Wikipedia hostility and the suggestions to reduce it

[adamovicm]

Boing! mentioned in another thread that he thinks the biggest nowadays problem with Wikipedia is hostility toward new editors.

I have searched the history of this forum, and I have seen that Jake thought that random hostility is quite rare. What does it actually mean?

Others, your thoughts and suggestions?

I'm opening this thread to make this forum content more friendly to seasonal and less experienced editors.

Some easy, general topics, most editors understand. At this moment, my thoughts about hostility on Wikipedia are not really shaped, so I don't have to say anything on that matter.

For this forum although, I'd say it would be nice if long-term forum members would show enough compassion to newbies, and engage in a more direct way in communication, to help them realize and understand opposing views, problems, etc.

[rhindle]

One thing that I saw happen back in the day was when a group of editors spent months arguing on talk pages about what should or should not be in an article but finally find a consensus version to put out. Things are peaceful for a little while but a new editor comes in and pretty much undoes the consensus one way or another, not aware of all the fussing and fighting that produced the consensus version. This can be frustrating and have another round of discussions begin to explain things to the new editor. The new editor (may) finally understand what is going on but then another new editor comes in, changes things again, and frustration becomes irritation. Rinse and repeat. This makes crotchety veteran editors more likely to WP:BITE newcomers. Some articles have a FAQ to try to mitigate new editors coming in like a bull in a china shop but they usually do not pay attention.

One idea to help maybe to update the welcome message to reflect that wikipedia has been around for a while and many articles have been worked on for years so check out the talk pages before "being bold" and irritating the vets. This does not count activists or SPA's though.

[The Blue Newt]

One thing that I saw happen back in the day was when a group of editors spent months arguing on talk pages about what should or should not be in an article but finally find a consensus version to put out. Things are peaceful for a little while but a new editor comes in and pretty much undoes the consensus one way or another, not aware of all the fussing and fighting that produced the consensus version. This can be frustrating and have another round of discussions begin to explain things to the new editor. The new editor (may) finally understand what is going on but then another new editor comes in, changes things again, and frustration becomes irritation. Rinse and repeat. This makes crotchety veteran editors more likely to WP:BITE newcomers. Some articles have a FAQ to try to mitigate new editors coming in like a bull in a china shop but they usually do not pay attention.

One idea to help maybe to update the welcome message to reflect that wikipedia has been around for a while and many articles have been worked on for years so check out the talk pages before "being bold" and irritating the vets. This does not count activists or SPA's though.

In UseNetese, “on Wiki it is always September.”

[rhindle]

One thing that I saw happen back in the day was when a group of editors spent months arguing on talk pages about what should or should not be in an article but finally find a consensus version to put out. Things are peaceful for a little while but a new editor comes in and pretty much undoes the consensus one way or another, not aware of all the fussing and fighting that produced the consensus version. This can be frustrating and have another round of discussions begin to explain things to the new editor. The new editor (may) finally understand what is going on but then another new editor comes in, changes things again, and frustration becomes irritation. Rinse and repeat. This makes crotchety veteran editors more likely to WP:BITE newcomers. Some articles have a FAQ to try to mitigate new editors coming in like a bull in a china shop but they usually do not pay attention.

One idea to help maybe to update the welcome message to reflect that wikipedia has been around for a while and many articles have been worked on for years so check out the talk pages before "being bold" and irritating the vets. This does not count activists or SPA's though.

In UseNetese, “on Wiki it is always September.”

That makes it kind of surprising there is no "WP:SEPTEMBER" essay.

[The Garbage Scow]

Wikipedia doesn't really have an avenue for people to address others being assholes to them. In the somewhat distant past, they had stuff like WP:PAIN and later Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance. For all their shortcomings, they did provide some kind of venue for those who felt they were being attacked or treated with unnecessary harshness. But for whatever reason, some did not like those boards and got them shut down. Now all that remains is AN/I, which usually just results in N00bs being victim blamed per this shitty essay that for some reason is frequently cited like a behavioral policy.

