acting in WP:BADFAITH like here and here is a WP:BATTLEFIELD type of approach that is not helpful at all. You might feel the way Wikipedia has been set up is sad, but all of us have to learn to try and edit according to its policies and guidelines, which include Wikipedia:Behavioral guidelines. If we deviate too much from these guidelines too many times to the point that it starts to get disruptive, then the community may decide that whatever specialized knowledge we are capable of providing simply doesn't outweigh the problems we are creating. The community may then decide to tell us its time to either slow down and reassess our approach or to move on altogether. New editors are expected not to know everything Wikipedia right from the get go and good faith will be assumed when they make mistakes; however, as per Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, the community does have its limits on assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) @Architecttype: Sadly, I have to agree with Marchjuly's comments above. Having taken a fair bit of time yesterday night to try to explain to you how we operate, and why sometimes messages left for users who breach our policies can seem a little terse (and effectively apologising to you for that), I'm really disappointed to see you are still using derogatory terms like 'wiki-cop' and 'wiki-enforcer' in your posts. I am starting to sense that, whilst you might be a technical expert and are making great contributions in your field, you may also have an attitude problem towards other editors. Please drop it, and simply recognise the essential efforts of those who maintain this site, and stop disparaging the necessary task of those who ensure that the 5.5 million articles here are maintained in good order. OK, so you've received a couple of minor notices encouraging you to modify your editing (one of which I still don't understand), but it's time to get over it and stop being nasty about other contributors here. Being belligerent is not a nice way to deal with others - it just sounds arrogant. And that almost inevitably leads to conflict. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is not perfect by any means, and it has received a fair amount of criticism over the years. If you'd like to make suggestions on how it can be improved, then the place for that is probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), one of the general noticeboards or a relevant policy/guideline talk page. Not only will more people be watching those pages than are watching your user talk page, but also project-wide changes are best decided by the community as a whole and not by user talk page discussion. I believe what you're sincere and mean well, but at the seem time you seem quick to see things the issues your having as "a Wikipedia problem" instead possibly being a problem with the approach your taking. Even the very title you've chose for this thread and the tone you used in your original comment kind of indicated that you've decided that you are in the right and the others are in the wrong. Wikipedia, however, is not really about winning and its policies and guidelines have been established over many years with input from many different people. This doesn't mean they don't need to occasionally be reviewed and changed as needed, but it does mean that some thought went into establishing them and it was determined (at least at the time) through a consensus of the community that they are consistent with and help further the project's overall goals. Part of being WP:HERE is recognizing those goals and doing our best to adhere to them at all times. It's OK to be WP:NOTNOTHERE and propose changes in good-faith without feeling the need to attach a label to everyone who disagrees with you along the way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia has become dystopian. The process has become more important than the product. Seriously, take the time to read the boilerplate written above (You're not doing it right ... there's a certain way we do things here ... you can't say that here. No, TALK pages, TEAHOUSE, and PNB are for just talking, you need to go to VILLAGEPUMP. No, you must use our NOTGALLERY and NOTNOTHERE policy. Nope, cannot BLANK pages, against policy, you actions have been reverted.) IMPERFECT.OWN.CONSENSUS.NOTEVERYTHING.YFA.CIT.CITE.NOTABLE.HERE.REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend the fortress against outsiders. Thats why there is a dearth of good editors. Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles. Bye. Architecttype (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

