Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia does not need you

Humorous or not

This essay is demoralizing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I'm saying lower in the talk page. Pancakes654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Truth is often that way. The point is to make the best of your time here. - BilCat (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

But if one is demoralized, one is unlikely to make the best of one's time here. There's an essay at the Simple English wikipedia that I think has the desired effect without being demoralizing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"We've seen things". I should point out this was not intended to he humorous. At all. It's a response to having seen many, many users making the argument (sometimes explicitly) that they were essential to Wikipedia to the point where blocking/banning them would mean The End Of The Project As We Know It, which reached the point of 'enough already' and thus the essay (which was then semi-hijacked to become humorous). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a sad history. I'd also suggest that the humour is at best rather flat. A point that would continue to be useful to an average contributor rather than to desperate admins is that time away from the wiki can be therapeutic, and that, I think, can be said in better ways. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The more-therapeutic version is at Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And also, this was not intended for the average contributor. This was intended to be linked to the hardcore cases who were banned or about to be banned and who were arguing that without them Wikipedia was (more) doomed (than it already was). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is news to me that this wasn't intended for general consumption. It's a very familiar page, one that I was introduced to early because science editors who were in a state of despair about the quality in wikipedia tended to mention it. The mentions seemed to be, and the message I absorbed was that it represents the true culture of wikipedia, that editor retention efforts exist but are blind to the real problem, which is that vandals and idiots are tolerated and those who fight for quality material are often chastised by admins.Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The first part of that statement is correct - vandals and idiots are tolerated too much (and those who are not vandals but simply toxic tend to attract cult followings); the second part though is exactly the opposite of the meaning here - with admins are the ones oft abused by those who claim they're 'necessary' because they make content, provide outreach, or what have you. (The closing line - which was temporarily cut: "So if you start to think you're untouchable because you're indispensible to the project, just remember: you're not." is, in fact, the entire point of the essay.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A message that some admins should interpret as applying to them too. Oh well, the project limps along as usual, and most of us plan to quit soon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've quit several times myself, and I have found the time away useful in recharging the batteries. I think you'll find that BR and I have written elsewhere on similar views of editor retention - in fact, I see little real effort at all by WMF to retain good productive editors. For a website that claims to be an encyclopedia, not enough effort is spent on protecting content itself, and this has a drastic effect on WP's perceived reliability. I still don't understand the reluctance of WMF to require registered editing, as registration is required on almost all other types of websites. I spend at least half my edits every day simply undoing vandalism and nonsense edits, and quite frankly it takes away from mental energy to use on improving pages. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I echo this, Sminthopsis84 (quitting). I have already given up on Simple English. In the end there, all I wanted to do was rack up a few more edits to collect my next level award and give to myself. That is one thankless project. Thanks (fangs) for the fun and help you gave me and tried to do for another editor. I am going to have to still write an occasional article there, so I don't lose my patroller rights. But they will be only on what I personally have an interest in creating. Here on enwiki, I have joined a few editors who are abstaining from editing on at least one day a week to protest our treatment by the WMF. Not sure how much it will help the cause, but I did read a book and visit family yesterday. (Added signature late: original comment is from 18:43 2 September 2014) Fylbecatulous talk 15:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is meaning?

I just saw an addition to this page reverted with the edit summary "Perhaps worthy of its own WP: or User: essay, but entirely misses the point of this one!" Wow. This is seriously heavy material. We need another page about how to understand this one, which could start out with a useful discussion of whether it is the original author who prescribes what meaning a text conveys, or whether it is the readers whose understanding or lack thereof determines the true meaning of a text. A useful citation somewhere in that page could be this succinct explanation of What is meaning?. Perhaps there is an "official version" of what the point of this essay is, but I would need a good definition of what "official version" means in a wikipedia context before I would have any hope of knowing whether that does or should apply to this essay. It would be good if someone got to work with the heavy writing as soon as possible to help the rest of us understand this material. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

...The point - as has been previously explained to you - is that too many editors become WP:DIVAs when threatened with a block or ban, and proclaim that blocking/banning them will be another step in Wikipedia's decline because they contribute too much to be banned (one might say they believe they're too big to fail, come to think of it). This is the response: no matter how much somebody contributes, Wikipedia will survive if they're no longer here. It has nothing to do with people getting frustrated and leaving, which is what your addition implied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, that explanation is helpful. I hope that ordinary editors who read this essay will also read this talk page, and quickly, before they get too demoralized and give up editing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I’ve added the text “especially if you're a diva” to the first paragraph. Hope that solves the problem. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Could we ...