[adamovicm]

In UseNetese, “on Wiki it is always September.”

Guys, I've been on the Internet since 1993 or so, actually used Usenet back in the days, but never heard about this so far.

"Back in the glory days of Usenet, this was called “the September problem”; most participants were at universities, so every autumn brought a new flood of students. Then, as conversation quality declined, the phrase “It is always September on the Internet” arose. And so it has been ever since."

As I found this forum too advanced for myself, I can only imagine how it's advanced for an average Wikipedian (who probably has age of 20 years and ESL).

[The Blue Newt]

One thing that I saw happen back in the day was when a group of editors spent months arguing on talk pages about what should or should not be in an article but finally find a consensus version to put out. Things are peaceful for a little while but a new editor comes in and pretty much undoes the consensus one way or another, not aware of all the fussing and fighting that produced the consensus version. This can be frustrating and have another round of discussions begin to explain things to the new editor. The new editor (may) finally understand what is going on but then another new editor comes in, changes things again, and frustration becomes irritation. Rinse and repeat. This makes crotchety veteran editors more likely to WP:BITE newcomers. Some articles have a FAQ to try to mitigate new editors coming in like a bull in a china shop but they usually do not pay attention.

One idea to help maybe to update the welcome message to reflect that wikipedia has been around for a while and many articles have been worked on for years so check out the talk pages before "being bold" and irritating the vets. This does not count activists or SPA's though.

In UseNetese, “on Wiki it is always September.”

That makes it kind of surprising there is no "WP:SEPTEMBER" essay.

What surprises me is that Mike Reed’s “Flame Warriors” isn’t a widely used touchstone at ANI.

[FelinaLavandula]

One of my early edits to Wikipedia was a capitalization change that was immediately reverted by a vandalism-patrol admin with zero explanation and no edit summary. Before making my account, I had a lot of experience here and reading various noticeboards and studying PAGs and whatnot, so I happily went to that admin’s talk page and pointed out that my edit was constructive and asked them to self-revert, which they did. So it went pretty much as well as possible.
If I did not already know what to do in this scenario, I would probably not have thought to check if that user was an administrator. I might have re-reverted that admin. I might have gone to their talk page and said something like “Hey idiot, explain why you reverted my obviously-not-vandalism edit.” I might have tried to template them. I might have been upset since up to that point none of my edits had been reverted before and lost my temper, especially if I didn’t know that being reverted isn’t actually a big deal. I might have tried to report that admin somewhere inappropriate like the Teahouse. And any of those things could have led to me being indefinitely blocked, at which point I would have given up editing Wikipedia forever. Not that it matters, since they obviously didn’t want me there anyway.
I understand why established editors can be wary of newbies, especially in contentious topics (which my edit wasn’t, but nevertheless). But coming down harshly on new editors looks especially bad when established editors seem to get away with anything because they’re seen as good at contributing content or patrolling vandalism or whatever. That doesn’t hold true universally - plenty of new editors get away with things and plenty of established editors are sanctioned. But I think anyone who pays attention to ANI threads or ArbCom will see a lot of horrific behaviour and abuse excused with “but they’re a good admin/prolific content creator/useful”, even if that’s literally not true.
I don’t know if there’s anything that can actually fix this problem short of actually sanctioning established editors who get away with or defend poor behaviour often targeting newbies, or some kind of massive cultural shift.

[Randy from Boise]

As I found this forum too advanced for myself, I can only imagine how it's advanced for an average Wikipedian (who probably has age of 20 years and ESL).

One of the misconceptions about WP from back in the day was that it was a playground of 16 year olds playing power games with administrative buttons. Even if that were true, and I contend it never really was, the administrators from 2005 who were 16-years old then are 35-year olds now. We've got Wikipedians starting to die off from age-related illnesses. There is no way that the "average Wikipedian" is anything like 20 years old.