— 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

Image use While adding images to article is often a good thing, adding too many images can be counterproductive per WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. For example, Wikipedia might use a book cover image for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a book, or perhaps as an example of an illustrators work in an article about an illustrator, but the way the two covers are being used in the "Bibliography and media" section seems a bit unnecessary. If the books are Wikipedia notable enough for stand-alone articles to be written about them, then the covers could be used in those article. In this article, however, they seem out of place and are not needed in my opinion. Same kinda goes for the "Selected work" gallery as well. It would be better to incorporate these into the body of the article near relevant article content and then use a template such a Template:Commons category to let the reader know that more images of this type can be found on Commons. There's really no need for two images of the same building/house or of the same representative style of technique; so, pick the ones for the better known examples discussed in the article, incorporate them into the article and then remove the rest. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Appreciate the comments on the books. The "Four Florida Moderns" book image was already being used in Wikimedia. Can take or leave them. As far as gallery of selected work ... it would seem that artists, and architects, are among those who should use 'gallery' more than anyone (as in 'art gallery'). Trying to describe an architects' work without visually showing the evolution of his design through multiple images would be near-impossible. I've always wondered why, if the gallery function exists, people like Frank Lloyd Wright, don't have an extensive gallery of works in their page (except that many of Wright's works have their own pages). So perhaps, 'gallery' really works best for people like Peterson, who have a plethora of works that deserve to be seen, but individually can't justify their own pages. Check out Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. How can you possibly explain that stuff without seeing it in their galleries?? What makes Wikipedia so much better than a book is that you can click on a gallery image and see it in full-monitor-size HD (without the need to navigate to Commons)!! Frankly, I think every significant architect should have image galleries of some type in their articles, they would improve them greatly!! If not for a purpose like this ... then why have 'image galleries' at all?Architecttype (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC) The gallery seems to work OK here and Wikipedia:Image use policy says…a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Why cannot individual images supporting text do the job in this article? I have removed the images with no apparent connection with the subject.SovalValtos (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I would be happy with that or a reduced gallery with subjects not mentioned in the article removed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC) For the sake of brevity, I had removed his awards, which mentioned all of the buildings in the gallery. By reinstituting the list, they are all included. Voila!!Architecttype (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC) With the removal of the gallery and addition of individual images the article now looks a complete mess, the awards section is sprawling and unreferenced, also please note we don't use external links in the body of the article. Also please don't attack other editors and assume good faith. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC) The problem is the complete inconsistency with which the rules are applied. I'm looking at dozens of other architect articles, none of which receive the attention of this one. Why? Is there some subjective judgment being made somewhere? This guy deserves a gallery, but that guy does not? All we ask is consistency and fairness in the process. Check Max Strang for example. His list is far more ridiculous and sprawling than this one. Not one word or edit, however. Someone has a bone to pick, methinks. Architecttype (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC) other crap exists is not a good argument, I have tagged the Max Strang article which is VERY poorly sourced indeed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Ok. Willing to work with you. Can all the AIA honors be sourced with one link (i.e. footnotes 34 and 35)? Or must each and every award be footnoted? I can do this, but it will make it a complete mess and double (possibly triple) the size of the reference list. Then the article will likely be criticized for being too long. Ideas?Architecttype (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I'm not certain we need a giant list of awards, sourced or not, are there some notable ones (ie those that have their own Wikipedia articles) that can be picked out? Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Still working in this area (or at least I was). I get it ... "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". I have an interest in these pages being good because the discipline is important to me. To see the work being compressed down into insignificance in order to satisfy a hornets nest of wiki-bullies is hardly worth the effort. All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade. Watching this process for the first time, it seems to work like this: "This person is worth "X" amount of space, and certainly no photos. We need to shrink it down to no more than three vertical inches" Born. Died. Architect. Done. Architecttype (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC) OK I'm taking it off my watch list you clearly don't assume any good faith on my part. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────┘ @Architecttype. Please don't remove or WP:BLANK talk page discussions, especially when they include posts made by others. If you're no longer interested in responding, then you don't have to; however, removing an entire thread like you did here may give others the impression that you claiming some kind of ownership over the page or trying to discourage others from participating. If you'd like to remove one of your own posts or change something you previously posted, then please follow WP:REDACT. If the talk page starts to get too big, archiving can be done to keep things more manageable; however, the page is nowhere near that point at the moment. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that all of the images need to be removed, only that image use be more selective and tied into the article content. A smaller gallery of images might have even been workable, but redundant images of the same structure or type of structure probably weren't necessary if there wasn't corresponding article content particularly related to said images. A balance between article content needs to be found because in its most basic form a Wikipedia article is intended to be textual content supported by selected relevant images, not the other way around. A Wikipedia article is really only intended to be written in a summary style; so, not every bit of information (even verifiable information) about the subject needs to be included per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So, in many cases, links to other existing articles as well as links to other existing pages are used to avoid articles becoming too dense with detail. In some cases, this might mean that each and every article on a particular subject matter are not formatted or laid out exactly the same way, but that's OK because of WP:OTHERCONTENT. So, just because something is being done on another similar article, does not be mean is also should done on this article, and vice versa. It could also mean that it shouldn't be being done on the other article as well, but only that nobody has noticed it and gotten around to fixing it as of yet. Theroadislong's point about the awards is one often made on this type of article. Once again, article content tends to try and focus on main awards and honors which appear to be Wikipedia notable and encyclopedically relevant to reader. Of course, there may be disagreements over this, but these disagreements are worked out through discussion. Referring to others as a "Wiki-bully" just because they don't agree with your vision for the article is not helpful and might actually be seen as a personal attack against these others. This is exactly the type of thing I tried to advise you to avoid doing in my response to your Teahouse question because it's not conducive to constructive talk page discussion or collaborative editing at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I have learned much today ... and have posted thoughts about it in a thread on my user talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"User talk:Architecttype" thread

