Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 19 September 2008

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

When I am relatively happy with a section, it will be "locked" with the slight green background. All other sections are a work in progress and may not represent all or even most of what I intended to say in those matters.

Over the years, I've learned several interesting things about Misplaced Pages. Let me share them with you:

Why edit warriors can win

Please comment on this section here.

There is a problem I've noticed recently (somewhere around 2008) with how WP:3RR and edit warring are dealt with.

Consider the following case: Users A and B disagree about content. Discussion (and even some dispute resolution procedures) have been tried (on this article or other(s)), and the users still cannot agree. An edit war ensues. User A makes 3 reverts, User B makes 4 reverts. Will user B report user A to 3RR? Of course not. Will user A report user B to 3RR? Perhaps, but there are admins who will judge them both guilty of edit warring and block them both. Thus the user A who did not break the 3RR risks receiving the same penalty as the user B who did. User A cannot win edit war against user B (because he is not willing to break the 3RR) and the article version stays in user B version.

Reverting less, by itself, will not do much good. Reporting user B after 3 reverts is not going to achieve anything, of course (since 3 reverts are allowed...), and even with two reverts, user A may be accused of edit warring.

Unless our User A wants to go for a dual permblock (in other words, kamikadze himself on of many edit warriors - users B's - he has to deal with), or slowly see his reputation ruined overtime, his only option is to give up on the article(s) and let revert warriors win, at least temporarily (thus lowering quality of Misplaced Pages, whose articles were compromised by edit warrior(s)).

Of course, users A and B don't operate in a vacuum. One would expect that community will get involved and stop the edit warrior. But it is not always the case. When articles targeted are low key articles, with few or no editors watchlisting them (so nobody but users A and B is active in them), the bazaar principle that many eyes weed out the bugs (including disruptive edit warriors) fails to kick in. Sure - there are dispute resolution procedures, which allow user A to ask for those extra eyes. They are however lengthy and will require user to devote time to explaining why a 3RR violator should be stopped (one would think this would be obvious), and thus user A will not create content/police other articles/do other constructive things. Not to mention that in most dispute resolutions, neutral editors (RfC and noticeboards commentators, mediators, etc.) rarely involve themselves in an edit war; they may agree on talk with user A - but what good is it if user B keeps disagreeing with everyone and reverting? Sure, editor A could try escalating the dispute resolution to ArbCom (allowing the edit warrior to compromise x articles for months, before ArbCom ruling, and assuming the edit warrior is active enough to warrant ArbCom attention); he can ask more editors for input and involvement in the article (leading to accusations that he is forum shopping/canvassing and often failing to attract attention to anything but himself anyway, particularly when organized teams of edit warriors (WP:TAGTEAM) step in), or engage in edit warring and hope that 3RR will be interpreted correctly. Or, of course, he can just give up.

This gets even worse if user A is an estabilished editor who does not want to have his block record tarnished with blocks for edit warring. Even more so if user A is active enough to deal with several user B's on various articles (so he may have to deal with several dispute resolutions); multiply this by long history on Misplaced Pages and you have user A who tries to ensure quality in many articles, defending them from periodical edit warriors, but who can be easily portrayed in bad faith as a long-term edit warrior.

In other words, there is an increasingly dangerous interpretation of EDITWAR ("it takes two to tango so both are equally guilty") that replaces clear interpretation of 3RR ("one reverts 4 times and he is guilty"), In effect, this penalizes users who try to stop edit warriors and empowers hardcore edit warriors - who either will not get reported and will succeed in pushing their version, or who at least will take the user who tried to stop them down (getting them blocked or at least tarnishing their reputation). The incentive is increasingly high on "let disruptive edit warrior, user B, do whatever he wants, he is not worth my time and stress".

Of course, edit warring is bad, there is no disagreeing with that. But it is inevitable it will occur, due to edit warriors (particularly the "true believers" I discuss in the following section). It does not take two edit warriors for an edit war to occur - this is a common misconception. It takes one edit warrior, and a good editor who is not willing to let the edit warrior disrupt the article. If nobody breaks 3RR, but keeps at 3 reverts, this is when articles should get protected, and dispute resolution engaged, there is no other choice. But if one editor breaks the 3RR and the other doesn't, the solution - and difference - is simple.