I'm 61 myself — a few ticks older than average. I'd peg the average age for core Wikipedians at about 40.

How many are English as a second language? Many of those producing new content (often single new articles) and few of the core volunteers. This is probably the source of some friction as the content gatekeepers meet the never-ending firehose of frequently bad new articles. That dynamic is part of the site culture that one needs to understand. Dealing with the stream of poorly-written self-promotion and pop culture trivia can get depressing.

t

[Beeblebrox]

The thing that many new user fail to recognize is that Wikipedia is not like most other user-generated-content sites. There are a lot of rules, some of which are very different from common practices on other such sites. The username policy alone results in dozens of blocks every single day. Before autoconfirmation was required to create new articles, hundreds of (terrible) were speedy deleted within minutes every single day.

The best advice one can give to newcomers is to start small, even if you have an idea for a great new article, do little tasks with existing content first, learn the basic rules like notability and verification by reliable sources. Don't come in thinking you are going to change the rules and make it work the way you think it should work, it's way, way too late for that.

Randy is also very correct about who the average experienced Wikipedian is.When I was sixteen, a dial up BBS was considered pretty amazing new technology. Unless you were to ask my sisters, who found it annoying that I kept tying up the one phone line we had. They were just jealous because I got a CoCo 3 (T-H-L) for my birthday.

[adamovicm]

When I was sixteen, a dial up BBS was considered pretty amazing new technology. Unless you were to ask my sisters, who found it annoying that I kept tying up the one phone line we had.

Off-topic, but... I even had a BBS in my home for a certain period of time, it was called "Banjaluka BBS" working hours 22-07. Once my parents had to go somewhere, and sent grandma during the nighttime. I couldn't explain to her that she should not pick up the phone after 22h and that phone needs to be turned off from the plug. Several times she put the phone back in the plug, which kept ringing. My teenager days

I googled now to see if Google can find that Banjaluka BBS existed and found it (non-HTTPS page in Serbian latin there).

My parents made me kill the BBS as they claimed the computer makes the air dry in the room during the night when I sleep (actually valid statement).

It seems the number of people under 40 on this forum is relatively low (if maybe non-existing)

[Boing! said Zebedee]

When I was sixteen, a dial up BBS was considered pretty amazing new technology...

When I was 16, a phone was a cool thing.

[adamovicm]

Dealing with the stream of poorly-written self-promotion and pop culture trivia can get depressing.

It's everywhere where admins have to deal with user-generated content.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/2125 ... tal-health

Before AI was working properly, moderators on video/image platforms had to deal with high amounts of porn, illegal content, other stuff that wasn't really nice to their mental health.

I've got the feeling Wikipedia relies too much on volunteers, it seems most admins are in unpaid roles? That kind of sucks.

I think the decision not to run ads on Wikipedia might not be the best idea, as that would enable significantly higher revenue to pay salaries to those people who are spending hours in improving Wikipedia.

To add more salt to the wound, even that Bbb23sucks guy is using his programming skills to "kill Wikipedia". I'll have to spend some more time in "the dark forum" to try to persuade him to do something less destructive and more constructive. We have a saying here in Serbia "let the neighbor's cow be alive and well" (I guess it emerged after Serbs did something opposite).

[Bezdomni]

It seems the number of people under 40 on this forum is relatively low (if maybe non-existing)

This is indeed one of the problems of the forum, though there are certainly members under 40. I remember getting in trouble for asking just how old one of our fogeys was when he was battering an obviously much younger member. Wikipedia may be doing a bit better with generational churnover.

[redbaron]

I've got the feeling Wikipedia relies too much on volunteers, it seems most admins are in unpaid roles? That kind of sucks.

No, not most admins. Pretty much all admins (and bureaucrats, arbs, checkusers, regular editors...) are unpaid volunteers. I say "pretty much" because there are WP:PAID (T-H-L) editors who create articles for hire, or receive compensation from their employers for maintaining their WP articles (and there is also undisclosed paid editing, which is a whole 'nother can of worms). But more to your point, editing activities are not compensated by the WMF.