Cardinal rule is be nice Disagreements over content are common, and expected. However, editors are expected not to attack the good-faith actions of other editors: "Still working in this area (or at least I was). I get it ... "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". I have an interest in these pages being good because the discipline is important to me. To see the work being compressed down into insignificance in order to satisfy a hornets nest of wiki-bullies is hardly worth the effort. All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade. Watching this process for the first time, it seems to work like this: 'This person is worth "X" amount of space, and certainly no photos. We need to shrink it down to no more than three vertical inches.'" For all biographies, of people living or dead, there is no no need to list all works by that person, nor all awards. These are not CVs. your sentence "All of the awards are important, particularly in the trade." makes it clear that you are editing contrary to Wikipedia's intent. For all of us, our own areas of expertise are important to us, but we do not try to impress our own opinions on what is important on the articles we edit. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I will add that statements on editors' Talk pages such as "There seem to be malicious motivations with your editing. It is also apparent that you have a history of edit-warring. Please advise." are unduly confrontational. Again, there are places to debate what does and does not belong in an article and those places are the Talk pages of the articles. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Thank you, David notMD. I appreciate your input and advice. However, as I have already stated, there is a huge lack of consistency in how articles are edited. An architect is acknowledged by his peers for outstanding achievement and such a 'merit' award apparently does not merit inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia. Kim Kardashian falsely claims to be Armenian, and an entire paragraph is written about it. What does this say about the standards employed at Wikipedia? (Refer to MIT comment below about Pokeman and Porn) There is also a great deal of editor-trolling on the site. An author gets somewhat defensive and its like blood in the water. The collective hive becomes angered, creating a frenzy to destroy or diminish the article as much as possible, all done with civility of course, and by using the rules to incrementally carve it down to a predetermined consensus-appropriate size (or eliminate it entirely). Some of them even go so far as to find and maliciously edit every other page the author has done as well, literally chasing them across Wikipedia. This does not happen to every contributor, only the ones lucky-enough to annoy particular wiki-enforcers. Please read: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_"hive_mind") about hive-mind mentality, excessive use of rules, and social stratification. I respectfully disagree with your cardinal rule. The cardinal rule should be consistency and fairness in the way the rules are applied, rather than using rules to justify ones' personal or bureaucratic subjectivity. I am a new contributor. You should be so lucky, especially when contributors are bailing by the thousands from Wikipedia. From Wikipedia's own Wikipedia page: "In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid (Spain) found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, the project lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008. The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend. Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the methodology of the study. Two years later, in 2011, Wales acknowledged the presence of a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, Wales also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable". A 2013 article titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" in MIT's Technology Review questioned this claim. The article revealed that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of the volunteer editors who update and correct the online encyclopedia ... and those still there have focused increasingly on minutiae. In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators is also in decline. In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis"." The administrators and editors who stay, of course, love it ... for obvious reasons. I've been doing this for three weeks, and the effort on the part of some folks to purge me is palpable. David notMD, I sense that you're a sincere guy, but the power trip I've witnessed today is excessive and capricious. Your peers are certainly not living up to your cardinal rule either. Architecttype (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Directly from the MIT article mentioned above: Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-­ranking quality scores. The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage. (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/) Amen. Architecttype (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

— 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/Archives/2019/January#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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2]"

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.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

Great idea. Pull out your trusty flamethrower and start blasting everybody. What could possibly go wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 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)

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.

"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."