Solution: enforce simple 3RR, not vaguely interpreted EDITWAR. 3RR was created so that one would not have to go through lengthy procedures in order to stop obvious edit warriors. 3RR draws a simple and clear distinction between a user still inside wiki editing policies and the one outside. Invoking EDITWAR for both sides, when only one side violated 3RR, creates confusion, making 3RR increasingly useless (as fewer edit warriors will get reported and thus edit war will continue), unpredictably unfair (random in outcome, as various admins pay varying attention to EDITWAR), and worst of all, against the spirit of our project, allowing edit warriors to win content disputes and have their version stabilized on Misplaced Pages. EDITWAR should be used to penalize both sides only if neither has violated 3RR and if both failed to seek a dispute resolution, and kept edit warring. If both sides violated 3RR, block both.

On the most dangerous of mindsets

Please comment on this section here.

If an editor thinks he is truly neutral, and has no POV, he is not only violating WP:NPOV (which clearly states that all editors have a POV), but he is likely to refuse to ever compromise over content ("because he is right"). One cannot reason with such a user (one can try, but one will always fail). Let's call such users "true believers" for the purpose of further discussion. There are also editors which likely realize they have some POV, but believe it is the "correct" one. Known as "POV pushers", there is little difference between them and "true believers", and for now let's lump them together, as their actions and consequences are little different (besides, few "POV pushers" will admit they have a POV, so in effect they claim to be "true believers" anyway).

"True believers" will commonly edit war, or rather, force those who disagree with them to edit war: since "true believers" cannot be made to change their mind on talk, the other side will have little recourse but to deal with them in article mainspace, and of course the "true believers" will defend their changes in article space (since they find it hard to let their "truth" be erased). The more impulsive of them commonly have significant 3RR block histories, the others - just long histories of edit warring.

"True believers" have a lot of bad faith: since they are obviously "right", they believe their opponents are "wrong". They will often discuss and criticize other editors, in more or less elaborate fashion, creating wiki battlegrounds. They will not shrink and will often start dispute resolution procedures, since they believe they are "right"; they will be shocked when the community fails to see their "truth" - which will often result in claims that others (mediators, arbcom, etc.) are biased and part of the "evil cabal".

Often, good, reasonable editors will give up or leave because they find dealing with "true believers" too stressful: "true believers" can't be convinced that they are not "100% right", they will edit war in defense of their claims, and they will accuse their opponents of various wrongdoings. Dealing with them is just the pain in the three letters.

In my experience, "true believers" are most common in articles related to national histories, and modern politics. Presumably religion is similarly plagued, but it's not a set of topics I edit.

Solution: 1) Realizing what POVs one has is crucial. Admitting them is difficult but is also crucial, as is a willingness to negotiate around them and compromise when necessary. Remember: NPOV requires all significant POVs to be represented. That does include ones you may disagree with, albeit due weight is important. One has to realize one's POV, don't be afraid to admit to it publicly, try to understand the other side and try to reach a compromise. And remember: compromise is sometimes known as the situation where everyone is just as unhappy :) Learn to live with it. 2) "True believers", once identified, should be banned. If one is not willing to compromise, hundred or so wikis with declared POV (like Conservapedia) are that'a'way.

On radicalization of users

Please comment on this section here.

Most of us come to Misplaced Pages as good faithed, but naive, editors. Over the time, we realize the depth of wikipolitics, the ulterior motives of some editors, and we grow more cynical and assume less good faith. It's a sad story, but one that simply parallels the real life: growing out of childhood and teenage idealism, and moving into the adult world of realpolitik.

How badly you'll be hurt by the wikiworld, depends, just as in real life, on where do you come from and where do you live (edit). You'll be exposed to more radical views if you leave in the Isreali-Palestinian disputed areas than if you leave in a peaceful farm in Canada. If you edit rarely visited, uncontroversial Misplaced Pages articles (about your local town, or uncontroversial, obscure science) you'll have a more positive experience than if you deal with articles about abortion, global warming or the Holocaust.

The more one runs into highly POVed users ("true believers" are the worst), which tend to cluster in the popular and controversial articles, the more likely one will slowly radicalize against their POV. Even if you are the most kind hearted peacemaker, after living for a few years in Isreal/Palestine, you will come do despise the radicals on both sides. And if you prefer one POV over another (which is completely legit and expected), you may slowly find yourself drifting more and more into extremism.

