User talk:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior

Accuracy

It seems to me that you have things pretty much spot-on here. Jkelly 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Nice work. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!  :) Antandrus (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Mind if I convert these from *'s to #'s? It'd be nice to be able to point at a particular behaviour. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

26 made me feel better. 27 made me laugh out loud! Nice collection of observations. Thanks for posting it! Katalaveno 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally enjoyed reading your views, thank you. Dougmcdonell (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No angry mastodons

I just read your addition to Durova's essay, and was wondering if you have a link to some WP page that deals with the widespread phenomenon of editing WP while drunk. Something along the lines of Lamest edit wars. Cheers. Hic!--Shtove 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I thought this deserves some better visibility, so gave it a shortcut... wherein I maintain your right to keep it within user namespace, so it can't be edited unmercifully. Kudos! Also added the essay tag so will categorize an be seen. Best regards // FrankB 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

are you perhaps related to this guy and this guy? This essay is one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever read! It should be required reading for every Wikipedian! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smokizzy (talk • contribs).

Trim?

Any chance of reducing the 50 to a top 10 or something? 50 is a lot! Stevage 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you like, I could put ten on a different page, or pick a "most important" ten. Fifty is a coincidence: I hadn't intended it to be exactly fifty, but just keep adding as I think of new things, and as it stands there are 50. I'm using La Rochefoucauld's Maxims as my model, more or less, and he has more than 500. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, pick out some favourites and put them up the top or something. Interesting list anyway :) Stevage 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

This was the wisest and most thoughtful thing I've read in a long time. delldot on a public computer talk 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate that. Four years of writing for the project, mixed with an obsessive fascination with what makes people tick. :) Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Same. I'm going to show this page to the people who say "Wikipedia is unreliable," because I am a contributed, yet naïve and confused editor here on the wiki wide web (I.e. Wikipedia, Wikia, etc) Coolcam6578 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent

my hat goes off to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything said on this page, except that you should list only 10. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, both of you -- appreciate it. Ten?? LOL ... I'm way too prolix ... maybe ten groups, like "On Trolls", "On Vanity", "On Widgets" ... :) Antandrus (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. How about this for "on admins": "Admins whose usernames begin with the first letter of the alphabet are generally better contributors, more civil, and—in some cases—more vain." Just omit the final part. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the list!

I left the Swedish Wikipedia as bitter as any one could. Now I've read this list of observations for several months -- it is the soul of Wikipedia! I wish I was a fraction as wise as you are.

Thanks for producing it!
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Favorites

So added.  :) --Elonka 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I have put your #62 on my talk page, with accreditation, of course. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Number 74

A very important thing to remember indeed!81.172.7.7 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Wrote that as a reminder to myself. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree ...

... but I didn't like it. A lot of it sounds arrogant and prententious. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! I needed some responses like yours to know I'm doing a good job. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I happen to like it quite a bit, and don't find it prententious at all. :-) --CliffC (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

[1] dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial Hungarian translation

I really enjoyed your list. I began to translate them to Hungarian here, starting with my favorite entries. I plan to continue the translation as time permits. -- nyenyec ☎ 14:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's an honor.  :) Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff!

Thanks for writing this, nailed some of my observations spot-on as well. I'll watch to see if you add any more.... — Catherine\^talk 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete French translation

I have translated the entirety of the page at [2]. I hope that this is OK with you. Congratulations on interesting cultural references and brilliant writing style. Rama (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Impressive

Hi. I've read your essay, and I find it one of the most interesting analysis on wikipedian's behaviour. Great job! Meodudlye (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate that! La Rochefoucauld is actually better in the original French.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

Don't you think? --Stephanwehner (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a collection of observations, not an "essay" in the usual sense, so it is only limited by how many I will eventually have. Feel free to read, not read, jump around, ignore it entirely, or whatever you like. They're also in no order, except that I want the last one to be last. La Rochefoucauld, who gave me the idea, has somewhat over 500; I imagine some day I'll have around 100. Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Awestruck

Is provision made anywhere to nominate you for canonisation as a Wikipedia saint? Koro Neil (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There was. It seems like it got deleted. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a page!

I appreciate it muy bueno! Expect me to analyze all >9,000 of your theses on my bliggy bluggy blergy blog. MessedRocker (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Do link it afterwards. :) · AndonicO ^Engage. 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it! I see from your user page (old versions, forgive me for digging, but being interested in other people I'm annoying that way) that we are in agreement about many things, e.g. non-vengeance. Human behavior is among the most interesting of all topics: have fun writing! Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant and conformist ...

... is what this essay is. Basically, most of it says "our majority / our community / our top dogs are always right. If anyone disagrees, he's wrong and a bad guy, f**k him." The author's response to Gandalf61 above (who also finds it arrogant) is just as arrogant, basically saying "if you don't like my essay, you're wrong and a bad guy, f**k you." ("you're the fool whose reproach is kingly praise for me"). Frankly, I think open agression is morally better than this kind of attitude. The sad and sinister thing is that most Wikipedians seem to like it - people just like to associate themselves with "us", our majority, our community, and our "top dogs" (hence not only nationalism, but rightism in general).--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea how you read those things into the essay, but you have a right to your opinion. I read your comment, looked back at my essay, read your comment again -- I honestly have no idea where you are coming from. If most of the comments I'd received on the essay were as hostile as yours, I'd suspect the problem was indeed my "arrogance" and "conformity" -- but that hasn't been the case. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You expect to be condemned by the majority in a community for conformism? Well... --Anonymous44 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't see it either. I don't get where this is about majority, either. It's about being a good, clueful editor, not about following the whims of the majority. Heck, the whims of the majority are all-too-often contrary to the advice given here. Friday (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous44. The world certainly is a big place with all sorts of opinions. Forgive my meanderings, but I want to mention that last week I was arguing with some people (in a forum) about climate change. It got me wondering how it is that if you pick any topic these days, you can find really eloquent supporters and detractors. Who would have thought that a few network protocols would lead to this? Anyway, I think you're being a bit harsh. Suppose Antandrus was a little (or a lot) out of line in the reply to Gandalf61. That reply would still be a long way short of deserving your comment. You might suggest that Antandrus jumped to a conclusion – if that were true it would just prove that Antandrus is human. I share your concern about nationalism, but that's all, and I found the essay very worthwhile. It may be possible to find a point in the long article that can be questioned, but I don't think anyone has yet done that. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may contribute my reading of the thing:

• "arrogant" is so relative a criticism that it is difficult to acertain, and coming from someone who identifies nationalism with "rightism", and explain both by herd instinct, is my be a classical example of the selection bias and Luke 6:41-42.
• "conformism" is probably the most interesting criticism. Yes, we are conformists. Yes, we refer to mainstream scientific views first, we do not give undue weight to fringe extremists, we are not set to prove that the World Trade Center was brought down by missiles. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a pamphlet.

And to synthesise, it is pretty damn "arrogant" to infer from this that we are all "conformists". I am quite capable of holding unconventional opinions. But I am also capable of doing so in private, and, to some extend, to tell what are my opinions from what is a neutral observation of my environment. Rama (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I never referred to the inherent conformism of Wikipedia as a project in the sense of conformity to "mainstream" opinions (WP:NPOV etc), though I quite agree with you that it can be described so. I was very explicit about what I did refer to as "conformism". It's true that I didn't conceal the fact that I don't think highly of nationalism and rightism or their pyschological roots - I see no reason to be delicate in that respect. You can call that arrogance, if you want to.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism can be a progressive trend. For instance, today's European nationalism would be a progressive trend, embracing the entire Europe as an entity to which people would identify themselves rather than their present countries. US nationalism is in a large part not so much rejection of things non-US than a way to transcend the borders of the states. I see your contempt of nationalism in general as a display of poor historical education.