Once again you declare your innocence of what science even is. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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. It's not worth it. 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)

Notability is in the eye of the beholder. The problem is 'only certain beholders' get to determine it. I know of CEOs of billion-dollar companies who don't make the threshold (according to the wiki-gatekeepers), but this guy ... Fred_Van_Dusen ... makes it. According to Wikipedia, a person can be notable for being insignificant. Taylor Swift equates with Abraham Lincoln for text coverage and footnoting. This conflation of notariety with significance is an illustration of Wikipedia's editorship dysfunction. Architecttype (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability is determined by assessing whether a subject passes the criteria set out here Wikipedia:Notability (people). Fred Van Dusen would have to pass the sports people part…”A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” he appears pretty borderline to me so I have tagged the article accordingly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And Architecttype is right that our Sports notability requirements (WP:NSPORTS) such as WP:NOLYMPICS make no sense. Simply performing in the Olypmics just once makes you notable? That's ridiculous. Such a low standard for notability just makes Wikipedia WP:PROMO for the Olympics. Yet, the requirements for WP:NARTIST is so much higher? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, if I hit random article, it usually goes to some obscure sports person. I just tried it and got Bob_Ayres_(rugby_league). --David Tornheim (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You may suggest that we change the rules, but not that we should not apply the rules. Anyway, in order to write a serious encyclopedia, we have to answer the question "What is knowledge?". This entails the fact that something else is considered "not knowledge", i.e. bunk. This implies relationships of power, although it is far from domination for its own sake. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Random generator is hilarious. And you’re right, I got someone who probably shouldn't qualify either ... Khalid Ahmed Mohamed. Architecttype (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad you like it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Power and Knowledge: "Power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions." "According to this understanding, knowledge is never neutral, as it determines force relations." from: power-knowledge in reference to Foucault's theories.

I thought I could find similar quotes--especially from Nietzsche about victors writing history--but it appears Churchill gets the attribution although this is questioned here. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I know those arguments, I'm not stupid. The million dollars question is: how do we get pure, unadulterated, and reliable knowledge? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question to ask in a Philosophy course on Epistemology. You might be able to write a PhD on that one. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that we could write so many PhD dissertations without achieving any final, consensual answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a WP.NBUSINESS? Architecttype (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) ? Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That’ll do. Thanks.Architecttype (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So do you feel that knowledge is based on consensus? Have you read Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality? If not, I think you might be in for some pleasant and unexpected surprises. I did leave out a number of important Philosophers who have tried to tackle your question. It's not exactly a new question. Cultural anthropologists take the question to a whole new level. (e.g. Baudrillard discusses in works like Simulacra and Simulation) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's answer to these question is contained by WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Other than that, all epistemological shenanigans have been outsourced. If you want my two cents, what full professors from Ivy Plus teach there is the scientific/scholarly truth and Wikipedia's role is not to second guess them. If they claim that a specific claim is debatable, then it is debatable. If not, not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's answer to the question, "What is knowledge?" is found in the articles knowledge, epistemology, and numerous other articles on these subjects such as those that I have pointed you to that cite reliable sources on the subject, written by those Ivy League professors and intellectual giants like Kant, Descartes, Foucault, Derrida, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, etc.

WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, etc. are Wikipedia policies and guildelines written by editors (who are not generally proven to be experts in philosophy, epistemology, or even library science) for what material to include or not to include in the encyclopedia. Knowledge is far more complicated than the extent of all things that qualify to be added to Wikipedia. Although, I know the mission of WMF has been describes as 'sharing in the sum of all human knowledge', I'm fairly confident those Ivy League professors you speak of (and giants like Plato, et. al.) would find such a goal naive--little more than good marketing...