* There are editors who are also WMF employees (Xeno (WMF) (T-C-L) comes to mind) but their editing activities are separate from their employment -- in this example, Xeno (T-C-L) is not being paid to close AFD discussions, or to participate in crat chats, etc.

[Ognistysztorm]

There's never going to be a single uniform agreement on what notability is, which is obviously one of the sources of many hostilities. In fact the arguments could even last until the end of time. If you want to reduce hostility on that angle you might as well embrace Wikisecessionism to make as many alternatives as you can while corralling them all into the "Encyclosphere". In particular the git-based approach by Encycla might be better suited than Wikipedia in weathering POV differences.

It may be hard once upon a time, but given that there's an ice, a cat, and a volunteer that pushed it over the ledge, it's going to be easier to put many eggs in different baskets.

[FelinaLavandula]

I don’t think correctly enforcing well-documented notability requirements is hostile to new editors, as long as it’s done with a gentle touch (which we all know isn’t always). There are other issues I think are much worse.

[Ognistysztorm]

I don’t think correctly enforcing well-documented notability requirements is hostile to new editors, as long as it’s done with a gentle touch (which we all know isn’t always). There are other issues I think are much worse.

I've said somewhere that one of the biggest pet peeves and issues in Wikipedia is that they permits and possibly mandates reversion of works, even good edits, by users who are blocked or banned for any reason. Clearly the notion separating art from the people is strangely absent. Even though the wording might specify the "good edits" exemption, in practice all edits had been indiscriminately reverted if found to be made by a banned user.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BANREVERT

https://www.wired.com/story/socked-into ... wikipedia/

This is not to mention they utilize doxxing tactics against so-called "rule-breakers", such as SPI and LTA pages. I must give a fair warning here as someone who was occasionally immersed in the "true crimes" community before getting into the Wikipedia rabbit hole, that if these practices stays in trajectory, it will one day ignites some kind of mass tragedies which I won't further elaborate on here for fear of giving nuts ideas, however that's something adamovicm had unfortunately known too well in the context of recent events.

[adamovicm]

I must give a fair warning here as someone who was occasionally immersed in the "true crimes" community before getting into the Wikipedia rabbit hole, that if these practices stays in trajectory, it will one day ignites some kind of mass tragedies which I won't further elaborate on here for fear of giving nuts ideas, however that's something adamovicm had unfortunately known too well in the context of recent events.

I have to admit some messages became nuts that I started to feel paranoid (or perhaps not). Since my identity is exposed, I have started to think that I might need police protection, ASAP. There is some really weird world going on in Wikipedia underground. I have started to analyze sockpupetter patterns, even in the cases when they probably weren't. Suddenly I was spending more than 10 hours a day in some weird world.

But I guess some rationality (and probably sanity) were restored soon afterward to myself. I have ignored those paranoid feelings. I still spend hours trying to get my point of view of what is really going on, who is who, and what is his/her story, as it become of my interest.

And it looks like it's several worlds with a mixture of everything. Good, bad, ugly...

[tinyboxs]

The cause of hostility on wp is bordem. They frown upon fun social media–like interactions beyond a few wikilove templates, so the most effective ways to get the feeling of attention and feedback from the comunity are inherently negative. As Antandrus (T-C-L) observes:

It is easier to get a sincere "thank you" for reverting "you're a faggot" from someone's userpage, than it is for writing a researched, thorough, and referenced encyclopedia article on an encyclopedic topic. The best way to continue as a writing Wikipedian for many years is to be, as the Buddha recommends, "indifferent to both praise and blame." Indifference to praise is a hard task for mere humans, but millions of potential anonymous readers demand it of you, for if you require praise you will burn out with one of the fates indicated in No. 59. And remember this: you are allowed to take your work seriously here, and think highly of your own efforts; but be advised, don't talk about it.