"Rightism" does not exist in itself. Any analysis of right-wing politics will identify trends with different tendencies, origins and often conflicting agendas. "Rightism", as you define it, is anything more "right-wing" than you, which, depending on how far-left you are, can be a great many people. Your argument comes down to being unwilling to discriminate among people who hold different opinions than you:

• this displays a lack of curiosity which I find disturbing in the context of an encyclopedia
• this will create enemies that you do not need
• if indeed you absolutely must have enemies, I cannot understand why you would be so unwilling to understand them to better fight them.

Rama (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we two obviously have very different perspectives on politics, but this is clearly not the place to discuss them. Thanks for sharing, though; very nicely written. --Anonymous44 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We might not, but you wouldn't know. And this is no service you are rendering to the promotion of your perspective on politics. Rama (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm making outrageously little effort to promote my perspective on politics on Wikipedia in general and on this specific talk page in particular. Blast me. --Anonymous44 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to make myself clear.

1. Number 1. I don't see how anyone can deny that there exist people and indeed groups of people on Wikipedia trying to censor viewpoints they don't like.
2. Number 31 essentially says that anyone who criticizes "the community" is either bad himself or wrong in his criticism, or both. No comment.
3. Number 18 and 48 develop this thought - anyone who criticizes "the community" or even part of it on his own user page is predicted to leave or be banned - and that's apparently judged to be a good thing.
4. Number 2 suggests that many/most/all (?) people are wrong to see a connection between their departure and perceived faults of the project or the people working on it. The implication is that the project or the people per se have no serious faults that could cause anyone to depart.
5. Number 32 says that all blocks are justified, i.e. that admins are never wrong (see below for the same thought recurring elsewhere). While I have never been blocked personally, I can't imagine how anyone who has been on Wikipedia for more than a year could have failed to witness at least one unjust block. So I don't believe anyone has.
6. Number 62 says that all bannings are justified, i.e. that the Arbcom and Jimbo are never wrong. While I have no specific example for a banning that I'm positive was wrong, I can't interpret anyone's venturing to state that such cases don't exist differently from the way I interpret number 32, i.e. as a eulogy of the Big Us.
7. Number 37 also implies that overall, admins are always right.
8. Number 38 says "established contributors" should be treated like princesses so as not to hurt their gentle psyche and make them nervous. Number 33 on the other hand stipulates that first-time editors who similarly get kinda nervous about not being treated like princesses have no place on Wikipedia.
9. Number 42: Alas, wikipedia is full of people who oppose our perfect (see above) admins. That's because these people have a psychological problem that causes them to hate admins.

Apart from various other small unrelated things (number 7 for instance), the overall selection of reflections conveys a message. Much of the essay is a list of cases in which, according to the author's analysis, people who have some problem with the community/the project/the admins are wrong, while the community/the project/the admins are not. A different possibility may exist, but it certainly isn't mentioned. While there are indeed many cases where the fault lies in the individual editor and not in "the community"/"the project", making a list of such and only such cases has an implicit message that is quite clear.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous, with all due respect, I don't think you get it at all. You are insisting on reading things into my list of observations that simply aren't there. But if you want to see them, that's fine with me: you're giving me interesting information about your own bias.

Nowhere did I say that administrators are always right. They're often the people railing against the community the loudest -- something you'd know if you have been observing noticeboards and userpages for a while.

One of the things I am trying to get across, and state again and again in different guises, is that gentleness and compassion are good things. Attempting to understand why someone is harassing you, and what motivates them, often leads to a more peaceful response. You seem to have entirely missed this, and instead are twisting my words to make them into a message about How Great Us Admins Are, with lots of hidden "fuck hims". It's not so, and I'm just shaking my head.

When people leave the community, it is commonplace to try to find fault with someone else; this is a very basic feature of human beings. Vindictive rage, to the point of destructive obsession, comes more from vanity than from any virtue. I refer you to the writings of any major religious tradition. And true self-knowledge is rare, and acquiring it is painful.

Arrogant and conformist? You can think so if you want. I don't mind. But rarely have I ever seen anyone so completely miss the point. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you say so. At this stage, it seems to me that the content of your essay is becoming a matter of belief and not of argument. BTW, I won't deny there are some reasonable observations in it as well. Greetings, --Anonymous44 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your list of specific issues. Let's look at what #1 says:

When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good.

Perhaps we could ask Antandrus if that statement is intended as 100% certain, true-in-all-cases. I wouldn't bother because I find it obvious that nearly all points in the essay are intended as a guide that experience shows are true in the vast majority of cases. If each observation were rewritten to remove ambiguities in interpretation, the whole essay would be four times longer and very hard to read.

Similarly for your other points, you may come to a different conclusion if you recognised the style used to compose the essay. --Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I tried to distill my experience on Wikipedia into general principles, as much as that was possible. To riddle it with "probablys" and "except in this cases" and "with the following exceptions" would be to weaken it. (Actually I went out of my way to say "many people" in No. 2, which Anon seems to have missed.) You can make the same criticism of any aphorist, and there are those who distrust aphorists (didn't Nietzsche himself say that, and then go on making his own anyway?) I'm pleased to see that a lot of people understand; that some won't comes with the territory. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO: 1. Far from all of your generalizations can be said to hold even for the majority of cases (e.g. 42, 32, 2); 2. There are generalizations whose unreserved statement is bad and unfair even if they do hold for the majority of cases (e.g. 37, 32, 1). 3. Your choice of what to select as a general principle and what to treat as exceptional happens to follow the same overall pattern/tendency (the system, the collective or the authorities being right vs the individual being wrong) that I stated above.

Now I'll beg to be excused, but I won't post here any more - disputes and conflicts on Wikipedia lasting more than three days tend to obsess me, even if they are of low intensity and relative civility such as this one. Have a nice day everybody,--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the commenters here have lost track of the meaning of the word "essay": the author's personal view. --CliffC (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with this viewpoint. Not too constructive imho. 85.76.32.14 (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. Antandrus (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow

The greatest and yet most underrated essay in Wikipedia. I'm surprised it isn't quoted like scripture nowadays. bibliomaniac15 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I would add something about people who constantly complain about how everything on Wikipedia is "broken", and how they're so much louder than everyone else but never get their wishes fulfilled. Grandmasterka 08:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity

I wonder if there could be a maxim like this:

"Anonymity breeds creativity and contempt."

Might there be relatively far less mention of the effects anonymity has on social interactions in classical literature such as that cited in your excellent essay, due to the advent of pervasive online anonymity? Might analogies be drawn between the pros and cons of society both in the "extended family" of medieval villages, and in largely anonymous contemporary cities? Have you seen any concise articles or dialog on the effects of anonymity (and pseudonymity used for similar purposes) in wiki behavior? Jw4nvc (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity on the contemporary scale has to be a new thing in human evolution, and I think its consequences are huge. We see it every day -- the online universe is one obvious place, but also observe how many people acquire a different (often more aggressive) personality when they drive a car, their frail flesh shielded by a massive Metal Ego. I'm also interested in the consequences for war: it's a very different thing fighting your enemy sword-to-sword, as in the Iliad, versus turning a key in a missile silo. "Anonymity is to cowardice what Viagra is to impotence." I am interested in the personality types that are just as polite in online discourse as real-life, and what, if anything, differentiates them from those that gratify their need to be nasty. Antandrus (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is low self-esteem related to shame and "internalized others" are key factors in negative social behavior. Many strategies outlined in your essay seem to me well-suited to defusing conflict by interrupting the "shame rage spiral," and in some cases bypassing it to establish positive rapport. Lately I seem most interested in rapport, and increasing the situations where I remember that and am able to accomplish it. Perhaps anonymity removes inhibitions for expressing repressed or suppressed feelings and desires, that as your essay suggests can be viewed as tragic attempts for esteem and healing. I appreciate your strategies for shifting from contempt to creativity, both in healing our inner demons and in collaborating on our contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw4nvc (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Logging in as an anonymous IP"

Hmm... Rocket000 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Antandrus (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"It does with all things that we once found exciting"

That include people? Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly can.