Anyway, I hope I made my point. I'm getting tired of discussing epistemology if you are not open to learning more about it from those who are experts in the field. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a Master's degree in philosophy and I have studied the sociology of science, so don't lecture me about epistemology. I am keenly aware of when philosophy isn't the answer to our questions. Wikipedia has the practical goal of recording mainstream science and mainstream scholarship and leaves splitting hairs about epistemology to those outside it. You might have thought that Wikipedia offers a lofty theoretical answer to it, instead of a pragmatic answer. Well, Wikipedia isn't a simulacrum of scientific community. I appreciate Wikipedia for what it is, I have no illusions about it. Wikipedia is a great platform for disinformation: POV-pushers change articles and till the article gets reverted to a reasonable version, the wrong version has been read by a hundred people. But our weakness is our strength. For the same reason liberty isn't the opposite of wealth, morality and compassion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"The wrong version". Says it all. I would have thought that a person with a degree in philosophy would have been able to move past two valued logic. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I've said: I know when philosophy isn't the answer. To refute yours and a previous objection: Wikipedia cannot not stand for something. The very thought of that is hilarious. Like "We are a community which has no goal, no norms and no values." Philosophy is about overly complicated abstract stuff. I love that, but in most Wikipedia disputes it is pointless to over-complicate the matter. When I was studying sociology I have tortured my professors with complicated philosophical arguments, they must have hated it, but did not dare to tell it to me. Instead of reading five volumes outside their area of specialism in order to grade my papers, they just gave me passing marks by default. Some would not understand that my paper is neoconservative, and others would have been pissed off because it was neoconservative. Those of them who were hard-core postmodern relativists subjected me to sealioning, maybe they just could not understand what I wrote. Professors may be fairly civilized and tolerant, but underneath there are feuds going on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

So the original thread title, before the break for New Year, was "Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors". Over a number of years now I have never seen an editor who was a plus to the project leave because admins or other editors were being mean or throwing their weight around. On the contrary, I have seen highly expert and knowledgeable editors quit in frustration,over and over, because Randy from Boise types who know nothing about the subject but will not stop challenging and arguing with those who do will not stop arguing with them and it comes to seem a waste of time. This is the 5th most accessed site on the worldwide web and the place almost everyone turns to for accurate information. I am not sure that is really a good thing, but it is reality. It is a huge responsibility. The reason I started following this page was not because I was concerned that editors were being driven away by admins or others enforcing WP policies and guidelines but because admins are much,much too soft with POV pushers and promoters of fringe theories. It takes huge effort and a lot of time to get rid of them. It requires a certain temperament to be an editor here, you have to spend time arguing with others about ridiculous things and the reason why I do it is because this is now, unfortunately I often think, the number one resource for information in the world. I wish the culture here would change and content creators who actually know what they are writing about would be protected from attacks by POV pushers and fringe theory promoters but I doubt that is going to happen. WP is biased, yes, towards mainstream, academic, scholarly consensus material and so it should be. It is not a good or welcoming place for alt anything. Such material should go onto another website. WP has lost editors because it is now a mature project. Articles about peoples' favourite subjects are mostly written, it is now more a matter of maintaining the articles that are here, which is probably not much fun to many people. I would like to see POV pushers or fringe theorists zapped instantly so we don't have to waste our time dealing with them but I doubt that is going to happen.Smeat75 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