[Hemiauchenia]

Wikipedia's hostility to outsiders is an inevitable consequence of the way that it currently functions. As much as people praise the mid-2000's era of Wikipedia as being more welcoming of new users, it was rightly mocked for its lack of quality control, as well as stuff like the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident (T-H-L). The decline in friendliness towards new users has ultimately been the result of an increase in quality control, as well as enforcement of policies like BLP, something which even the most ardent of WIkipedia critics would struggle to disagree wasn't necessary.

The blunt truth is, like many things in life, Wikipedia operates by the Pareto principle (T-H-L). The vast majority content contributed to Wikipedia is done by a very small minority of its registered users. The vast majority of users who are put off by Wikipedias hostility would never have become power-users to begin with. In my own experience, many of the new users who go on to become great Wikipedia contributors hit the ground running with few issues with their editing to begin with. Dealing with incompetent power-users who aren't disruptive enough to warrant a swift outright block are arguably one of the biggest problems that the website has.

[The Garbage Scow]

When I was sixteen, a dial up BBS was considered pretty amazing new technology...

When I was 16, a phone was a cool thing.

[wiki-reviewer]

In my mind, a possible solution in line with wikipedias values, is to require x number of sources per paragraph/sentence, and have a wizard which pops up which handles most complaints by automation. The current mode of having human moderation do this distracts them from doing the good work of building an encyclopedia. So they ban or warn IPs for first time infractions of non-obvious rules and create hostility btw general public and wikipedia.

[wiki-reviewer]

There's never going to be a single uniform agreement on what notability is, which is obviously one of the sources of many hostilities. In fact the arguments could even last until the end of time. If you want to reduce hostility on that angle you might as well embrace Wikisecessionism to make as many alternatives as you can while corralling them all into the "Encyclosphere". In particular the git-based approach by Encycla might be better suited than Wikipedia in weathering POV differences.

It may be hard once upon a time, but given that there's an ice, a cat, and a volunteer that pushed it over the ledge, it's going to be easier to put many eggs in different baskets.

This is the best solution for aggrieved parties and has been for many years.

[adamovicm]

The vast majority content contributed to Wikipedia is done by a very small minority of its registered users.

But it could happen that the other 20% of content that has been written by other 80% of users improves significantly content written by that small minority of its registered users.

I.e. as someone who did less than 100 changes on Wikipedia, I have compared tax rates in different countries using Wikipedia to figure out that the data for Serbia were not updated. I have updated it.

If Wikipedia would rely only on that small minority of its registered users, those obsolete and not updated data could stay for years.

The problem is that probably most new users are using it only for other purposes (i.e. promotion, spamming, making fun) rather than fixing mistakes in the content they encounter, which makes the job of admins boring.

And I really look at it as a job, rather than something someone should do voluntarily.

[wiki-reviewer]

The problem is that probably most new users are using it only for other purposes (i.e. promotion, spamming, making fun) rather than fixing mistakes in the content they encounter, which makes the job of admins boring.

And I really look at it as a job, rather than something someone should do voluntarily.

This unlikely to be true, a previous study found 82% of even IP edits are non-vandalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Opab ... ges_survey

I'm skeptical also about the Pareto claim (which is a very specific statistical claim). I don't see that most accepted major contributions are from editors who are met with open arms as people. I'll take the last major contributions (2k+ byte) while I'm writing this as a small sample size (not enough to draw conclusion but better than single assertion). I'll go to special:recentchanges and pick the four most recent major contributions to English Wikipedia, as a random sample.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /JonSnow05
https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiSpecial:Co ... obigtokale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiSpecial:Co ... ckMaster02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiSpecial:Co ... s/Aintabli

From this small window in time, only half over the above accepted major contributions are made by regulars, and none seem to be in any 'core' group of editors. And the people who feel comfortable editing are people who do so on obscure foreign topics. Half of these most recent major contributors are new editors or regular editors who were met with overboard hostility from administration in the past.