There's a lot of ways to answer that, depending on how serious you want me to be ... the way we are designed, our relationships with people have a lot more potential depth than our relationships with things, activities, hobbies, the passing fancies of a full life. But the fading of the initial enthusiasm is a phenomenon known all too well to anyone who has been in love. I think a lot of people fell in love with Wikipedia, and it was painful to have their illusions shattered. Others just approached it as a hobby, and there too, they gradually lost interest, finding something else more fun, until that too passed away. "Some people are like popular tunes that you only sing for a short while." (La Rochefoucauld) Antandrus (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the difference between love and infatuation. I wouldn't say that Romeo and Juliet were genuinely in love. Great article, btw, as you've probably heard time and time again. XP MichaelExe (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Industrious fools

Many of these points reminded me of this quote:

"I divide my officers into four classes as follows: the clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can, under certain circumstances, be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous." - General Freiherr Von Hammerstein-Equord, German Army

(We have a slightly different translation in our article on Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord)

You've written a great selection of insights. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ... and ... interesting! And a little disturbing, for with minimal revision Herr Von Hammerstein-Equord's dictum can be applied directly to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Yeeks. (Is Herr Godwin watching?) Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

well done.

Great essay. I really enjoyed reading it.

Some of its lessons, I think I can take to heart. Jdorney (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This made me smile. Can I put a link to this on my user page? --Guerillero (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks! -- feel free! Antandrus (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An incredibly insightful collection of wisdom. I refer to it constantly. :) -- œ^™ 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior

Me being the grammar nazi, I'd fix it myself but since it's your essay I'd rather tell you. On #9 it reads, Single-topic editors are rarely, if ever, either interested in or capable of NPOV. Additionally, if you look closely you will often find a conflict of interest. The "either" doesn't really need to be there. If you do feel that without it the wording isn't as clear, you could probably change the "or" to "and/or" and it'll get the job done and look nicer too. Just my nine cents. :) -WarthogDemon 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- I do believe you're right. Amazing I've let it sit there for three years; I'll fix it.  :) Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it

Reminds me some of WP:RAUL. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

item 2

Many people, leaving the project, blame either the project or the people working on it for their departure, rather than recognizing that it is normal in life for one's enthusiasm to wane. It does with all things that we once found exciting. This is neither pessimistic nor tragic: one needs always to find new exciting things to do. All things in life change and end, and this includes one's involvement with Wikipedia. "He who kisses the joy as it flies / lives in eternity's sunrise."[1] Enjoy it while you are here, and enjoy what you do after you are gone.

You know, there are many kinds of activities that the sorts of people who edit wikipedia also move in and out of. Literary circles, amateur astronomy, neighborhood improvement, free software development (this is probably closest to wikipedia in spirit), music performance, other community volunteer projects of various sorts, even things like grad school or the Army or the Peace Corps. Eventually interest flags or real life gets in the way, and the person de-intensifies their involvement or moves onto something else. But I don't see people starting out idealistic and turning disillusioned and quitting those other areas in disgust nearly as often as it happens in Wikipedia. They still think whatever they were involved in is still worthy of their good thoughts. That seems to indicate people's blame toward Wikipedia is not always an illusion: Wikipedia really does have an underlying brokenness that's far less common in other such activities. As you say there are a lot of userspace essays going into what the problem is for any given person, so analyzing it here isn't worthwhile. All I'm saying is that WP's problems are not normal across a wider class of experiences, and that IMO, item 2 doesn't hold up to inspection. 66.127.52.47 (talk) (many-time Wikipedia quitter) 02:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We may disagree about the level of "brokenness". It has some, certainly. Probably depends on the areas in which you work. In most of the areas I frequent, Wikipedia is by far the most accurate and complete compilation of information on the internet, and the community, though fractious, is no more dysfunctional than any other community of anonymous strangers (I'm not entirely certain that millions of years of evolution have provided us with the psychological tools to handle anonymous interaction on a large scale -- something I think is worth studying -- large-scale, real-time anonymous interaction is a feature of the modern age). Wikipedia is an experiment, and an idealistic one, with a dash of anarchy, and the disillusionment people feel with such projects, when they fail to be completely fulfilling, may be greater than the disillusionment felt with projects that are more ... how shall I say? scarred with the experience of hundreds of years of prior attempts. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Point 20

Le point 20 est surtout pertinent pour la version anglophone. Il ne faut pas oublier que de nombreuses versions linguistiques ne sont pas aussi développées. Elles sont encore à l'état d'ébauche. Si des anglophones sont blasés et ne trouvent plus rien d'important à faire, ils peuvent toujours contribuer, s'ils sont polyglottes, en traduisant un article anglais dans une autre langue. Croyez-moi, y'a du taf (work, job) ! 89.88.187.61 (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right -- I wrote that one specifically with the English version in mind, and if anyone has abilities in other languages there's plenty of work to be done in other language Wikipedias. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Stifling content

I stumbled upon this page and read with some enthusiasm. My only concern is that a new user, like myself, could misinterpret some of the content, and if such user was overly timid, unlike myself, constrain their own efforts. For example when you mention "wasting an experienced editors time", through introspect I wondered if maybe I use "helpme" on my talk page to excess. Having said these things, if your time permits, please review my talk page and advise me if I am perhaps considered more of a nuisance than a contributer. I am interestedMy76Strat (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! This is a page of simple observations, and as it implies, persistence in asking for help and improving is something to be lauded. That being said, I can't actually find the quote you are referring to. {{helpme}} is there to be used, so if you honestly need help use it! Besides, that's like all User:Chzz does, help out people. It's crazy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I hope I didn't say anything like that. Certainly that's the dead opposite of what I'm trying to get across. If anything, experienced editors are a resource for newbies. I know I enjoy playing that part. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Update -- I looked at your talk page as you requested -- no, absolutely not a nuisance! Carry on! It's great you are asking questions. This place can be confusing, byzantine, even incomprehensible now in 2010, especially for a newbie. It was much freer and more open in 2004 when I joined, or in 2006 when I wrote most of these. "All things change and end..." Antandrus (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. As I mentioned, I am new and my misuse of quotation marks above is a consequence of my inexperience. In effort to clarify it was number 3 and the actual quote is "Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals" A troublesome editor has far more implications than the ones you mention and could properly be attributed to good faith editors who just plain miss the mark of their intentions. And to be loathed more than a vandal implies that to "waste the community's time" must in fact be very precious. Therefor I wouldn't want to be associated with others said to waste another's time. Nor would I ever want to be a vandal! I hope that's a little more clear on how easily a thing can sometimes be misunderstood. I do believe my reaction was not your intended result, nevertheless I was effected enough by number three to react. By that measure it is an extremely strong writing. I am anxious to see where such strength in writing might appear in Wikipedia.Bravo!My76Strat (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The sense of the word "troublesome" that I mean, and in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic context, is that of the "drama monger" (I could have written it that way I suppose!). We've all seen them -- the people who can't just write and edit articles calmly, or interact with other editors normally, asking for help when they need, complaining reasonably about reasonable things; but the people who seem to need to pick fights, put others down, call attention to themselves inappropriately, hound and criticize and needle other editors out of some personal insecurity, or often enough out of a narcissistic personality disorder. I've vowed to name no one in this essay, and won't, but you can encounter these people on the noticeboards over and over, and they tend to be shown the door sooner or later. Usually when they go there is a cumulative gasp of relief. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, there is one important point here which is being missed yet I believe will comfort both parties here: it is the simple fact that the most problematic drama-mongers don't consider themselves problematic drama-mongers. They think their unreasonable behavior is entirely reasonable, & have no qualms over being problematic. Everyone else feels at least some discomfort about their own behavior, & so are always worried they might be drama-mongers; in other words, if you are worried about being a drama-monger, you probably are not one. There's a principle here which is similar to that famous study published a few years ago which showed that incompetent people are unable to recognize their own incompetence; they think their incompetent behavior is entirely reasonable, & attribute their failures to every other possible cause. (Many of the problems here in Wikipedia can be recognized quite easily beyond our corner of the Internet.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's very insightful and I think you're completely right. Maybe I need another item in the list ... Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome

