Essay on editing Wikipedia
| This page in a nutshell:
Editors and people we write about are necessarily complex individuals and we generally do not get a complete picture of them. Although it is difficult, avoid reducing that complexity by resisting presumptions or excessive praise of an individual.
|
In a speech written for the
ALAN Conference
, the American author
John Green
expanded on the importance of seeing others as complex individuals. Civility issues, misunderstandings, and discomfort on Wikipedia can sometimes arise from a failure to
imagine others complexly
. Imagining others complexly is not quite the same as
assuming good faith in other editors
, and includes other considerations like
the tone we use to talk about living persons
and accepting we cannot presume to know other editors very well, because there is only so much that can be known based on editing behavior and user pages alone.
Consider the following situation:
- A new editor requests that you help them completely rework their article on
Articles for Creation
, which is long and needs a lot of clean-up.
One reaction to this would be to ignore them on the basis that they've been given feedback and
should be able to figure it out on their own
. I mean, why should
you
do all the work? This person's long-winded article is probably going to be a drain on
your
time and
your
effort. It'll probably end up deleted anyway.
This is a common and automatic way to react; it's normal to view this situation from a self-serving perspective. But the thing is, there are all sorts of other ways to think about this situation, if you decide to. Maybe...
- ...the editor's primary language isn't English and they have a hard time understanding pages on
notability
.
- ...their article is largely unsourced because they live in
an area of the world where web access is restricted
.
- ...the person is indefinitely hospitalized and is just starting to learn Wikipedia so they don't have to mindlessly stare at grey-speckled walls all day.
And sure, perhaps none of these situations are likely. But they're also not impossible; it just depends on what you want to consider. Editors don't generally get to know one another on Wikipedia, so we usually don't know exactly what is going on.
Here's another example:
- An administrator is involved in a heated discussion over content and issues a bad block that clearly violates
WP:INVOLVED
that (correctly) goes to
ANI
and much discussion ensues.
Some of us have seen this situation unfold before, and it's incredibly easy to come rushing in on the de-sysopping bandwagon once a bad block has been confirmed. It's easy to allow yourself to start generalizing and
start talking about cabals
and
rogue admins
(or even
rouge admins
). This is also an effective way to make yourself miserable about the project. But if you take the time to pause and really think about what else could be going on, you might find yourself saying,
maybe they're not usually like this.
It is also easy to make snap judgments about
living persons who have articles
in regards to their judgments, behaviors, appearances, perceived values, etc., as they are reported in sources. Your personal opinions on the individual are rarely relevant to improving articles, but even if they were, we almost never know the subject on any personal level. So it becomes dangerous to presume to know their motives, personality, well-being, or otherwise and edit or communicate under that attitude when the basis for that "knowledge" is your own opinion.
Praising and admiring good work on Wikipedia is generally encouraged as it promotes a supportive editing environment. But it is certainly possible to take these feelings too far. Editors on Wikipedia are not
heroes
. In addition to their talents, editors are real people with flaws, personal challenges, and mistakes that they struggle with. It is deeply unfair to place editors
on a pedestal
as though these qualities do not exist or are unimportant. Thinking of editors this way places unrealistic expectations on editing behavior and paints a false identity that they and others cannot possibly live up to. It completely misrepresents what it means to be human.
For instance, do not overwhelm a specific user with
barnstars
even if they are a level-headed admin or
have a lot of contributions
. Try to use them selectively, like when you see exceptional work or when another editor has done something personally helpful for your benefit.
Placing editors on pedestals can also occur when the editor
retires
, is blocked, or is otherwise reprimanded in controversial situations. There can be a tendency to rush to their defense; in some cases this is certainly merited, but sometimes these situations are characterized so dramatically in favor of the editor that they appear to be an innocent victim, even when they have unambiguously violated editing guidelines (though this is not to say admins have perfect judgment either.) It is important to remember that all editors, including you, have made and will continue to make mistakes in editing and interacting with others (even
when we should know better
, in which case it's important to apologize, forgive, and move on.)
No. But it is important, and worthwhile.
There is a French contemporary philosopher
Edgar Morin
recognized for his work on complexity and "complex thought," which embrace the idiom "Imagine others complexly". Notably Edgar Morin published a book in French together with contemporary philosopher
Tariq Ramadan
where they address the complexity of the French identity in a mondialized world.
[1]
|
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
- Adminitis
- Akin's Laws of Article Writing
- Alternatives to edit warring
- ANI flu
- Anti-Wikipedian
- Anti-Wikipedianism
- Articlecountitis
- Asshole John rule
- Assume bad faith
- Assume faith
- Assume good wraith
- Assume stupidity
- Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
- Avoid using preview button
- Avoid using wikilinks
- Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
- Barnstaritis
- Before they were notable
- BOLD, revert, revert, revert
- Boston Tea Party
- Butterfly effect
- CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
- Complete bollocks
- Counting forks
- Counting juntas
- Crap
- Don't stuff beans up your nose
- Don't-give-a-fuckism
- Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
- Don't delete the main page
- Editcountitis
- Edits Per Day
- Editsummarisis
- Editing Under the Influence
- Embrace Stop Signs
- Emerson
- Fart
- Five Fs of Wikipedia
- Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
- Go ahead, vandalize
- How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
- How to get away with UPE
- How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
- How to vandalize correctly
- How to win a citation war
- Ignore all essays
- Ignore every single rule
- Is that even an essay?
- Mess with the templates
- My local pond
- Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
- Legal vandalism
- List of jokes about Wikipedia
- LTTAUTMAOK
- No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
- No one cares about your garage band
- No one really cares
- No, really
- No sorcery threats
- Notability is not eternal
- Oops Defense
- Play the game
- Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
- Please bite the newbies
- Please do not murder the newcomers
- Pledge of Tranquility
- R-e-s-p-e-c-t
- Requests for medication
- Requirements for adminship
- Rouge admin
- Rouge editor
- Sarcasm is really helpful
- Sausages for tasting
- The Night Before Wikimas
- The first rule of Wikipedia
- The Five Pillars of Untruth
- Things that should not be surprising
- The WikiBible
- Watchlistitis
- Wikipedia is an MMORPG
- WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
- What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
- Why not create an account?
- Yes legal threats
- You don't have to be mad to work here, but
- You should not write meaningless lists
|
|
|
|
---|
About essays
| |
---|
Policies and guidelines
| |
---|
|
|