Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#321

Post by rewmie »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #225
rewmie wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ouch, that sounds lousy. That's the whole concept of a wiki: you edit an article like everyone else, you change everyone else's changes as you please, and it converges to a stable point by a consensus-based process. If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute.

> If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute. That's supposed to the be process, yes, but the editors who've deemed themselves the chosen ones generally just skip right to the reverting.

Reverting is editing. Just because you wrote something in Wikipedia that does not mean it is expected to be set in stone.

If your expectation is to write stuff that only you can change, write a blog.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#322

Post by rewmie »

at_a_remove wrote: post #259
rewmie wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. I'm not sure you got the point. The whole point is that in Wikipedia everyone is an editor. Even unregistered users are editors, which mean those who didn't even bothered to login. In Wikipedia everyone is an editor. I mean, that's the whole concept, isn't it? That's what it was designed to do: allow everyone to edit a doc. Everyone is an editor. Do you see what I me…

I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Oh, well, we're trying to build some inter-related foundation of knowledge via categories and references, text and images. So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. It's a bit like…

> I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand.

I'm not sure you go the point. If someone's complain is that others can also edit wikipedia articles, they are complaining about the fundamental nature and purpose of a wiki. Don't you understand how fundamentally flawed is the concept of conplaining that others just like you can also edit wikipedia? Those damned editors.

> Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it?

Yes, others can edit it, including your own changes. That is the whole concept of a wiki. Whining that others also edited a wiki shows a fundamental failure to understand what a wiki is and how it's designed and expected to work.

> So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense.

No. Anyone can edit it as they see fit. The whole concept of a wiki is a consensus-based process that concurrent changes converge to a stable point accepted by the community. Expecting that your edit should be set in stone while you reserve your right to edit other people's work is simply absurd.

That's why it's important to clarify what an editor really is (not a figure of authority, but a guy just like you) and why it's absurd to be offended and feel entitled to edit over everyone's work but not have your own contributions edited. That's not what a wiki is, nor is it why the concept is a huge success.

> It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam (...)

That's an amusing remark, because to me you're actually arguing in favor and in defense of spammers, as they are the ones complaining that their abusive misuse of a system should not be prevented, criticised or fought by the community.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#323

Post by rewmie »

makeitdouble wrote: post #228
Gare wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Is there any way to "inoculate" organisation to prevent this failure mode?

Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organization. For companies this usually means pushing product cannibalisation and accepting to forgo additional profit in exchange for better long term viability. I think Apple was good at this during most of Steve Jobs's second term. Didn't last long though. Perhaps t…

> Giving the organization very clear rules and goals from the start and making wide range correcting changes towards them even when they hurt the whole organization.

I'm not sure you noticed it, but the people complaining about "editors" being toxic are actually those who are confronted with these "very clear rules and goals" already specified by the community , and they are calling foul once they see their edits being edited based on these established and time-tested processes.

And by the way, wikipedia supports conflict resolution processes which can culminate in articles being temporarily blocked to prevent endless revertions. You just need to flag the article and ask people their opinion.

It's strange how this whole debate centers around abuse, offers all kinds of solutions to perceived problems, but not only fails to acknowledge these processes are already in place in Wikipedia for over a decade but also they don't even wonder what content was added by the editors complaining their edits were reverted. I mean, think about it for a second. Do you think wikipedia achieved a notable level of quality because all edits, regardless of their content, remain untouched in place as-is?

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#324

Post by edanm »

tptacek wrote: post #134
alboaie wrote: post #93

After an editor, who has edited millions of pages and seems to be a jack-of-all-trades, unjustifiably rejects your contribution on a topic where you have dozens of scientific articles published, the only conclusion is that the system is flawed. There's a need for a fundamental change in approach, probably to a system where censorship exists only in cases of clearly illegal content, and various opinions are allowed to…

From bitter experience: if you have well established subject matter expertise on a topic, you should almost certainly not be writing Wikipedia articles about it. In Wikipedia's framing, you are a generator of primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: it is exclusively a roadmap to other, more authoritative sources. Instead of writing Wikipedia articles, write the articles Wikipedia will end up dr…

> It'd be easy to criticize Wikipedia for having that culture, except that the project is so spectacularly successful.

Much as I dislike some aspects of Wikipedia, I think this sentence should be printed in bold at the top of every discussion talking about how to change that culture.