It's N=4 but better than N=0 tho

[Hemiauchenia]

The problem is that probably most new users are using it only for other purposes (i.e. promotion, spamming, making fun) rather than fixing mistakes in the content they encounter, which makes the job of admins boring.

And I really look at it as a job, rather than something someone should do voluntarily.

I'm skeptical also about the Pareto claim. I'll take the last found major content contributions while I'm writing this as a small sample size (not enough to draw conclusion but better than single assertion). I'll go to special:recentchanges and pick the four most recent major contributions to English Wikipedia, as a random sample.

Per "Origins of power-law degree distribution in the heterogeneity of human activity in social networks" (2013) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01783

Millions of people edit Wikipedia pages, however, in average we find that only 5% contribute to 80% of their content. Such heterogeneous level of activity is reminiscent of the well-known and widely applicable law postulated by Pareto, which states that 80% of the effects are induced by 20% of the causes.

So it's even more extreme than a Pareto distribution,

As to Adamovicm, as you run a website that is also crowdsourced, is there a power-law distribution among Numbeo contributors?

[wiki-reviewer]

The problem is that probably most new users are using it only for other purposes (i.e. promotion, spamming, making fun) rather than fixing mistakes in the content they encounter, which makes the job of admins boring.

And I really look at it as a job, rather than something someone should do voluntarily.

I'm skeptical also about the Pareto claim. I'll take the last found major content contributions while I'm writing this as a small sample size (not enough to draw conclusion but better than single assertion). I'll go to special:recentchanges and pick the four most recent major contributions to English Wikipedia, as a random sample.

Per "Origins of power-law degree distribution in the heterogeneity of human activity in social networks" (2013) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01783

Millions of people edit Wikipedia pages, however, in average we find that only 5% contribute to 80% of their content. Such heterogeneous level of activity is reminiscent of the well-known and widely applicable law postulated by Pareto, which states that 80% of the effects are induced by 20% of the causes.

So it's even more extreme than a Pareto distribution,

As to Adamovicm, as you run a website that is also crowdsourced, is there a power-law distribution among Numbeo contributors?

I didn't make myself clear enough. I was objecting more to your analysis of the composition of the skewed editing distribution, rather than the claim it is skewed. My short analysis wasn't looking at edit skew, but rather a brief attempt to look at composition of the top of the skew. Your claims were that it skewed by regular, accepted users.

In your own words, you claim the editing is skewed by "power-users" who "hit the ground running with few issues with their editing to begin with"

I was pointing out that, at least in that small timeframe, that only half of the accepted major contributions were from 'regular' users (all regulars also edited on obscure, non-controversial topics). And the other half were new or had administration be hostile in an overboard way.

As WIkipedia has millions of contributors, you can have a lot, even a majority of people at the top of the power law who aren't regular contributors.

[adamovicm]

As to Adamovicm, as you run a website that is also crowdsourced, is there a power-law distribution among Numbeo contributors?

Not at all, most contributors are one-time contributors. Most visitors are one-time visitors, who visit the website once in their lifetime when they are considering relocation and never come back.

There are literally only a few visitors, apart from insiders, who will enter prices during the span of multiple years. Maybe there are more, but they haven't get identified because of the web cookie expiration.

[adamovicm]

I was pointing out that, at least in that small timeframe, that only half of the accepted major contributions were from 'regular' users (all regulars also edited on obscure, non-controversial topics).

My point was that maybe those Wikipedians who contributed only a few changes (the majority of Users) are essential for the accuracy of the project. Many of them are people who spotted something invalid/obsolete and improved it.

Also, it takes much more time to edit a page that has been around for a while, with many contributors, rather than a blank page where you start from scratch.

Not all content is equal.

It's way way more difficult to improve an article about hash tables, for example, rather than to write a stub article about the company or individual, for example.

