User talk:MastCell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:29, 8 February 2012 editASCIIn2Bme (talk \| contribs)7,224 edits →No ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:14, 8 February 2012 edit undoColin (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,958 edits →No: focusNext edit →
Line 76:		Line 76:
	* All of that is excellent advice. But this time it's not so much a single conflict, or even a series of conflicts, that's depressing me. It's the overall direction of the site and my experience here. It's just not really fun anymore. You're correct, of course, that there have always been trolls, ignoramuses, and silly drama; there were no "good old days" in that regard. But what's changed is the number and nature of the ''positive'' interactions that made editing here enjoyable.<p>One of the main rewards of editing here was getting to work with a bunch of smart, interesting, thoughtful people toward a shared set of goals. Most of those people are long gone now, or at a minimum irreversibly burnt-out. You guys are exceptions - you're all in the category of people I've really enjoyed working with, and you're still here. But I feel like this site has passed a tipping point. We've selected for cluelessness, obsessiveness, petty vindictiveness, and rigid rules-lawyering to the point where those qualities are endemic not only in the community, but also in a growing minority of the Arbitration Committee. It seems like the idea of creating a serious, respectable reference work is an increasingly uncommon motivation among active editors, nor does it seem particularly prevalent in reasoning at the admin/ArbCom level.<p>I'm just really tired of this place. I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: ''incivility springs from frustration''. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. It's like the project has a bad fever; our answers are bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives, and no one can understand why they're not working. Most of the discussion revolves around ''whether'' and ''for how long'' to block for incivility, which is like watching medieval physicians argue about how many leeches to apply to a septic patient. If you start with the wrong tool, then it doesn't matter ''how'' you use it. It's not going to work.<p>Given the competing personal and professional demands on my time, it's increasingly difficult for me to rationalize investing more of it on a project which appears to be gleefully accelerating toward a brick wall. On the other hand, I don't think I'm actually going to stop editing completely. I've been beating the drum about the accuracy of medical articles (as have you guys) because we all believe that this site has enormous potential, for good or ill, to inform people's health-related decisions. So even if I don't edit here out of enjoyment, it's still really hard to sit by and see poorly written or outright inaccurate medical material without trying to improve it. This is what brought me back (see my recent edits), because I really was planning to just fade away, Eubulides-style. Of course, I've been disillusioned and written "goodbye-cruel-Misplaced Pages" missives before, so there's a non-zero chance I'll just pick up again in the next month or two. I appreciate the kind words, though. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)		* All of that is excellent advice. But this time it's not so much a single conflict, or even a series of conflicts, that's depressing me. It's the overall direction of the site and my experience here. It's just not really fun anymore. You're correct, of course, that there have always been trolls, ignoramuses, and silly drama; there were no "good old days" in that regard. But what's changed is the number and nature of the ''positive'' interactions that made editing here enjoyable.<p>One of the main rewards of editing here was getting to work with a bunch of smart, interesting, thoughtful people toward a shared set of goals. Most of those people are long gone now, or at a minimum irreversibly burnt-out. You guys are exceptions - you're all in the category of people I've really enjoyed working with, and you're still here. But I feel like this site has passed a tipping point. We've selected for cluelessness, obsessiveness, petty vindictiveness, and rigid rules-lawyering to the point where those qualities are endemic not only in the community, but also in a growing minority of the Arbitration Committee. It seems like the idea of creating a serious, respectable reference work is an increasingly uncommon motivation among active editors, nor does it seem particularly prevalent in reasoning at the admin/ArbCom level.<p>I'm just really tired of this place. I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: ''incivility springs from frustration''. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. It's like the project has a bad fever; our answers are bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives, and no one can understand why they're not working. Most of the discussion revolves around ''whether'' and ''for how long'' to block for incivility, which is like watching medieval physicians argue about how many leeches to apply to a septic patient. If you start with the wrong tool, then it doesn't matter ''how'' you use it. It's not going to work.<p>Given the competing personal and professional demands on my time, it's increasingly difficult for me to rationalize investing more of it on a project which appears to be gleefully accelerating toward a brick wall. On the other hand, I don't think I'm actually going to stop editing completely. I've been beating the drum about the accuracy of medical articles (as have you guys) because we all believe that this site has enormous potential, for good or ill, to inform people's health-related decisions. So even if I don't edit here out of enjoyment, it's still really hard to sit by and see poorly written or outright inaccurate medical material without trying to improve it. This is what brought me back (see my recent edits), because I really was planning to just fade away, Eubulides-style. Of course, I've been disillusioned and written "goodbye-cruel-Misplaced Pages" missives before, so there's a non-zero chance I'll just pick up again in the next month or two. I appreciate the kind words, though. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
	** I suppose you can see Misplaced Pages as an example of ]. ] (]) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)		** I suppose you can see Misplaced Pages as an example of ]. ] (]) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
			**"I'm tired of reading thousands of posts ..." Well don't read them. I fall into that trap too. It is a timesink. Yes there are problems. The "let's have students write WP for their homework" focus of WMF isn't working and good editors have left or are inactive. But it is still the most important source of medical information on the net. ]°] 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:14, 8 February 2012

