Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer activity on Wikipedia • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by TRiG_Ireland » Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #309

david_allison wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

StackExchange has been going downhill since late 2019. A significant number of power users (moderators) have left and the writing has been on the wall for a number of years. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-... https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/394772/lets-talk-ab...

Most StackExchange sites are niche and just get fewer users naturally because topics are covered by other forums. I'm a power user on SO with some moderation capabilities. There's no mods per se I think just people who have different functions enabled to them (editing questions, closing, review etc). Admittedly I don't moderate it much (never did) I still use it daily as a lazy reference. Haven't noticed any decline…

There are definitely actual moderators on the Stack Exchange sites.

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

#362

Post by Jeff_Brown » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

rockskon wrote: post #255

harimau777 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give it time. As Wikipedia has become more and more obsessed with being "encyclopedic", I've noticed that they are increasingly ending up with articles that are stripped of any useful information.

Wikipedia is also very poor when it comes to contentious political topics that the bulk of contributors are extremely passionate about.

I once pointed out on a music theory page that a long name for a scale could be shortened to "Dorian b2". The edit was rejected because the chief whatever wanted a source. If you knew what Dorian means and what the second degree of a scale means you'd know immediately that what I was saying was true. I've hardly suggested an edit since.

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

#363

Post by ckoerner » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 3:33 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #293

mrguyorama wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They never did. You can't use YOUR OWN work as a source, but you can use primary sources.

> You can't use YOUR OWN work Bad rule, I'd just use an alt or not my own name.

Which is also against the rules and undermines the systems in place to make the encyclopedia more reliable.