Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-28/In the media

Discuss this story

Wikipedians' fragility

I brought this coverage to the notice of the editors and my lack of empathy got me cursed at. I'd like to point out that over-sensitivity to this issue of suicidal feeling enables ne'er-do-wells to exploit us by threatening self-harm when they're called out for making problematic edits. I encourage all to discover the context behind this media coverage. Sure, I can threaten to jump off a bridge to my death if The ed17 doesn't give me an immediate apology but that would be dishonest. I am a misanthrope so if Ed jumps off a bridge I don't care. Accordingly I can't see why anyone would care if I did. Certainly, people with mental illness need to seek help and I guarantee that help isn't to be found on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, if you were to read this week's Op-Ed you might see an example of how you're wrong. Still, don't let nasty human feelings get in the way of your misanthropy. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bingo, Owen. Chris, if you don't see what was wrong with your comment, I really don't know what to say. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Games People Play are an issue. However there is no reason we cannot provide a soft-landing for editors. One big advantage of doing so is it removes or reduces the opportunity to play games. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Timely story, as I've been dealing with an anonymous stalker harassing me on here for the past two weeks now. I'm thinking the nature of this platform makes block evasion a bit too easy. Funcrunch (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until I read these comments, I thought I knew who the editor was, but I guess not. Wikipedia has some toxic waters, and cyber bullies who often have their enablers. Yes, block evasion is easy for anyone bent on doing it. I almost quit in my early days because of one prolific cyber bully sockmaster. I would only edit if not logged in because of that individual, who, I might add, is globally locked, but still manages to operate as new socks every now and then. Since then, I have learned that "this too shall pass" and get on with my own goals. But that's me. We have minor aged children editing on Wikipedia, and people with mental and physical challenges trying to find a safe outlet to be productive. Really qualified professional-level editors sometimes only last a few weeks or months before throwing in the towel. So, what is the answer? — Maile (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I've never edited anonymously, and don't intend to start now because of an anonymous stalker (though I understand why others would do so). Even if I wanted to, many of the articles I edit are frequently semi-protected due to vandalism and trolling as they're about controversial topics. I've been an editor for over seven years, but only very active recently, and my experiences since I became active have really made me question a lot about the Wikipedia project. Funcrunch (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article by Anil Dash about online abuse is also on point. Funcrunch (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is easily explained with a bit of self-confession. When I have the odd scrap of time to get online & contribute to Wikipedia, I come here to edit. Not to see if there are any personal interactions that need my interactions or meddling. That is a strength because I am improving the content of Wikipedia -- which is why others come here. But it is a weakness because there are many people, many conflicts, & many instances of maintenance that need would benefit from my attention -- which are often often overlooked unless one goes looking for them. And when I feel my contributions are ignored by others, I have to remind myself that most people come here to edit & not to go looking for people to help or interact with, & the few who are willing to assist others are stretched so thin that it is easy to get overlooked. -- llywrch (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly

"Yet it's impossible to turn back time, Thonemann argues, finishing his piece with the suggestion that academics should bite the bullet and 'spend a bit more time editing Wikipedia ourselves'." Exactly, on both counts. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citogenesis

I love that Thonemann credits "Wikipedians" for the term "citogenesis", when as far as I can tell, Randall Munroe invented the term outside of WP and we adopted it. So it goes.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but Munroe is credited at both citogenesis and Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.245 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]