Archives

(Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No

No, No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Reasonable, level-headed voices are in short supply already. Yobol (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly why I feel like leaving. MastCell 23:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And a reason why those of us trying to build a good encyclopedia need more around...Yobol (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't go. Edit less. Do more of something else instead. But don't go. Please. Colin° 08:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This can't happen-- there are so few left-- of the good people as well as good editors, the ones I'd want to have coffee or a drink with, that I care about beyond this place. It's gotten too bad in here for even the toughest, and certainly too bad for the wisest, kindest and brightest. Why are people letting this happen instead of fighting it? Why can't we find a way together to stop it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As one admin put it on ANI "open editing isn't for the faint of heart". I do think that in all likelihood the future of Misplaced Pages holds many Baseball Bugs. But I also think that people here often tend to have an overly idealistic view of the past. Just read this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Barf. But knowing most of that cast of characters, how is it that something that bad can look so good compared to the current level of discourse at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I misexpressed myself. I don't see much difference between that 2006 drama and AN of past week. Or between the follow-up ArbCom to that 2006 bruhaha and some late 2011-12 ArbCom cases. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The bullying of underlying cabals and factions is the same-- but there's less peanut gallery (which makes it much easier to see the cronyism-- and THAT is one thing that is wrong now-- the factions are obscured by the high noise to signal, although it's clearly there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a nice quiet corner and build some articles (not even necessarily medical ones) away from the disputes and controversies. I'm sure without dealing with the POV pushers in a while will give you a fresh perspective on things. Yobol (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's always been my advice. Trim your watchlist too. Colin° 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. Don't be a victim of the prisoner's dilemma, when there's another option. If necessary, change the rules.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All of that is excellent advice. But this time it's not so much a single conflict, or even a series of conflicts, that's depressing me. It's the overall direction of the site and my experience here. It's just not really fun anymore. You're correct, of course, that there have always been trolls, ignoramuses, and silly drama; there were no "good old days" in that regard. But what's changed is the number and nature of the positive interactions that made editing here enjoyable.
One of the main rewards of editing here was getting to work with a bunch of smart, interesting, thoughtful people toward a shared set of goals. Most of those people are long gone now, or at a minimum irreversibly burnt-out. You guys are exceptions - you're all in the category of people I've really enjoyed working with, and you're still here. But I feel like this site has passed a tipping point. We've selected for cluelessness, obsessiveness, petty vindictiveness, and rigid rules-lawyering to the point where those qualities are endemic not only in the community, but also in a growing minority of the Arbitration Committee. It seems like the idea of creating a serious, respectable reference work is an increasingly uncommon motivation among active editors, nor does it seem particularly prevalent in reasoning at the admin/ArbCom level.
I'm just really tired of this place. I'm tired of reading thousands of posts about incivility written by people who don't seem to grasp a basic truth obvious even to an intuitive 5-year-old: incivility springs from frustration. There's no interest in understanding why constructive editors routinely end up so frustrated that they snap (the answer is obvious to anyone who's edited in the trenches, but such experience is increasingly rare these days). Incivility is viewed as a personal failing, rather than a symptom of serious underlying systemic problems. So there's an obsessive interest in "enforcing" civility as an end unto itself, by penalizing individual acts of incivility with blocks. That's a superficial and counterproductive approach, yet everyone seems baffled that the more we do to "enforce" civility, the more toxic this site's atmosphere becomes. It's like the project has a bad fever; our answers are bloodletting and mercury-based laxatives, and no one can understand why they're not working. Most of the discussion revolves around whether and for how long to block for incivility, which is like watching medieval physicians argue about how many leeches to apply to a septic patient. If you start with the wrong tool, then it doesn't matter how you use it. It's not going to work.
Given the competing personal and professional demands on my time, it's increasingly difficult for me to rationalize investing more of it on a project which appears to be gleefully accelerating toward a brick wall. On the other hand, I don't think I'm actually going to stop editing completely. I've been beating the drum about the accuracy of medical articles (as have you guys) because we all believe that this site has enormous potential, for good or ill, to inform people's health-related decisions. So even if I don't edit here out of enjoyment, it's still really hard to sit by and see poorly written or outright inaccurate medical material without trying to improve it. This is what brought me back (see my recent edits), because I really was planning to just fade away, Eubulides-style. Of course, I've been disillusioned and written "goodbye-cruel-Misplaced Pages" missives before, so there's a non-zero chance I'll just pick up again in the next month or two. I appreciate the kind words, though. MastCell 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you can see Misplaced Pages as an example of coevolution. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I'm tired of reading thousands of posts ..." Well don't read them. I fall into that trap too. It is a timesink. Yes there are problems. The "let's have students write WP for their homework" focus of WMF isn't working and good editors have left or are inactive. But it is still the most important source of medical information on the net. Colin° 21:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)