At some point this tit for tat whine vs defense has to be put on pause to ask of the folks who clearly have a big problem with the project: What's the solution? What do you suggest? What would be a viable outcome if things were the way you wanted? Edaham (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Over a number of years now I have never seen an editor who was a plus to the project leave because admins or other editors were being mean or throwing their weight around. On the contrary, I have seen highly expert and knowledgeable editors quit in frustration,over and over, because Randy from Boise types who know nothing about the subject but will not stop challenging and arguing with those who do will not stop arguing with them and it comes to seem a waste of time. Testify! I didn't see any word from this project regarding what happened to MjolnirPants, or me for that matter; it's more often used by tendentious editors as an on-wiki substitute for the Wikipediocracy or WikipediaSucks forums. As for What's the solution? What do you suggest?: next time an editor who received "editor of the week" one time because a friend of theirs nominated them for a (tententious) series of edits they made shows up and complains about a problem they're having with someone enforcing Wikipedia policy on them, tell them to buzz off, and stop harassing the editors who is enforcing policy on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88 - what did happen to MjolnirPants? I see he requested a block. Why? That is the kind of editor we should be worried about keeping, he is a great loss to the project. Much more serious than anything else being discussed here.Smeat75 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smeat75: He was harassed constantly for months by a number of trolls. One of them got community-indeffed around the same time as MPants left, and was exactly the kind of never add content but just harass experienced editors user who would be welcomed and then mourned on this page (at least as I remember it from 2015). One of them made a string of humorous misspellings, then when MPants made a joke about it, decided to post a "This user is dyslexic" userbox on their page, and then immediately report MPants on ANI for making fun of the dyslexic, without disclosing the fact that they had never claimed to be dyslexic until after the incident in question took place. One of them has been active in this thread. Ultimately it wasn't so much the specific editors who were hounding/baiting him but the environment around the project that facilitated them. The ANI discussion that led to the first of those three getting blocked was opened by the harasser against MPants, and quite a few editors actually took the harasser's side, then opened an RFC on WT:CIVIL in an attempt to criminalize MPants's reaction to the troll, which dragged on for several more weeks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. That is terrible and just the sort of thing I meant in my post above. WP admins and the community generally do not do a good job of protecting valuable editors from trolls and POV pushers. I did see, and even participate in that RfC "should telling someone to **** off be sanctionable" but did not realize it was directed at MPants. Same sort of thing happened with User:Cassianto who created a lot of excellent articles about British entertainers and writers etc but did not want infoboxes on some of them and would tell editors who came to them to demand an infobox on an article about someone they did not have any idea who they are to "**** off." He quit. I could give many more examples. Losing these type of productive editors is much more of a loss than people who come here to promote alt medicine or alt politics.Smeat75 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. As it has been said, if editors cannot refrain from violating policies and guidelines, we do not need them. They are entitled to their own opinions, but they should avoid topics they are very passionate about, see WP:TIGER. Newbies are entitled to be first told what the rules are and how to abide by our rules, but they have to make up their own minds if they are for or against WP:RULES. Also, admins should show some solidarity with established users who combat troublemakers. In 99% of the edit wars, the established user is right and the newbie is wrong, and the established user is simply defending our core values. Also, in respect to fringe topics, those who defend the mainstream scientific or the mainstream scholarly view are right 99% of the time. Otherwise a determined group of troublemakers will wreak havoc in our encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I've already done that once this week. What's next? :)))) Actually people handing out barnstars to their mates for forming disruptive talk page alliances is a pet peeve. There should be policy against that, with the sanction that the offending barnstar be shoved somewhere unmentionable. Would give a new meaning to the whole "editor retention" thing right? Edaham (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion - that we all go back to editing articles, as a better use of our time. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a multitude of significant research (some already noted and exemplified in this discussion) finding that Wikipedia has descended into a toxic and combative culture. Wikipedia's own Wikipedia page notes this. I have been aware of this for some time because I know several editors who left Wikipedia and I observed their experience. Vandalism and deletion of user pages is commonplace. The problem, as I see it, stems from the composition of editorship at Wikipedia. In many subject areas, particularly political and economic ones, it does not reflect mainstream thinking. It skews heavily to the left. Two simple pieces of data tend to confirm this; the percentage of europeans editing articles on American politics and economics, particularly relating to capitalism runs at eighty to ninety percent of all edits. Which begs the question, why would they be so interested in editing such articles? The other data is more interesting and quite obvious to observe. Many Wikipedia editors create and post 'user-boxes' for their own user pages. These user-boxes are shared amongst the Wikipedia community. Thus they are a reflection of the composition of its editorship. Have you ever taken the time to look at the universe of user-boxes available? Identified those people with outspoken POV interests on their user-pages and compared them to the articles they are writing? Without being too specific, I can tell you that it speaks volumes. But more-so, it allows any observer to easily identify how and why Wikipedia articles are being written. In articles that are supposed to be non-POV, does it seem weird that a handful of editors (mostly from Europe), with pro-socialist, pro-communist, and anti-capitalist self-applied user-boxes be the prime writers and protectors of articles highly critical of American capitalism? I suspect this kind of scenario exists across the spectrum of politically-charged articles on Wikipedia, yet no one bats an eye.

Go ahead. Spend a few minutes looking around at the self-created editor user boxes (especially the political ones). It is a clear reflection of what Wikipedia is: [3]

Seriously, should a Wikipedia editor with a "Workers Of The World Unite (with Lenin profile and fist)" user-box be the person writing an article on American capitalism?