This includes:

• not editing/creating certain articles ("why help them?", "they can create it themselves");
• editing/creating certain articles ("how do you like this?"),
• defending problematic editors of one's side (also reffered to as "grooming pet trolls" - with rationale "he may be disruptive, but we need him to combat the even more disruptive editors on the other side"),
• assuming more good faith about your side than the others
• grouping "enemy" editors into "tag teams" ("users A and B share similar POV and often work together"), and assuming that they have ulterior motives and at the very least are working against your side (WP:CABAL)
• and associating entire group of editors with a given "tag team" ("users A and B belong to nationality M so all users of nationality M are as disruptive as A and B").

Some of the above are acceptable, other are borderline, others are bad. Sometimes you may be right (there "may" be a cabal to get you), more often you are not.

Over time, this leads to more and more WP:BADFAITH on all sides. With time, you'll find more and more examples to support bad faith (finding even one "true believer" a year may give you a decent sample of "evil" after a few years...). The disruptive users will become more disruptive, but good, open minded editors will be increasingly likely to chose sides or withdraw from given content topics.

Solution: assume as much good faith as you can, moderate and even support restrictions/bans on disruptive editors (including "true believers") supporting your side

On the evils of anonymity

Please comment on this section here.

Anonymity protects your true identity. There are many good reasons for it. But it also allows others (including most "true believers") to hide under a noname account, while launching uncivil attacks against others - including non-anonymous users. Non-anonymous users thus are more likely to leave this project, as they don't want their real life reputations ruined. Yet non-anonymous users are inherently better for Misplaced Pages than anonymous: first, they have a moral courage to associate their real life persona with their views; second, they are less likely to risk being incivil/dishonest (since their real life reputation is at risk), and third, they bring identifiable qualities (proof of expertise in various subjects) to discussions.

Anonymity has its advantages (for example, for users editing from oppressive regimes, where their participation in this project may be illegal), but it confers no benefit to the project other than that. Most anonymous editors simply lack the moral courage required to link their real persona to their POVs (again, I can think of good reasons for it - ex. if one edits articles porn, for example, even with good intentions, it's not always something one may want to be associated with him). So certainly, I have no problem with anonymity. But in most cases, it's not helpful - while non-anonymity is.

Anonymity makes it easier to engage in dubious editorial behavior - from edit warring to personal attacks. Sure, people do get attached to their anonymous personas, and some have considerable respect on Misplaced Pages, but in the end, an anonymous editor with bad reputation can always "restart", even after a block. Non-anonymous cannot.

Yet being non-anonymous is not promoted in Misplaced Pages community. This is simply illogical. Non-anonymous users should be rewarded for their special dedication to this project.

Solution: there should be an officially recognized level of usership for non-anonymous users. There should be a way to certify you are who you are (for example, by making a 5$ donation to the project with a credit card with your name on it, or by demonstrating (via a website, blog, etc.) that you are who you claim to be). The non-anonymous editors should be very strictly protected from slander and flaming (akin to WP:BLP), and there should be a protection level for articles that would allow only non-anonymous editors to edit them (thus shutting of anonymous "true believers" from it).

Why good users leave the project, or why civility is the key policy

Please comment on this section here.

I've seen too many good editors - including real like academics, for example - driven away from Misplaced Pages by anonymous "true believers" and worsening atmosphere due to radicalization. In most cases, the same process occurs: good editors get involved in pointless, stressful discussion with "true believers" and will become target of their incivil personal attacks (baseless accusations of "academic dishonesty", "nationalism", "antisemitism", you name it). They may also get involved in some edit warring (since "true believers" like to edit war). That leads to stress ("why am I contributing to this project, if all I get as a thank you is flame and trolling?"). Good editors will then leave, not willing to spend time creating quality content in exchange for flames and in worst cases, slander against their real life persona.

Solution: enforce WP:CIVIL, promote non-anonymity and ban "true believers".

On spirit and the letter of Misplaced Pages

We are here to build an encyclopedia. This is a principle many increasingly forget.

We are not here to create another giant discussion forum. Discussion is fine up to the point it disrupts building an encyclopedia.

Editors who build an encyclopedia should be encouraged. Editors who chase away encyclopedia builders should be discouraged.

Editors are not equal. But even great content contributors should not be given a carte blanche with regard to personal attacks or such: they may drive away more people who would have created more content than they themselves do. However, experienced users and prolific contributors should be given reasonable doubt when they say they know more than new and less active users.

On adminship

Please comment on this section here.

Thoughts on what it means to be an admin, including the problems with elections and discussion on recall, to come.

• User essays