Just noticed this and read the whole thing, and didn't disagree with a single point. Having been here since late 2007 I recognised a lot of truth in it, particularly among many regulars, including myself. I could probably ramble on for much longer on it's awesomeness, but #60 is the master. Bookmarked and well done. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mick -- I appreciate that. This place can be completely nuts and crazy-making, and sometimes the only way to remain sane is to stand way back and look at it as though you'd never seen it before; and often the best cure for wiki-stress is the simplest -- laughter. Antandrus (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like button

Is there any way to like this on facebook? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you could link to it if you wanted to. Otherwise I think someone else has to link to it in order to click "like". Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be able to share it as a link...you can always 'like' your own link. Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bravo!

Thank you, Antandrus. These are insightful observations, applicable far beyond the bounds of Wikipedia. I'll be quoting them for years to come. 76.8.67.132 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)TNH

Thank you: appreciate it. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Number 74

"Do not be wise in your own eyes" (Proverbs 3:7). ~AH1^(TCU) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wasn't aware that was in Proverbs, but I'm not surprised, because everything else is. In fact maybe I should cite it. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Speaking of folly, how about As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly? ~AH1^(TCU) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny, I'd just pulled down my King James after your first comment, and was reading through it, but hadn't gotten to chapter 26 yet. Inexhaustible riches in the wisdom books of the Old Testament. Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bother. I'd started trying to do something similar here, but forgot about it. Kind of a weird experiment, but it struck me how many of your points would likely have matching verses. sonia^♫♪ 04:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! You're sure right about No. 2, but anything Solomon writes is better than anything I scribble. What translation are you using for the New Testament? (e.g. 1 Peter 3.) I like it. I can't break away from the KJV for the Old just because I love the beauty of the language so much, but once I get to the epistles I find it irritating and want one of the newer ones. Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NIV for both; I do enjoy the KJV, but they don't make dual-language bibles with the TCV and KJV. I find that the NIV, besides being ubiquitous, is reasonably readable and formal. Those modern "translations" get on my nerves a little, because you lose so much of the subtext. sonia^♫♪ 05:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Look carefully... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• As you have readeth, so shall I sleepeth. *grin* (P.S.: I prefer the KJV too~!) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Overdue thanks

I first ran cross this list, quite by accident, as a wet-behind-the-ears newbie back in late 2006/early 2007 (I forget which). I thought at the time that it made a lot of sense, not just in reference to Wikipedia but to life in general. That impression has grown as I've returned many times over the years, looking for some particularly apposite nugget of wisdom to quote, and it struck me today—now a jaded, cynical, seen-it-all admin—that I'd never actually thanked you for sharing this wonderful resource. So, thank you Antandrus. I'm sure I'll be back :) EyeSerene^talk 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! Appreciate that! Yes somehow the critical point is this -- how to get to that point of having "seen it all" without losing one's enthusiasm to continue to work to improve this place. I'm not sure I know the answer ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish I did. Mind you, there was a touch of artistic licence in my "jaded, cynical" description - if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't still be here ;) I've found my enthusiasm has been maintained and constantly rekindled by having a range of interests, regular collaborative article work with quality editors, and not spending too much time at ANI! EyeSerene^talk 13:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A shocking insight

I've always kept that list of yours on a handy bookmark, given it contains many gems of great worth. Having just read it again top to bottom, however, I came to a rather dreadful realization: it's not very kind to arbs, is it.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Should it be? :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting -- certainly wasn't my intent! Was there a specific example? If anything I'd think the opposite -- for example No. 42, replace "administrator" with "arbitrator" and the meaning is identical. And you'd be part of no. 17, right?  :) Antandrus (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorta, I mean about the general tenor that involving oneself primarily on the meta side and disputes rather than contents is a Bad Sign— though I don't dispute the point in general. I'm not complaining, mind you: I'll be the first to admit that this is the seedy side of Wikipedia and bad for both perspective and sanity!  :-) I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're shoveling manure all day long, you'll end up smelling like shit. (And, by the way, you never did give me feedback of my arrangement for piano solo) — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Heavens, you're right. Sorry about that. Reinforce sforzandos with extra octaves now and then ... add dynamics and articulation markings ... :) (I need to compare it to the orchestral score to do more; don't have one at the moment ...) Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've probably overly self-limited octaves in sforzandos because of my own limited skill at the ivories biased my appreciation of "playable by a human being". :-) I'll just bother you with a revised score sometime later. — Coren ^(talk) 22:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Send it along whenever you like! I can probably find a public domain score, as mine has gone missing ... Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Antandrus

I just wanted to let you know that I found your essay to be accurate and perceptive. It has motivated me to work harder on creating and improving content and to spend less time involved in behind-the-scenes conflict. There is a lot of wisdom in what you wrote. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

fan mail from some flounder

Two things: One, this is one of the best pages on Wikipedia and you sir, have a keen insight into what makes people tick. When I am faced with a particularly problematic user I often come look here and I always find something relevant to the situation. Second: Have you ever noticed the tendency of some users to resort to accusations of racism when blocked, despite the fact that they have never made any edit that revealed their race? I've run across this a number of times, a user is blocked for vandalism or edit warring, and they instantly cry racism. It is almost always the case that such users are troll socks. I suppose this tells us something about the nature of trolling, but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe just that racism is a hot-button issue for so many people and trolls only enjoy themselves when they anger somebody else. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And oh yes. I have noticed the exact same thing. Why is it, I wonder? One thing I find is that when people lash out in a way to try to hurt someone else, they instinctively reach for what has hurt them. If they've been cut by a sword sometime in the past, they will swing a sword in the present. In such cases you probably are getting an insight into what has hurt them. Not always, mind you -- some of our routine trolls use "racism" insults because it gets them easy and extra attention. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya gotta love it! Some flounder_{(flounder talk)} 15:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha!! Antandrus (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(for the record) His 'wisdom' has been noted

Several of Antandrus' comments have been shamelessly included (and attributed to him) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . He also has his own "Top 10" section.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Yeah, just today I've seen that "you have no life" insult three separate times; it just makes me laugh ... (though I did "have a life" for a while this afternoon to watch a football game). Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I loved this essay, thanks.

