 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
It’s a fact, experienced Wikimedians have irrational fears of other editors with low edit counts. The phenomenon often presents itself in discussions when a Wikipedia editor with a low edit count (usually below 15,000 edits) attempts to inference a breach of Wikipedia policies in respect of another editor’s behaviour who usually has an exceptionally large edit count.
The fear or even anger towards editors with low edit counts being vocal is often based on inherently flawed logical fallacies. A common example is that the enraged editor will often assert the standpoint that those with lower edit counts are less experienced. While this may be true about that editor’s experience on Wikipedia itself it says nothing about their actual “real” experience. Given that Wikipedia IS an encyclopaedia and NOT a social community the value of an editor really isn’t in fact based on their edit counts at all. A doctor of medicine for example would be of more value to an article about something they specialize in and deal with daily than someone who is not a doctor but has an edit count of over 100,000 edits.
To counter this logical problem many high edit count users on Wikipedia have clearly attempted to get the “best of both worlds.” That is, they have HUGE edit counts and are also conveniently doctors, scientists – you name it it’s here. The problem is that those with edit counts that are so prolific present a clear dilemma of common sense; How does one almost always edit Wikipedia and still maintain a career in medicine or the sciences and surely if a person had a doctorate (or any qualification for that matter) they would have other things to do than edit Wikipedia so much that they achieve such high edit counts in the first instance. While it is true that a large amount of high edit count Wikipedians who say, they are qualified with University degrees etc. are lying it does not mean that this is the case in ALL situations. Lots of homeless people have PhD’s and it doesn’t seem to mean they would have careers or something to do with those skills however such situations are a lot rarer than the occurrences on Wikipedia.
Why does this matter?
If a Wikipedia editor has a large edit count it clearly demonstrates that they put a substantial amount of time and effort into keeping the project going. This by itself is admirable and probably deserving of respect however, if a user then uses this pedestal to assume that every editor with a low edit count is by default inexperienced or non-valuable it can create an environment which is toxic for these editors. That then leads onto a problem with those editors who could have something better to do in the real world than put up with being demeaned by high echelon editors leaving Wikipedia. If a user who spends most of their time trying to maintain Wikipedia really is conscious of not wasting their hard work they would be mindful that professionals, academics and experts are essential to providing good quality content for Wikipedia and might do well to put aside their own pride for accepting the bigger picture. Those who have worked hard to attain University degrees and other qualifications do not often take kindly to being dictated to by those who feel they have a higher standing simply based on their Wikipedia edit counts.
It's a two-way street
Many editors on Wikipedia, especially those with higher edit counts and more community respect, have contributed to Wikipedia in ways that have created complex structures and functions which have significantly improved Wikipedia itself. For example, they might have worked back-end on code or systems which streamline the workflow or even developed bots which help combat vandalism. It’s easy for one to quickly put all their eggs in one basket and assume that because these systems have become an establishment of Wikipedia that those who bought in the functions are likewise an establishment of Wikipedia. This cannot be true by the very nature of the Wikipedia project. It is above all an encyclopaedia which everyone volunteers towards and everyone’s contributions are essential. Those who created the bots, templates and other systems on Wikipedia wouldn’t have anything to create them for if it wasn’t for the content editors. The content editors wouldn’t have anything to contribute towards if it wasn’t for the readers and the cycle goes on. Each component from new editor to experienced sysop is essential to keeping Wikipedia going and its therefore essential that each component respect each other. Just like in the workplace there are some people with more experience and others with less but unlike the workplace the hierarchy on Wikipedia is almost never based on qualifications or proven knowledge but rather their contributions to the project itself. This system is innately flawed as it relies on the visibility and usability of a person’s contributions rather than accepting the truth that all contributions are ultimately as important as each other. For example, there are those out there in the Wikipedia community which command great respect in the real world for their achievements yet on the project itself they don’t have any clout at all. The fact is that if they have achieved it in the real world, low edit count or not, they have proven themselves capable and able to do great things. It would be ill-advised to say those people would suddenly be less able to contribute to the Wikipedia project simply because they don’t have the time to contribute as other editors do. Conclusively, Wikipedia IS a two-way street. It doesn’t solely depend on those who have made the most visible contributions nor does it depend on those with the least. It depends on each contributor equally and as such each editor should show respect to one another with this principle in mind.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
It’s a fact, experienced Wikimedians have irrational fears of other editors with low edit counts. The phenomenon often presents itself in discussions when a Wikipedia editor with a low edit count (usually below 15,000 edits) attempts to inference a breach of Wikipedia policies in respect of another editor’s behaviour who usually has an exceptionally large edit count.