Could we please consider adding some more detailed explanation. The page currently says "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.", but as has previously been mentioned, it is misunderstood and pointers to it are passed around in email from one distraught editor to another. Could we perhaps add "This page is a personal essay written by a wikipedia administrator who was having a bad day. Please do not alter it, and please do not take it to mean that wikipedia administrators (or the Wikimedia Foundation) do not care about Editor Retention." Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance difficulty

Just a note that reverting vandalism here is made more difficult by the "Cabal approved" notice: on my screen that interferes with the "undo" option in the diffs, so reverting vandalism has to be done from a different listing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WTF?

BilCat, I don't know what got into you, but you're going to have to cite something more convincing then "it wasn't discussed" or "BRD". a. the quote is perfectly appropriate (if you can read) and b. the page isn't humorous and wasn't intended to be humorous. Now stop playing the bureaucrat; if that's what you want, run for ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You made an obtuse addition, I've objected, and you're agreeing with my reasoning isn't the point. You need to build a consensus that your additions help.the page, and being insulting isn't a way to change anyone's mind. So now you have an even more difficult task of convincing others that your addition helps the page. If they do, that's fine, but until then, leave that whatever it is supposed to be off the page. - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the problem: ownership. If you've read the previous discussions, you'll understand that the humor tag was added instead of just deleting the page. I agree it's not the point of the original essay, but that's the price tag for keeping it here. I'm not sure the phony quote helps the page though, but whatever. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you, massa, though your little "you didn't get consensus" comments are plenty insulting, in the way typically called "passive agressive". And "phony quote"? I do apologize if it goes over your head. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been on WP long enough to understand how consensus works, and that insisting on it isn't "insulting", but you already know that. Now, if you've bothered to read the previous discussions, you'll know I've supported your essay in the past, but if you think alienating your supporters is a good way to avoid having your essay deleted, then you go right ahead and do that. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What consensus? I am for that citation. It makes one think in a bigger perspective. Also will complain that this was reverted, I think that was funny to. Hafspajen (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

By all means add it back. BR isn't around much these days, and you don't need a consensus after all. If Drmies objects, just accuse them of being passive aggressive. That seems to be the in-insult these days, and it has an admin's approval, so it must be right! - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know - it sounded fun back than. Maybe I lost the fun of it. Hafspajen (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This opinion is basically summarized as go away we don't like you

The author might wanted to get across that taking a break and reconsidering your points can sometimes be useful, but the way it is written is just disgusting. Maybe the author could reconsider given advice sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.72.173.212 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's openly hostile, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.194.222 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As a newcomer, I find this page very demoralizing

Just for you to know. I thought wikipedia needed editors, and I felt enthusiast about being one of them, but now really, if I'm not needed I feel like I could just go support other projects that actually need help. I don't see why a project run by volunteers has a page saying to all volunteers that they are not needed and the project will be fine anyway. Or maybe I just didn't understand something. ----Beleriandcrises (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how incredibly the point of this keeps getting missed, when the second paragraph makes it abundantly clear who its intended audience is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is not humerous and possibly should be deleted.

This page is basically saying that you are not cared about on Wikipedia and they could care less if you quit because you are not important (that nutshell saying get over it does not help). This is probably the most hurtful page on the site and possibly should be deleted. Pancakes654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Does Need You

Wikipedia only gets better when the contributions of good faith contributors outweigh those that are not here to achieve our mission. This essay unfortunately gives the impression that difficult problems can simple be solved by banning good faith contributors. That is not the case, we need these folks and Wikipedia will not survive without them. Maybe it is time for another essay... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

For some background context on where Doc is coming from, see this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have always found this essay slightly creepy. Apart from the headline figures of registered editors on the ENG:WP, I would like to see the numbers of active editors, i.e those who have edited 30 or more times in the last month. I sense WP needs every editor it can get. Yes, I get that the essay was aimed at the WP:DIVA type of editor, but most editors who happen on it do not grasp that nuance. A counter-essay or it needs extensive re-writing I say. Simon Adler (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not like this essay! I will comment by saying I have found that some disagreements about content can be avoided by going on to other tasks, especiall tasks done by a WikiGnome (Myself)--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to clarify a little bit but generally the essay would probably deserve significant rewrite to convey its useful point of view. Audriusa (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC) This essay insults me, and to regain my internal honor, I should quit Wikipedia immediately. Is this intended? What is the purpose? I do not quit Wikipedia because a single essay, regardless how stupid, cannot really be a sufficient reason for that. Audriusa (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The point of this essay is that you get a lot of people when brought to ANI and other noticeboards, who basically go "you can't block me, if you do [X section of] Wikipedia will fall apart!". Sometimes not "basically" and more "literally". Having seen one too many of those, this was the result: slightly exaggerated for effect and very sharply aimed at those types, to point out that no, the world will still turn, the sun will still rise in the East, and Wikipedia will still exist if they are blocked. If you aren't that kind of editor, there's no need for concern or to take offence at it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)