I never realized what a roiling world Wikipedia is before I came on board. Your perspective is tremendously helpful. Jane Peppler (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic read, and all so much of it is "all too true". :) — Ched :  ?  20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And thank you too! Appreciate it ... didn't notice your comment until just now. It was fun to write... Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Is Bad?

Between ignorance and discouragement, upon which do you place more significance? My use of the word "ignorance" is not meant as a pejorative, but as an alternative for "turning the other cheek". As someone who values righteousness highly, seeing "While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity." disturbs me. I read a bit too much into it and imagined an implication that encouraging righteousness/discouraging wrongdoing is considered weak and immature. That is not what you mean to convey, is it? 76.106.245.213 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The part you are referring to is this: "Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity." I'm talking about non-retaliation. Sure, if someone calls you an "idiot" or "illiterate" in an edit summary, you may momentarily feel a rush of pleasure if you put them down similarly -- we're wired this way, and it may take a lifetime of spiritual journey to move beyond it -- an eye-for-an-eye is not how to accomplish peace, reconciliation, or even how to build a very good encyclopedia. Retaliation is for animals and children. Humans have nuclear weapons, and it's time to evolve beyond the point where it is necessary to hit back at anyone who insults you. I'm talking about something much bigger than this little "Wikipedia" thing here. By all means discourage wrongdoing: if someone insults you, tell them that they have done so, and that it was wrong of them, -- but do not insult them back -- that's what I'm saying. Antandrus (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If this could be simplified and reiterated to convey "two wrongs don't make a right" then I absolutely agree. It may be difficult, as feeling the desire to retaliate against wrongdoing is indeed an animalistic (and sometimes ethical) instinct, but it's something to be encouraged. Thank you for taking your time to assuage, if not dissolve, my concerns. I had not a single other concern about your article. I believe it to be very well written and good advice for at least the majority of circumstances. Also, if it bothers anyone, I apologize for remaining merely an anonymous IP throughout this brief discussion. 76.106.245.213 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Antandrus, for this wonderful essay! It was a great read and learning experience for me. Cheers! :-) Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome essay, Antadrus. I was really tempted to immediately share it with certain people, but realized that would be petty and probably only annoy them, so just continued reading, nodding sometimes and taking in the good advice. --Habap (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Very enlightening, thanks

I especially identified with #45 -"Envy is more implacable than hatred." How true! I hatehatehate that your start date is 04-04-04, and mine is not nearly so orderly. I was too distracted with other matters to register on 05-05-05, 06-06-06, and 07-07-07, and by the time I did get the itch to edit logged-in-wise, I didn't want to wait till August to get the highly prized 08-08-08 reg date, so I settled for a pitiful mockery of an unorganized start date. DAMN my impetuous lack of self-discipline anyhow. At least I've supplied you with a possible #75...so...'sall good! Shirtwaist ^chat 12:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Secret

• Per User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#26
• Hello again, Antandrus. In the past one week or so, I've got two Admins (1 & 2) telling me that when someone impersonate/harrass me and/or vandalises on my page(s) is a sure sign that I'm doing something right. Friends of yours? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dave -- I say while laughing -- quite impossible, as I have no friends (if you listen to what the trolls have said about me, anyway). Regarding impersonating, I do remember a troll a couple years back who specialized in impersonating other banned users. Unfortunately for him neither spelling nor grammar were his strong suits, and some of our banned users are fairly literate. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase that... "Fans of yours?" (PS:I got an email from someone who wants to know my secret and I responded him on my talk page! See → User talk:Dave1185#What is the Secret?) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

#2

Every time I'm frustrated with WP I remember #2 on the list. It helps me realize that the problem lies within. I give it a rest for a few weeks and then return happily to a project I love. Thanks Antandrus! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Inexperienced Admins

• Since 10.28.2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• When I look at this guy (see his talk page!) and I check back on OWB, I shake my head in disbelief. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Giant time-waste. Many people sucked in. Familiar tune, by the way, but I can't quite place the singer. WP:COMPETENCE is a good essay, by the way. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Its funny that you mentioned this because there's this little gremlin making a hell of a racket on WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185, but the table has turned on him since. IF that isn't overwhelming proof that these con-artist are at work here on WP, I don't know what is. Note that I've always been a supporter of WP:RBI but these cautious Admins are what the troops coined in Iraq: "calling it in, just in case." In the Midway movie, Admiral Nagumo was heard famously uttering: "More wasted time?!?" You get the picture, right? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Zee French konnektion!

• Sacrebleu~! Bonjour Antandrus, someone just added a French Wikipedia translation of your observations (see → FR:Utilisateur:RamaR/Observations d'Antandrus sur la conduite wikipédienne) and to think that it already existed since 2008! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work

Nice! I enjoyed the 36, 42 and 60 the most ;). It is quite a quatable :-D (I will link to them from Czech Wikipedia). Have a nice time ! Reo ⁺ 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Observation on the observations

This is truly an impressive essay. I just have one question: In #43 you note that it's only natural for Wikipedia to have a "liberal bias" due to the nature of the project and the types of editors it is therefore most likely to attract. While this may be very true, wouldn't you agree that, per #11, it should be impossible to tell from someone's editing that he or she is a "libertarian leftist"? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! To respond to your question -- yes, it should be impossible to tell for those who truly adhere to NPOV -- if they do. (I think most long-term Wikipedians do, or at least sincerely try.) I don't have any empirical data to back up #11; it's just a suggestion. (I'm using the very interesting political compass website and test to define "libertarian left", and a huge majority of Wikipedians that I have known, who have taken the test, have scored in the LL quadrant -- but there may be self-selection there as well!) Another thing I haven't attempted to correct for is the project's age. When I wrote most of these in 2006 there was still a lot to write on Wikipedia, and we were (in my opinion) more anarchic and welcoming and open. Now it's quite a bit more bureaucratic, and it's harder to find something to write from scratch; it's entirely possible that we attract a different personality profile than we did five years ago. Antandrus (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Permanent Blocks

I disagree with the points you make that result in "immediate and indefinite expulsions" of editors. Aside from being contradictory to the no-retaliation stance you try to take throughout, permanent blocks are unreasonable at any measure and illogical. You don't need to remove someone from something for the rest of their lives to stop a destructive behavior. A half-year block stops it just as well and after six months, they will likely have stopped caring. If they haven't stopped caring, they will have likely adjusted themselves and now will be able to contribute with the guidance of their past mistakes. If not, it will only "waste" another ten seconds of someone's time to look at their previous record and ban them again. People aren't static, unchanging things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.24.18 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment (probably because the -bot edit hid it from my watchlist). I only advocate "immediate and indefinite" expulsion for people who make an account for the sole purpose of harassment. Most of the time -- and this is not backed by data, just by my experience -- they have already made a number of other accounts, and that's my point. If one of those people decides they want to contribute positively there's nothing stopping them from making another account. I don't understand how you can consider such blocks to be "retaliatory" -- in what way? The purpose of such a block is to shut down, as quietly and painlessly as possible, someone who is trying to harm other people. Blocking a harassment account harms no one; harassment does. Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow!

You did good :o) What fantastic stuff - I've just managed to finish reading it, having been heavily distracted by Real Life Stuff since I opened the tab yesterday. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Accurate

I have observed one thing , it is very very hard to edit wikipedia. I decided to try my hand article creation and not be a vandal so I went to the requested articles page and picked on requesting an article about a song to work on and researched as much info as I could about it, I spent several hours scouring the web for accurate information about that song, where it was published, who sang it and what albums it was on. And the grand payoff was that it got deleted and a terse reply from an editor with a borderline accusation of vandalism towards me. I learned my lesson and I will not contribute... Washuchan (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Great

That was fantastic. extra999 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Another one for the list?