It would be a fascinating experiment for Wikipedia to track the use of user-boxes by editors (this could easily be done) and it would reveal its demography and ideology. Sure, its anecdotal. But even Wikipedia's defenders must shake their head at how Wikipedia's editorship is so highly skewed. And because it is so, the definition of 'fringe' becomes tainted simply because "Wikipedia mainstream' is not even close to the same thing as 'mainstream'. I fully expect those who enjoy the status-quo to discount and demean everything said here. That would surprise me, not. But literally, after decades of 'purification', the editorship has slowly become more and more of one mind. This phenomena in Wikipedia has been heavily-researched and described as 'hive-mind' ... as Jaron Lanier calls it Digital_Maoism:_The_Hazards_of_the_New_Online_Collectivism. This is a serious problem for Wikipedia but will never be addressed because Wikipedia, itself, is very POV, yet goes to great lengths to pretend it is not.

Of course, some editors would rather just 'go back to editing articles' ... move on, nothing to see here. I can tell you, I would be a far more active and contributive editor if it weren't for my understanding of this, Wikipedia needs people like me (yeah, I have two masters degrees too and am also a member of Mensa, as so many other user pages proclaim). But heck no, I limited my contributions to uncontroversial subject-matter (architecture), and even then it got hot.Architecttype (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The truth: Wikipedia does not care about the personal opinions of its editors, for the mere reason that original research is prohibited. Good editors also write for the WP:ENEMY. WP:MAINSTREAM means mainstream WP:SOURCES. I agree that experienced editors constitute a hive mind: they know the WP:RULES and always apply those. For outsiders, it might seem as a cabal. US is, seen from Europe, a rather right-wing nation (right-wing more like classical liberalism, not like fascism). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia thinks it's okay for editors with aggressive POV views to write, edit, and police articles precisely concerning that subject-matter, and still believes it is objective ... is the problem. Should we get someone from the Sierra Club to write the article on deforestation? Or get Saul Alinsky to author the page on social discourse? How deep down the rabbit hole do you wish to go? Architecttype (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything we do here we do it openly, it can be checked and double-checked by anyone. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is so ridiculous on its face, that it's hardly worth acknowledging. And it also means that you completely miss the essence of what I have been saying.Architecttype (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If that were prohibited, they wouldn't tell the world their preferences, so you would be worse off. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No. We're worse off, because highly-POV editors feel completely free to publicly state such positions and still actively write openly POV articles (couched as non-POV mainstream) knowing they have collective power in the Wikipedia structure. It's "in-your-face" Digital Maoism. Architecttype (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You know what? I find Wikipedia great, but it has not the sort of political system I would wish for my country. If people would have to obey Wikipedia-like rules in everyday life they would vote with their feet. Usually, we don't like somebody else to tell us what to think; but on Wikipedia the opposite applies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue of "what to do" in cases where a discussion (such as this) has come up more than once in the history of this project. It's a WER clerks quandary. In one sense WER clerks have nurtured a sense of tolerance toward "off into the cornfield" type discussions and I, for one, don't like to stop brainstorming. But, in an other sense, there comes a point where no viable solutions are presented and brainstorming becomes brain-numbing. I think we have reached that point. I'm not always sure what the best procedure is (best as to what is best for the WER project, its members, and its history of tolerance). Hatting? Wait for Archiving? We will decide by late 1/4/2019. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buster7: What about my solution? It wouldn't take much effort to simply write this into the project "rules" ("Project Goals"?) and then when such a discussion comes up to enforce it. The whole "WER should work to bring disruptive trolls out of the WER talk page and onto AN/ANI" part is an ideal that doesn't need to actually be implemented in all or even most cases. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:. We don't do enforcement here. You might want to start a seperate thread with a clear explanation of your solution/suggestion for discussion. Just remember, if your idea requires someone else to implement it and enforce it, it won't fly as a sub-set of WER. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe you (singular) don't do enforcement here but this project has definitely been used in the past to whine about experienced contributors "harassing" trolls, and has made enforcement more difficult. See the Catflap08 and Endercase discussions. Ideally, if WER isn't going to help, it should at least avoid getting in the way, and I haven't seen any efforts made to improve the situation on that front. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

" endless Wikipedia arguments"

