This article was a featured list candidate on April Fool's Day. Please view its sub-page to see any attempted humour. |
It seems to me that you have things pretty much spot-on here. Jkelly 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 // Fra nkB 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
Any chance of reducing the 50 to a top 10 or something? 50 is a lot! Stevage 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
my hat goes off to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
So added. :) -- El on ka 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put your #62 on my talk page, with accreditation, of course. ៛ Bielle ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A very important thing to remember indeed! 81.172.7.7 ( talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
... but I didn't like it. A lot of it sounds arrogant and prententious. Gandalf61 ( talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Don't you think? -- Stephanwehner ( talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is provision made anywhere to nominate you for canonisation as a Wikipedia saint? Koro Neil ( talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
OK, I'll try to make myself clear.
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)
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)
The greatest and yet most underrated essay in Wikipedia. I'm surprised it isn't quoted like scripture nowadays. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there could be a maxim like this:
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)
Hmm... Rocket000 ( talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That include people? Equazcion ( talk) 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Many of these points reminded me of this quote:
(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)
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)
This made me smile. Can I put a link to this on my user page? -- Guerillero ( talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
An incredibly insightful collection of wisdom. I refer to it constantly. :) -- œ ™ 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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. :) - Warthog Demon 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me some of WP:RAUL. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 09:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 interested My76Strat ( talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
Is there any way to like this on facebook? -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
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
"Do not be wise in your own eyes" ( Proverbs 3:7). ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That was fantastic. extra999 ( talk) 07:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wise. Insightful. I'm impressed.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"[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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Pacerier ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC): ❝
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)
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)
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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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)
hi, do you have more of those? 190.30.121.55 ( talk) 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article was a featured list candidate on April Fool's Day. Please view its sub-page to see any attempted humour. |
It seems to me that you have things pretty much spot-on here. Jkelly 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 // Fra nkB 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
Any chance of reducing the 50 to a top 10 or something? 50 is a lot! Stevage 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
my hat goes off to you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
So added. :) -- El on ka 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put your #62 on my talk page, with accreditation, of course. ៛ Bielle ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A very important thing to remember indeed! 81.172.7.7 ( talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
... but I didn't like it. A lot of it sounds arrogant and prententious. Gandalf61 ( talk) 22:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Don't you think? -- Stephanwehner ( talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is provision made anywhere to nominate you for canonisation as a Wikipedia saint? Koro Neil ( talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
... 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)
OK, I'll try to make myself clear.
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)
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)
The greatest and yet most underrated essay in Wikipedia. I'm surprised it isn't quoted like scripture nowadays. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there could be a maxim like this:
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)
Hmm... Rocket000 ( talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That include people? Equazcion ( talk) 03:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Many of these points reminded me of this quote:
(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)
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)
This made me smile. Can I put a link to this on my user page? -- Guerillero ( talk) 05:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
An incredibly insightful collection of wisdom. I refer to it constantly. :) -- œ ™ 13:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
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. :) - Warthog Demon 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me some of WP:RAUL. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 09:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 interested My76Strat ( talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
Is there any way to like this on facebook? -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 04:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
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
"Do not be wise in your own eyes" ( Proverbs 3:7). ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That was fantastic. extra999 ( talk) 07:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wise. Insightful. I'm impressed.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"[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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Pacerier ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC): ❝
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)
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)
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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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)
hi, do you have more of those? 190.30.121.55 ( talk) 02:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)