Hello Antradus. When I saw the last part of BMKs post here [3] about "editor retention" I immediately thought of your observations here. Its getting late where I am so I haven't looked to see if a variation is already on the list and you might not think it appropriate so I will let you decide whether you want to add it in some form or not. Cheers and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 06:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed -- enabling that sort of behavior, if anything, harms editor retention (that is, retention of the kind of editors we actually need most). Thank you for your comment! Antandrus (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for the reply. I woke up this morning thinking of good and decent editors like User:PMDrive1061 who were driven away from Wikipedia by long term and prolific sock puppets and I wondered where the voices were to defend them when they needed it. Coincidentally Wee Curry Monster posted virtually the same sentiments just before I saw your note here. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

just another comment

I came across this some months ago and meant to leave a note on how awesome it is… but never got round to it :P

What finally got me to hit the "edit" tab is that a detailed analysis of behavior 27 can be found at meta:gay. benzband (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, that "friends of gays" essay on Meta is pretty funny. It's been in almost its current form for more than eight years. Things haven't changed much. Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Point 25

They just might be entering their vandalism over their smart phones while driving drunk. If the edit looks like it stopped abruptly, they probably just hit a tree or a truck. Hitting something like a pedestrian or a cyclist wouldn't stop them. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible. I wrote that one in 2006, before it was easy or common to edit Wikipedia from a phone. I'd be curious to know what percentage of all Wikipedia edits are now done from mobile devices. Antandrus (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Outside of "The West", I can tell you as a checkuser that it is surprisingly common. I would guess than no less of a third of edits in India and south-east Asia comes from smartphones and other mobile devices. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! That certainly correlates with what I understand about internet access outside of the "developed" world. I've tried editing from my iPhone but it was *wayyy* too much trouble. Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just developing countries, mind you. South Korea also has the same editing pattern; I think it's a much wider adoption of mobile-device-as-internet-platform in general. That said, I can't stand my iPhone for editing, but my iPad is decent enough for the occasional edit and I expect that with some practice I could get proficient with both. — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen people attach special keyboards and mouses to their mobiles for editing purposes (there's a video around somewhere showing this), and a lot of people are using tablets which can often give very similar UAs as mobiles. Me, I have a hard enough time editing on a laptop... Risker (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're probably not referring to this or this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I want that iPad keyboard for my desk at work!! Ah very fine. Thank you for that. Antandrus (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For this insightful piece of writing. It's the single thing that is most likely to make me carry on with my meagre contributions, and help me not veer out of content-creation into meta-space. This should be automatically delivered to the talk page of every editor after, not sure, a certain number of edits, or time, or the Other Edits/(Article) Edits ratio getting above a certain threshold Mcewan (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another possible addition

Something along the lines of

When frustrations build
clicking on the star
Brings one closer to WikiNirvana

Referring of course to the little star that removes a page from our watchlist that is causing ulcers. Wait do I need another syllable or two to get a Haiku?

Cheers as ever Antandrus for creating this and to all the editors who have found it truthful and/or enjoyable. MarnetteD | Talk 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you Marnette.

On your comment -- excellent! I haven't said anything about this yet, have I? Indeed -- I do it all the time -- stress gets too high, single click, gone. There are numerous articles I wrote from scratch which are no longer on my watchlist. Perhaps they're better now; it is certainly possible some other editor has taken them forward and done a better job than I could have. Sometimes you very consciously have to fight back against the natural impulse to "OWN". It's an exercise in humility, perhaps. Raise a child, do your best, let him go. Write an article, do your best, send it on its way. Some other editor will carry on.

Theoretically it should be even easier when you get involved on a contentious article you did not write, and after a period of trying to make it better, you encounter stress out of proportion to its actual significance in the better scheme of things, i.e. your life, and -- click the star. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I concur, that is such a great idea~! Kudos to Marnette for coming up with this enlightening thought. Best and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• That's a brilliant addition. When I'm feeling stressed at WP, I edit out anything from my watchlist that has given stress or I can't remember why I watch it. Suddenly all is better. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool essay

Wise. Insightful. I'm impressed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Excellent. The writing, the ideas, the emphases — all of it. I mainly edit at en.wiktionary, where we avoid some of these problems by dint of being a much smaller community, but I have already taken to quoting you on how to treat newbies, how to fight vandalism, and how to retain editors. The greatest wish I can give for you is that you follow these precepts as well as I want to. (And if you ever feel like starting a cult — notify me. I'll join :) Or at least I'll help design the mythology.) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent essay

I only discovered this essay yesterday, but it has a zen-like brilliance about it. I particularly like numbers 2 (burnout is natural) and 54 (apologise for your mistakes), which I've found don't just apply to Wikipedia, but to many other things in the world. From my experience, knowledge of 54 is a powerful tool for customer service and retail as it's so rare - it seems to be against human nature to admit you screwed up. But if I say I'm in the wrong, nobody else can accuse of me of being so. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"... it seems to be against human nature to admit you screwed up ..." Well, here is a scientific book on the topic. Try it Ritchie, great reading :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

essay and responses to criticism show a lack of empathy and self-reflection

Even if you think you are right...to not understand how someone COULD assess the essay as conformist or authoritarian...shows a lack of thoughtfulness (TM Jimbo). That actually bugs me a lot more than just BEING authoritarian and conformist. TCO (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lack of empathy and self-reflection. Thanks! Needed a good start to the day. Antandrus (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think someone have used those very words to describe TCO's own behavior when he published an essay a couple of years back in which he classified and ridiculed the behavior of named editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

45? — Coren ^(talk) 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Coren: I actually noticed you in the comments before (no kidding) and thought that the people with the admiring comments were some of the more odious patroller banhammer types. Just didn't bother saying it (not scared...just don't think you're worth the time). Except Guerillo. I like that guy. But in general...there was a trend of who was endorsing this thing. And a trend of people looking at it and noticing the theme of in group arrogance.

Maunus: You're OK man. I like you even if it is not mutual. Yeah...I smacked on the nose. But I totally KNEW I was doing it. (and it was not my main point, I just like mixing some 10% spice in with the real 90% content). I.e. I'm a thug...but I know I'm one. (See point above.)  ;-) (And it's some sort of logical fallacy (don't know all that Latin and shit) to point out that a person critqueing a behavior does it too. In other words...the statement by B about A is true/false regardless of if "B does it too"

Anta: A lot of people have said the same thing. There's at least a trend of some reasonable fraction picking up on something, the appearance of something. And a "quick come back" is actually kind of more the brittle behavior that you argue against. Just think about it.