Also true of a lot of other "why don't they just X" statements about other successful projects. Chesterton's fence in action.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#325

Post by gafage »

tptacek wrote: post #285
im3w1l wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying people aren't allowed to be upset with an action if you announce it beforehand?

Questions like these always make me think of Dwight Schrute speeding towards a sales call that Andy Bernard is closing out from under him, screaming into his phone "are you saying you INVENTED PAPER?". I'm not saying I invented paper. You can be upset with anything you like. I'm not the upset police. But if the thing you're upset about (20 years later!) is the premise of the what is probably the single most successfu…

No, that sales call is being made by Michael, not Andy.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#326

Post by fffs »

mikeyouse wrote: post #128
exo-pla-net wrote: post #124

[flagged]

What is it about this topic that drives people absolutely crazy? Far less than 1% of people ID as trans yet it's just the most important cultural shibboleth and just mentioned / argued about constantly... why do you care at all how Wikipedia phrases the opening paragraph on their page about Trans women?

It's because this is a fundamental redefinition of the difference between women and men, one which seriously disadvantages women. When this ideological stance of "trans women are women" is enacted into law and imposed as policy, it has the effect of eradicating female-only spaces, forcing women to accept any man who purports to be a woman in these spaces. This is good enough reason to oppose it.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#327

Post by prox »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #319
prox wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it’s basically an exponent of selfishness/greed. So for some it might be status or other incentives that make them favour a moat or developing an entrenched behavior. Countering it means to cultivate an open and egalitarian platform, where vulnerability is part of the equation as well as the associated trust that is needed. Good faith over bad faith. Selfless behavior vs “I am gonna get mine.” My sources are m…

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. "Good faith" is hard to put a finger on, but you know it when you see it! I will never forget reading a bug report in Python where a senior developer replied to a junior developer: (roughly) "That's a good point. I didn't think of that. Your idea is better." I had never seen that level of humbleness in other open source projects that I follow. I bet the top Wiki editors don't think t…

That is a good point you raise and there are no cookie cutter answers I think personally. Changing a culture is always far harder than to start. People’s behavior is already set (think of the backwards brain bicycle TED talk)

So you need a new synthesis in a dialectic system of two opposing wills. Like you say, how do you get people to accept less? Only if you can make them see what you are seeing, and if they can see different points of view. For some this is impossible I find, depending on character and circumstances. Also can you make them see that their behavior is detrimental in the long run? Or that they might have their heart in the right place (they care about the subject) but it is forced?

But yeah, the ability or willingness to see through other eyes is definitely “good faith” to me. You still don’t always have to agree, you don’t have to become a hivemind. But knowing that your ideas or critiques are heard, echoed makes you feel part of the whole, just being seen or heard makes a world of difference I think.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#328

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #317
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A culture develops to create a power structure that favors those who have devoted a large portion of their personal identity to the success of the organization. This culture serves as a moat against anyone who would integrate themselves within the organization and attempt drastic changes that would disrupt the existing power balance or pose an existential threat to the organization. That pretty much directly descri…

Real question: Where do you go instead? Or, do you use Google to find blog posts with the answers that you need? I agree that the formerly-great Q&A site (that shall remain unnamed) has fallen from grace with terrible new leadership. The drama seems never to end. I vote to fork the whole thing and bring back Monica. :) For my areas of interest (plain old Java, Python, C, C++, and JavaScript), the search results are s…

Oh, it's still fairly prominent, in searches, but I'm finding the answers to be less and less useful. It's become pretty much worthless, to ask questions, anymore. I end up answering my own questions. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, someone will throw in an insult. If I'm not lucky; without actually helping.

I got used to the insults, as they usually came with useful answers, but that hasn't been the case, in quite a while.

I tend to get most of my actual help from blog posts and Substack articles (even clickbaity ones can be helpful). I'm seldom presented with "the answer," but they usually help to figure out how to get a start.

Re: Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia

#329

Post by rewmie »

jandrese wrote: post #44
rewmie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, the only toxic comments I experienced on Wikipedia were from an editor. Isn't everyone an editor on Wikipedia? By definition, you need to be an editor in order to leave comments. Who other than editors would leave toxic comments?

This hasn’t really been true for years. Most new editors have experienced like this: They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. A few hours later the editor adds their work back, but under their own name.

> This hasn’t really been true for years.

No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor.

> Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work.

This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits.

Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars.

> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor.

In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety.

I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.

Post reply on HN