The fear or even anger towards editors with low edit counts being vocal is often based on inherently flawed logical fallacies. A common example is that the enraged editor will often assert the standpoint that those with lower edit counts are less experienced. While this may be true about that editor’s experience on Wikipedia itself it says nothing about their actual “real” experience. Given that Wikipedia IS an encyclopaedia and NOT a social community the value of an editor really isn’t in fact based on their edit counts at all. A doctor of medicine for example would be of more value to an article about something they specialize in and deal with daily than someone who is not a doctor but has an edit count of over 100,000 edits.
To counter this logical problem many high edit count users on Wikipedia have clearly attempted to get the “best of both worlds.” That is, they have HUGE edit counts and are also conveniently doctors, scientists – you name it it’s here. The problem is that those with edit counts that are so prolific present a clear dilemma of common sense; How does one almost always edit Wikipedia and still maintain a career in medicine or the sciences and surely if a person had a doctorate (or any qualification for that matter) they would have other things to do than edit Wikipedia so much that they achieve such high edit counts in the first instance. While it is true that a large amount of high edit count Wikipedians who say, they are qualified with University degrees etc. are lying it does not mean that this is the case in ALL situations. Lots of homeless people have PhD’s and it doesn’t seem to mean they would have careers or something to do with those skills however such situations are a lot rarer than the occurrences on Wikipedia.
Why does this matter?
If a Wikipedia editor has a large edit count it clearly demonstrates that they put a substantial amount of time and effort into keeping the project going. This by itself is admirable and probably deserving of respect however, if a user then uses this pedestal to assume that every editor with a low edit count is by default inexperienced or non-valuable it can create an environment which is toxic for these editors. That then leads onto a problem with those editors who could have something better to do in the real world than put up with being demeaned by high echelon editors leaving Wikipedia. If a user who spends most of their time trying to maintain Wikipedia really is conscious of not wasting their hard work they would be mindful that professionals, academics and experts are essential to providing good quality content for Wikipedia and might do well to put aside their own pride for accepting the bigger picture. Those who have worked hard to attain University degrees and other qualifications do not often take kindly to being dictated to by those who feel they have a higher standing simply based on their Wikipedia edit counts.
It's a two-way street
Many editors on Wikipedia, especially those with higher edit counts and more community respect, have contributed to Wikipedia in ways that have created complex structures and functions which have significantly improved Wikipedia itself. For example, they might have worked back-end on code or systems which streamline the workflow or even developed bots which help combat vandalism. It’s easy for one to quickly put all their eggs in one basket and assume that because these systems have become an establishment of Wikipedia that those who bought in the functions are likewise an establishment of Wikipedia. This cannot be true by the very nature of the Wikipedia project. It is above all an encyclopaedia which everyone volunteers towards and everyone’s contributions are essential. Those who created the bots, templates and other systems on Wikipedia wouldn’t have anything to create them for if it wasn’t for the content editors. The content editors wouldn’t have anything to contribute towards if it wasn’t for the readers and the cycle goes on. Each component from new editor to experienced sysop is essential to keeping Wikipedia going and its therefore essential that each component respect each other. Just like in the workplace there are some people with more experience and others with less but unlike the workplace the hierarchy on Wikipedia is almost never based on qualifications or proven knowledge but rather their contributions to the project itself. This system is innately flawed as it relies on the visibility and usability of a person’s contributions rather than accepting the truth that all contributions are ultimately as important as each other. For example, there are those out there in the Wikipedia community which command great respect in the real world for their achievements yet on the project itself they don’t have any clout at all. The fact is that if they have achieved it in the real world, low edit count or not, they have proven themselves capable and able to do great things. It would be ill-advised to say those people would suddenly be less able to contribute to the Wikipedia project simply because they don’t have the time to contribute as other editors do. Conclusively, Wikipedia IS a two-way street. It doesn’t solely depend on those who have made the most visible contributions nor does it depend on those with the least. It depends on each contributor equally and as such each editor should show respect to one another with this principle in mind.