C ya. TCO (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't dislike you TCO, I think you're OK, but I do dislike hypocrisy. And pointing out hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. here it puts your own harsh critique of Antandrus into perspective - hopefully taking the sting out if it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

TCO has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

"Just think about it". Yes I did that. It's something I do. Seven years of it, in the essay, actually. I think you may have missed where I am coming from -- which is this: have as big a perspective as possible. This is just a website. People do the same silly things here they do everywhere else. As of "group arrogance", or whatever -- I just don't get your point. I emphasize having compassion, and say as much. Now I may not have much sympathy for people who need to be casually abusive, or who get blocked or banned over and over, but that's a different thing. Empathy I have. Anyway I've said enough. Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

#60

"[Y]ou are allowed to take your work seriously here, and think highly of your own efforts; but be advised, don't talk about it." Why not? Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It makes it easy to get into that WP:OWN mentality. bibliomaniac15 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Great essay

While all lists like this contain generalizations, I see a lot of truth in this list. I know lately I've been drawn to conflict situations. Since I don't have a side in most content dispute, I've been look editor behavior and I guess I'm fascinated at the turn, when some productive, long-time editors become oversensitive control freaks. As far as I can see:

• Wikipedia has evolved and some behaviors that were once tolerated aren't any long
• More users might be taking advantage of dispute forums to address abuses
• Editors who demonize their opponents continually fail to see their own misconduct, even after it is repeatedly pointed out to them by editors uninvolved in the dispute
• Editors who take every disagreement as a personal attack won't last long on Wikipedia and are likely to incur a block if they pursue their grievances
• The most minor of details (whether an actor was born in 1969 or 1970) can unexpectedly turn into the most persistent and vicious battles...never underestimate the willingness of some editors to go down with the ship rather than change their minds

I don't mean to add to your list, just sharing a few observations (some of which overlap with your points). It's tragic when otherwise productive editors become vindictive but their obstructionism can cause more damage and editor attrition than the most pernicious vandal.

Kudos on the great essay! 14:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh

I see a lot of truth in these statements but reading the whole list, in one sitting, is quite depressing. I imagine since Admins clean-up after a lot of messes, they are more likely to see the destructive side of users and have to deal with its consequences.

One element I keep wondering about is certain Editors who seem to live to revert and delete. There are some users whose contributions I look at and almost all of their edits are reverting other people's work. I'm not arguing that all of these reverts are unnecessary but am curious, with all of the different types of work one could do at Wikipedia, what's the motivation for undoing other peoples' edits, nonstop. It can't all be vandalism.

It's less pronounced in deletion areas but it still seems like some Editors don't focus on constructing new, valuable content but pruning, pruning, pruning away anything they deem unworthy. I wonder if some of these folk are in law enforcement or something, getting the riff-raff off the street. What's the mindset for people seeking out content to delete? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Antandrus covered this in another essay, but if you've got a few articles up to good or featured status, that's only half the battle, particularly if they're read by a million or more readers. Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and "perfection is not required", the higher the quality of articles become, the harder it is to make an edit that actually improves them. The result is that more and more edits are all in good faith, but actually make the article worse, which means if you happen to keep an eye on a popular good quality article, you'll spend time reverting editors. Most will slink off, but a couple will challenge you and complaining that reverting their unsourced POV edit was just wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious and true

Mostly, I just make spelling and grammar corrections in articles I'm reading, but at least I'm not one of the trolls. I can't imagine being an admin. It must take a hell of a sense of humor to be a good one. Anlala (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proper names for each section

Pacerier (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC): ❝

Can we have a proper textual title for each section instead of relying on positional links like "#alist-7"?

Linking to a positional number (e.g. "#alist-7") is not future proof as its number could be changed when items are added, subtracted, or re-arranged.

I never change the numbering because too many people have referred to them by number. (See the inline caution before the very last one.) That horse has long left the barn, there currently being over 500 incoming links. Textual titles -- interesting idea -- there would be a lot. I guess I prefer the numbers. My original intent, back in the Jurassic when I started this list, was to allude to La Rochefoucauld, who numbered his maxims. Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

New users immediately creating blank user / talk pages

No. 7 : "If a user's first and second edits are creations of their user and talk pages, devoid of content, their third edit will be vandalism, a personal attack, or another form of trolling."

I remember reading this years ago, and questioning it. Since then, I've become an admin, and I've discovered this observation is spot-on and completely accurate. The only slight disagreement I have is that such accounts are often paid editing or spammers, rather than "another form of trolling" (unless blatant advertising on Wikipedia counts as that). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I don't think that was as much of a problem ten years ago (is this thing really that old?? oh well.) I think you're right. That's how you make an account look "legitimate" to someone quickly checking a watchlist or recent changes. Antandrus (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You would have thought word would have got around by now that it's a bad idea to do that as it's so cliched to be immediately obvious, but seemingly not. I'm not sure how much of an issue it is, but it must be enough for me to have picked up on it - and I don't generally have anything to do with the sockpuppetry areas of WP. I've never seen an account that started off creating their user and talk pages that hasn't turned out to be a sock (recent random example), and I've started double checking accounts just to see if I can prove myself wrong! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, yes, that's a COI account, definitely. This is kind of the classic example I used to see all the time (there are hundreds of these, created by different sockmasters). Another thing that could be its own observation is that a user page that contains nothing but an image has a high probability of being a sock account. Not sure why, but I've noticed it over the years.

By the way, enjoyed your "Zen of" list on your user page. Very precise. Antandrus (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The other telltale sign of a sock in your example is the rapid-fire edits to the sandbox in order to become autoconfirmed so they can edit semi-protected articles. I've now seen socks do shotgun editing with Twinkle all over the place to get extended confirmed too, which is more problematic as good-faith editors are more likely to get caught in the crossfire. In that example, I found this message sent to the sock, believing (perfectly understandingly) they were dealing with an experienced editor who was going to help them. That sort of thing annoys me.

Thanks for enjoying the "Zen" list, it was inspired by this page and is just a random collection of things I happen to notice as I go about editing. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 seem to be popular too (probably because I drop them into discussions to avoid writing the same thing again and again). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Praise!

I've read many policy docs & essays in the last month or so (finding myself entertained and/or fascinated by the extent of detail of operational procedure and guidance), but I love this one in particular for its rad quotes and insight into human nature – most of it just as applicable to the people-problems we encounter as humans in our lives. A+! · · · TARDIS builder ^💬 · · · 07:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Point 40 is a false dichotomy, needs revision

In actuality, the majority of editors who retire in anger or dispiritedness and who later return do so productively, after whatever was chapping their hide has stopped stinging. It's inaccurate and uncharitable to suggest that either editors retire from losing interest and stay that way, or retire in anger only to return as troublemakers. While the latter problem is vexing, it's actually uncommon, and not really much of a problem, because this behavior (including at RfA, etc.) is immediately detected and called out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Please don't take this as generalized criticism; I have this page listed at User:SMcCandlish#Smartest things I've seen on Wikipedia, and have for a long time. I agree with about 95% of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of:

"Retired" editors sometimes leave the project forever, especially if they have left out of weariness, or because it is no longer new, fun, and rewarding for them. Those who left in anger may stay away, or return productively after recovering from a sting. Some bravely, openly return, their anger renewed, for "revenge" against those they perceive to have done them wrong, or covertly, cowardly as sockpuppets. They return to perform some of the vilest actions in the project, and least productive towards its ends. You can find this kind of behavior in greatest abundance at RFA, RFB, RFC, RFArb, and the noticeboards. As in all vendettas, they do more harm to themselves than their victims, for they only cover themselves in debasement and slime. No human behavior is more despicable than inflicting suffering just to feel good about it, but unfortunately this is a common motivation indeed.

The last sentence or two might also be improved by trimming. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I made a minor modification. When I wrote that in 2006, "retirement" was less of a thing. The project was only 5 years old; now it's old enough to get a driver's license and get in trouble with the law. And retirements are often literal. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi from HouseOfChange

I am now glad you reverted some of my edits, because it brought me to see your userpage and essays, which I greatly enjoyed. I am not yet old and wise enough to have my own list of observations.

If you like music, surely you know the wonderful Gerda Arendt? But if not, introducing you.