[LeonoraNight]

Wikipedia doesn't really have an avenue for people to address others being assholes to them. In the somewhat distant past, they had stuff like WP:PAIN and later Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance. For all their shortcomings, they did provide some kind of venue for those who felt they were being attacked or treated with unnecessary harshness. But for whatever reason, some did not like those boards and got them shut down. Now all that remains is AN/I, which usually just results in N00bs being victim blamed per this shitty essay that for some reason is frequently cited like a behavioral policy.

I realized how true this is this morning while I was pointlessly hyperfixating on this increasingly depressing AN/I report (hiding because it doesn't really matter and also the person being reported used to post here I think?):

Repeated policy violations/abuse, personal insults, and likely tag-teaming at Boulton and Park

There's arguably too many places to go for conduct disputes (RfC, DNR, whatever 3O is), but if you have any conduct issue you have nowhere to bring it but AN/I, which is supposed to be for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And of course, if your problem is with an editor who's reasonably well-connected behind the scenes, there's effectively nowhere to bring conduct disputes. If that happens, your best bet is to just hope someone brings an ARBCOM case you can add evidence to before your dispute goes "stale." I dunno, seems like a bad system to me.

[tinyboxs]

this increasingly depressing AN/I report

I'm trying to process this thing but it's a clear example of why saying more on Wikipedia makes you less heard. It's sad because personman is clearly trying to be meticulous rather than to bludgeon, but it has the same effect.

[redbaron]

this increasingly depressing AN/I report

I'm trying to process this thing but it's a clear example of why saying more on Wikipedia makes you less heard. It's sad because personman is clearly trying to be meticulous rather than to bludgeon, but it has the same effect.

It's tough bringing complex, non-straightforward issues to AN/I. Explain too little and have your complaint be dismissed as lacking evidence of disruption, explain too much and have your complaint be dismissed as tl;dr.

A belated to LeonoraNight, by the way

[The Garbage Scow]

I realized how true this is this morning while I was pointlessly hyperfixating on this increasingly depressing AN/I report (hiding because it doesn't really matter and also the person being reported used to post here I think?):

Repeated policy violations/abuse, personal insults, and likely tag-teaming at Boulton and Park

There's arguably too many places to go for conduct disputes (RfC, DNR, whatever 3O is), but if you have any conduct issue you have nowhere to bring it but AN/I, which is supposed to be for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And of course, if your problem is with an editor who's reasonably well-connected behind the scenes, there's effectively nowhere to bring conduct disputes. If that happens, your best bet is to just hope someone brings an ARBCOM case you can add evidence to before your dispute goes "stale." I dunno, seems like a bad system to me.

I haven't found the way back to see the edit war, but I'm assuming SchroCat was edit warring over infoboxes again?

[tinyboxs]

It's a bunch of nit-picky unconnected edits related to British grammar, undue weight given to a limerick, and the misreading of one source, which somehow triggered the article owner’s radar defence.
Here's the woeful limerick, btw:

There was an old person of Sark
Who buggered a pig in the dark;
The swine in surprise
Murmured: "God blast your eyes,
Do you take me for Boulton and Park?"

[orangepi]

A man once wrote a limerick about my good friend Enis ...

More seriously ... er, no. There is nothing serious to be said about this. Personman doesn't understand what [[WP;3O]] is, and both editors are to be condemned for worrying so much about such a silly topic.

[eppur si muove]

It's a bunch of nit-picky unconnected edits related to British grammar,

It also includes tendentious claims by SchroCat about British grammar. No way is the use of "what" in

"Many of the papers included leaders that were indignant that homosexuality—what was considered a foreign habit—was being practised in England."

standard British English. If I had used it an English essay at school it would have been circled in red ink and a mark would have been deducted.

[Bezdomni]

"What" was changed to "which", with the grammatical point being conceded most graciously...

Although both are acceptable, it's clear that someone isn't going to give up on a pointless minor crusade over this, so while both are acceptable, we'll go with the one for the hard of thinking.

If that isn't team-building wiki-love in action...

[eppur si muove]

"What" was changed to "which", with the grammatical point being conceded most graciously...