What this project, WER, ought to be about, imo, is not commiserating with or supporting editors who come here to whinge "I tried to post the proof I have that the moon landings were faked but mean admins and other editors wouldn't let me" or some such but to keep productive and knowledgeable editors from getting frustrated and fed up with constantly having to deal with trolls, POV pushers and fringe pushers and quitting in frustration. What matters is not quantity of editors but quality. For instance, User:Cynwolfe, an absolutely invaluable editor in the field of ancient Roman history, language, religion, Latin language, highly expert but who quit being active here about three years ago, recently re-appeared on her talk page and said " I just woke up one day and decided I couldn't do the endless Wikipedia arguments any longer." [4] And having to argue, which she is too polite to say, with ignoramuses, trolls, fringe fanatics and POV pushers. Just a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about whereas she does. Why should she waste her time doing that? And I do wonder if women are less willing to tolerate having to get involved in aggressive arguments than men are. WP is not a women friendly space for that reason, I feel. User:Bishonen, an admin, posted on her talk page today "Let's make 2019 the Year of the Tough Admin!" [5] Yeah, I hope you do.When you see obvious trolls and fringe pushers, just zap them, indef them immediately, don't waste time. I can tell from a first or second post when an editor is going to be blocked or banned but it takes months at AN/I AN or ARBCOM to actually achieve this. In the meantime valuable editors get sick of arguing with the idiots and quit. This is the real problem at WP. I wish I could think it doesn't matter but WP has become the number one resource for information in the world,not necessarily a good thing but reality, and we need committed editors who know what they are writing about.Smeat75 (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Here it is. The answer you're looking for. How do you retain editors? You need to make it easier for them to stay. Architecttype (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Scientology has a large number of people who would be happy to edit Wikipedia if we stopped enforcing our rules. The neo-nazis and spammers would also find it easier to stay. Maybe we need a Wikiproject Editor discouragement... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC).

• Comment The problem is not so much with editors who try to post the proof that the moon landings were faked, or even neo-Nazis and spammers, who I think could not get a sympathetic ear even here, but editors who try to do similarly outrageous things that nowhere near as many uninvolved editors would know not to take seriously, like label Miyazawa Kenji "a nationalist" or Yamanoue no Okura "a Korean". The problem with this project is that too many of its members are willing to hear out such editors without looking at the underlying content disputes (where the sources, written in plain English, clearly support one side over the other), then place the blame on the "mean admins and other editors" (except that getting an admin to recognize the problem before it comes to WER would often be a dream come true in cases like the above). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought of an idea

Article on topics of "mainstream"/"popular" interest (like, currently, superhero films or articles on Game of Thrones) could be maintained in such a fashion that reverts made on such articles, except of unambiguous vandalism, are to be explained politely on the revertee's talk page. Those articles (unlike those on specialist topics, say, uta monogatari) are the "first" articles for a lot of new, good-faith editors, and so having their edits suddenly reverted without explanation (something that in my experience happens a lot on such articles, even when the reverted editor is an experienced editor whose edits had been explained in terms of Wikipedia policy) is proportionately much more likely to drive potential assets to the encyclopedia off than anything else; conversely, the kinds of new editors who thrive in such environments are likely not the kinds of editors we want to keep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW: Sorry for the section title, but this is basically a continuation of the thread above that was cut off with a sudden close almost immediately after a question was posed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment:The close was not sudden. I mentioned I was considering a Hat or an Archive with this diff and closed the discussion 23 hours later with this diff. I believe I suggested that a new thread be started if there were open questions. ―Buster7 ☎ 18:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC).

Leaving aside, for the moment, the minor issue of where to hold a conversation (I prefer using the article talk page, but I appreciate that a notice on the editor's talk page might be helpful), or the larger issue of article ownership (although the size of English Wikipedia's community makes specialized treatment for specific editors impractical, I understand new editors may not realize this), I have concerns regarding providing incentives for desired behaviour. I've discussed before how following the rules is many times the effort of breaking them. Requiring edits to be explained (which I think would quickly expand beyond reverts to any potentially disputable edits, which means all edits for articles being watched by some problematic editors) greatly slows down the editing process, making it highly tedious. This discourages editors from trying to improve text added by less skilled editors, or biased editors. I do understand why a friendlier approach is being sought; I really wish the adopter approach would work better to help provide guidance. Unfortunately, to date it has limited success. isaacl (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)