I want to add information to an article tagged for deletion, Belinda Ferrari, so that it will be kept. You reverted some of my edits, so please give me more guidance than was in your edit summaries. I like to add quotes from RS because I think it helps readers get more information without clicking through to the article cited. I watchlist AfDs of articles about women, even though I am of the male persuasion myself, because many AfDs are filed, in my opinion, for women who are in fact notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfChange -- it's best if you comment directly on the talk page of the article in question.

I don't see any edits of yours that I reverted on Belinda Ferrari, nor is it immediately obvious to me where I have reverted your edits elsewhere, so I'm not sure what you want. If you provide a specific link I can probably give you a reason why I did what I did. Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For some reason, I was confusing you with a different editor, Anastrophe (and I am discussing it on the talk page with him.) Looking at your past contributions, I have zero idea why I ended up on your talk page. Thanks for your nice reply and the wiki wisdom. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised/updated version?

I wonder if, after almost 12 years, things have changed? Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at this list and add/edit/remove some pointers here and there. I still love it though. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 05:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The best editors

I wonder if you would consider a slight change to the wording of #42. I don't believe that it's actually possible for destructive people to be "the best editors". I could perhaps agree that some of them are among "the best writers" or "the best copyeditors" (although most of our best writers are not toxic), but in a Wikipedia-centric context, "the best editor" can't be someone who makes a habit of beating up other editors over isolated mistakes. That sounds more like "someone who is fundamentally unsuited for a collaborative project" rather than "the best editor". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, yes. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have specific examples in mind, of course, but would never name them -- brilliant writers, content contributors, editors, -- but if you have administrative tools and have ever made a mistake, you may have uncorked a volcano of hate and resentment. Antandrus (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page full of wisdom

I got here because you used the 'thank' feature for one of my edits. This is a great page of wisdom. Many of the points can be rewritten and applied to other areas of life. Wikipedia should have a 'thank' or 'like' button to show appreciation for certain pages. Thank you.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ira; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal essay

@BilCat: I understand that it's a personal essay but I think the spirit, considering the other talk page comments and the fact it has about 75 observations, shows the original author would welcome some edits from others. I don't think my contribution in particular changes the intended tone or meaning of the page, being a personal essay where the original author's intent is paramount. Doesn't my edit seem reasonable in light of the other contributors and page history? PrussianOwl (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@PrussianOwl: User:Antandrus initially reverted your change here with the summary "personal essay". I took that to mean he didn't want it changed, and that was why I reverted you. I was simply helping out as an interested observer. If I over stepped my bounds, I am sure that Antandrus will let me know, and I won't do so again. I apologize to you if my revert seems improper, but I would not have reverted your additions had Antandrus not reverted it first. It is his essay page, and I was merely trying to keep the status quo.

That said, Antandrus is generally open to all comments here on the talk page, as seen in the other discussions. If you explain why you believe your addition is helpful, he will give you a fair hearing. He still might not accept the changes, but he has always explained his reasons well before, and I'm sure he will this time also. I hope that helps. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, I wasn't paying close attention, and thought that was you, and the author wasn't involved. Sorry - PrussianOwl (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries. But again, feel free to discuss it with him here. He will probably reply when he has time anyway. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sure, no problem - PrussianOwl (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

La Rochefoucauld

You admirably quote It is impossible to enumerate all the kinds of vanity. (La Rochefoucauld, No. 506) I tried to track the source, and for what it is worth this is not maxim 506 in the single, English-language source I tried (which gives Vanity slanders more than malice). I think this is most likely a source/translation issue, but for me this English phrase has no other Google hits at all.Js229 (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings -- yes, I was usually using the Leonard Tancock translation (Penguin Classics). Looks like I slightly misquoted him ("It is not possible to enumerate all the kinds of vanity"). In that edition, it's the second on the list of "posthumous" maxims, i.e. the ones La Rochofoucauld did not publish, but were found in his notes after his death -- so the numbering might be arbitrary on those). For what it's worth, Tancock is sometimes rather free in his translation -- choosing a pithy English phrase over the literal, and sometimes changing the meaning a shade or two. Antandrus (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

youtube comment, rocky and bullwinkle

hi, do you have more of those?190.30.121.55 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cabal?

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia cabal is one of the Lamed Wufniks of the human race. Not only is there no cabal, as anyone can see, but should anyone become aware of the existence of one, that person will instantly disapp Antandrus (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"It does no harm"

@Antandrus: I'm perplexed by the last sentence of #44. Saying something hurts sure does sound like saying it does harm. Could you enlighten me? Nardog (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Pain vs damage. Something can hurt but not harm you; if you look into it, you understand why the person said the hurtful thing, and come away perhaps stronger or more wise. Harm is when someone stabs you, or burns down your house. "Take away your opinion, and there is taken away the complaint, [...] Take away the complaint, [...] and the hurt is gone." (Marcus Aurelius) Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the explanation. Nardog (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

entry 74

very interesting page : )

one could comment on nearly any entry. lol

on entry 74, though, I was thinking that "hate" probably isn't the bottom of it, it's all too often "fear", which, of course, ala Yoda leads to...

Anyway, thank you for an interesting read : ) - jc37 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You are correct - look underneath the hate, and you find fear. I've had that thought myself but left it stand... for now :) Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

All the exciting stuff...

I used to think #20 was true, and then I released Liberation of France, and War guilt question, both this year; now I don't think that anymore. Okay, maybe the *really* important stuff, but let me tell you, writing those two was really exciting! (And I just released Antisemitism in France.)

Tip: if you want more exciting stuff to do, be sure to check out toolforge's Not-in-the-other-language tool. That has yielded most of the red links on my Translations needed page, which could end up being translations, or could be researched from scratch, depending on the quality of the original. Feel free to steal any topics that interest you. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Reflections

Since I discovered this essay 6 months ago, I've thought about it deeply and often. One observation I thought I'd add is that Wikipedians too often forgive discourtesy and invective from competent editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project: competence cannot excuse abrasiveness towards other editors. Neither can niceness excuse incompetence, but that's less of a problem. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I think some of the competent but abusive people drive off other competent editors who aren't thick-skinned. While I don't want to name any individuals, I've seen it happen many times. They often attract enablers, and even a cheering section. Not sure what to do about it; it's hard to measure what we gain versus what we lose. Antandrus (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

100%, and it's especially difficult because Wikipedians are (largely) volunteers, who spend their time here because of the joy it brings them. I think there should be a more far-reaching expectation on Wikipedians to be pleasant and courteous. The alternative is expecting others to be thick-skinned and battle-ready, which is a bit much while writing an encyclopedia... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for new observation

• An editor who drops Larry Sanger's name is unlikely to be willing to contribute in a fashion consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or WP:V. WaltCip-(talk) 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent! That does seem to be the case. And if you question them, they'll come at you with insults and rage, and accuse you of being a sycophant of Jimbo or something. Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• If there is an edit summary like "the truth", revision(s) should be reverted immediately due to vandalism or not providing sources. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Victor Trevor: I'm over a month late, but doesn't that kind of fall under Observation #72?

" "Truth" is a big word. Editors who make abrupt claims about either having, knowing, or insisting on "truth", and editors who include the word in their usernames, are probably doing something that does not belong in an encyclopedia; and the more stridently they argue, the more suspicious you are right to be."

On another note, Observation #70 is too true – welp. MeasureWell (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion ref e.g. sub-headings

Thanks for the article Antandrus. I'd suggest the items be grouped in sub-headings, or another method used to make the whole more accessible. It reminds me of the bible; the original text is just solid words; editors subsequently added sub-headings and paragraphs to improve reader access to the content.JCJC777 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)