Although both are acceptable, it's clear that someone isn't going to give up on a pointless minor crusade over this, so while both are acceptable, we'll go with the one for the hard of thinking.

If that isn't team-building wiki-love in action...

Well of course the person who is "hard of thinking" in this case is the one who had been defending what was either a typo bad grammar or non-standard grammar. What is not a relative pronoun in standard English. See e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/gramma ... e-pronouns.

We don’t use what as a relative pronoun:

So, he can make himself easily understood in the two languages, which helps a lot.

Not: So, he can make himself easily understood in the two languages, what helps a lot.

I've also looked at other grammatical sources from the British Council and Edinburgh University and they don't even mention "what" as a potential relative pronoun.

Perhaps if the two people who were the subjects of the article were from a working class background from parts of the country where a dialect which used "what" as a relative pronoun, then the usage could be defended. But as the author of the article says that they are upper middle class, that excuse for non-standard grammar does not apply.

All we are left with is that SchroCat would rather resort to "Wikipedia Hostility" than admit that they made a mistake. As for "Suggestions to reduce it", doing something to make the mutual admiration society to which SchroCat belongs to be capable of criticising each other rather than rush in to stamp down on someone who isn't part of their mutual love fest.

[tinyboxs]

This is heading far off topic, but I do frequently notice it in the phrase "or, what is the same". Here's the first example I could find on wiki (Number theory (T-H-L)):

However, in the form that is often used in number theory (namely, as an algorithm for finding integer solutions to an equation ax+by=c, or, what is the same, for finding the quantities whose existence is assured by the Chinese remainder theorem) it first appears in the works of Āryabhaṭa (5th–6th century CE) as an algorithm called kuṭṭaka ("pulveriser"), without a proof of correctness.

[Konveyor Belt]

This is heading far off topic, but I do frequently notice it in the phrase "or, what is the same".

I googled the phrase and found it in Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, in the first ever definition of utility no less:

By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever. according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness.

I guess it really is a valid construction, if a bit old-fashioned and clunky.

[lonza leggiera]

This is heading far off topic, but I do frequently notice it in the phrase "or, what is the same".

I googled the phrase and found it in Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, in the first ever definition of utility no less:

By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever. according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness.

I guess it really is a valid construction, if a bit old-fashioned and clunky.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists this usage of "what" as 12th among those of its usages as a relative pronoun, without any indication that it's obsolete, obsolescent, or deprecated by any notable authority (relevant subentry given in the attachment below). While it's not a construction I can recall using much myself, I must have been exposed to it quite a bit, because it sounds perfectly natural to my ears. Bentham was writing in 1780, so it's not surprising that his prose would give the impression of being a bit clunky and old-fashioned to modern ears. However, it doesn't seem to me that this impression arises any more from his use of "what" as a relative pronoun, than it does from several other aspects of the quoted passage.

Note that the use of "what" in the sentence "So, he can make himself easily understood in the two languages, what helps a lot" deprecated by the online Cambridge dictionary cited by Eppur si muove isn't covered by the Oxford English Dictionary entry given below, since it doesn't satisfy the conditions stated at head of the entry, and it certainly does sound quite unnatural to me.

[Bezdomni]

The whole affair could have been avoided by dropping the "what was" entirely or better yet replacing it with "hitherto" or even "then". (hitherto / then considered foreign)

To avoid the strong feeling of redundancy still present in the sentence, the verb in the appositive should pro'lly a-been in the past perfect.

It's always dangerous typing "grammar" in an edit summary; "style" is always safer.

[AndyTheGrump]

It's always dangerous typing "grammar" in an edit summary...

Particularly if you misspell it as I did once. Fortunately not on Wikipedia...

[Catfish Jim & spd]

Removal of all user pages would be a nice touch or maybe the removal of service awards, edit counters, barnstars, user boxes, and customisation. An enormous amount of hostility could be avoided if people didn't make vast quantities of stupid edits to try to get meaningless shiny things for their user page.