User:Jason Quinn/"You can't edit Wikipedia because of elite editors"

I have seen people frequently on the Internet saying that they they tried to edit Wikipedia but their edits got reverted and so they stopped trying. A common version of this story says new editors cannot edit the encyclopedia because there's an "elite" group of editors who control the articles and will revert your edits. These stories are misleading and unfair and the people telling them are usually not telling you the whole truth.

Examples
Here are some examples taken straight from the Internet of people claiming they cannot edits without getting reverted:

""I have often tried to contribute to an article. Without fail, my edits were reverted. Once, when I asked the editor 'responsible' for the page why my change was reverted, and gave sufficient proof for my change, he said 'it was becoming a change-war.' I told him there were many people who aligned themselves with my changes and argued it in the 'Talk' section of the page, so if this is the conventional wisdom according to the Talk Page, why can't it be changed? No response.

tl;dr = the tiny group of the most active, elitist editors make it impossible to break into the community, making you feel like contributing is just a waste of time, as your edits will just be reverted.""

""Coulnd't add to it if you wanted to: Not for nothing, but Wiki editors are so obtuse and didactic, that attempting to add anything of relevance has become a chore unworthy of its meritlessness.""

"Wikipedia's community has become toxic, hostile to outsiders, and has developed such an inertia as to make positive change nearly impossible to accomplish."

Wikipedia be frustrating for new editors
Wikipedia can be frustrating for new editors. Wikipedia surveys support this as fact. Why is it true? There are many potential sources of frustration. Some editors claim that the main reason is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are too complicated and too intricate. If a new editor spends some time adding material to an article only to have that material removed because it violated guidelines unbeknown to them, it makes them feel like they wasted their time. I can certainly understand how that might make a person feel frustrated. Yet, there's a more fundamental source of frustration.

The prime source of frustration, I believe, is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and working with other people is sometimes frustrating. It is not policies and guidelines themselves that revert edits but people enforcing those policies and guidelines. When another person removes your contributions, it is human nature to take that as an personal attack. Most editors are very courteous when interacting with newcomers and are tolerate of beginner mistakes. Of course, as with all large communities, there will be editors with whom interaction is difficult. They are thankfully a minority and I feel sympathy for those new editors unlucky enough to have to deal with one before they know how to handle the situation.

Given that frustration is real, who or what is to blame for it? Is an "elite cabal" of editors responsible for this frustration felt by the newcomers?

Alienated new editors often draw wrong conclusions
After a new editor's frustration causes them to stop editing, they will develop a reason in their mind why they left the project and their opinion will often end up looking like the ones posted above where they blame "elite" editors of controlling Wikipedia. I have many issues with this point of view. For one, I believe it to be patently untrue. And two, the editor's frustration is often a result of their own actions, which they neglect to consider. I will enumerate some ideas.

Some new editors are ones we want to leave

 * those who are actually spammers
 * those who want to push a point of view
 * those who want to self-promote
 * those who are immature and disruptive

Not all editors complaining about other editors blocking their edits are ones we want editing Wikipedia. They complain because they were stopped from doing something they wanted to do. But commonly what people want to do is NOT productive for a high-quality encyclopedia. We don't want people adding spam. We don't want people pushing a specific point of view. Or people promoting their own work. And we don't want childish or malicious vandalism. These editors harm the project by contributing undesirable material and cause more work for other editors to clean up the mess they create. Although spam, self-promotion, and disruptive editing are not allowed at Wikipedia, these people have never read about that and may even feel that they should be allowed to do it. When finally blocked from editing, they may end up feeling slighted. If small businesses owners or aspiring rappers harbor a grudge against Wikipedia because editors wouldn't let them add self-promotion to articles, then so be it. If the guy leaves who's made it his sole purpose in life to make sure his favorite band or film is classified in a specific genre &mdash; sources and other opinions be damned! &mdash; good. Such editors leaving is for the better.

Some new editors "charged right in"

 * those that did not read any new editor help material
 * those that decide not to start small
 * those that flocked to controversial topics
 * those that do not understand the purpose of policy and guidelines

This type of alienated new editor is probably the most common. They are the ones I feel are most to blame for unfairly slandering the rest of Wikipedia's editors. These people are the type that want to run before they can walk, or play a game before they know the rules. These are editors that make unwise choices and then blame others for their mistakes. You cannot fairly accuse Wikipedia of having too complicated policies and guidelines, if you haven't even tried reading them. You cannot blame Wikipedia when you haven't considered certain core policies like no original research and neutral point of view long enough to understand why those policies exist. You cannot blame Wikipedia editors for reverting unsourced material in a controversial article if you've never heard about Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. There are lots of material for beginners. It is expected people read it.

The best way to avoid running afoul of rules you don't know about yet is to start small and avoid controversial topics. For example, fix spelling and grammar or punctuation. As you do you will slowly learn more wiki-syntax and how things like templates work. As you get more experienced, you can start doing things like adding references to uncited statements or removing material that has been tagged as needing a citation for too long. Do this for a while and you'll start to understand more about what makes for good content and what doesn't. Eventually move on to writing content on topics that are not highly polarizing. Our history articles need a lot of work. Our geography articles need more material. Do this for a while and you'll start to be ready to dabble in more complicated editing. I think this is total common sense. But far too many people decided to jump into editing like a wrecking ball on highly-polarizing articles for religion, drugs, or politics as if the thousands of people who've crafted the article before them didn't know what they were talking about. Being as polite as possible, that's just unwise.

The people jumping into controversial topics are usually drawn to these topics because they have a strong opinion about them. This can be a recipe for disaster. Passion is a good thing. It's motivating. Strong opinions on the other hand can cause one to push a point of view. Our encyclopedia aims to be neutral. People with strong opinions sometimes have a hard time knowing how to be neutral. Some of these editors just don't get what we are trying to do here. So when they insert bias into a Wikipedia article (often times in a bunch of articles in quick succession) and it gets undone or reverted, they feel like they are being "censored". Well, they could interpret that way but the less dramatic, less conspiratorial view is a simpler truth: somebody else disagreed with the quality of the edits. Again, the ultimate source of frustration is that you are working with other people! So while you may get reverted by "elite editor" citing some policy or guideline (which is just a way of saying an editor who knows them), it must be kept in mind that rules and guidelines are actually there to minimize conflict between people.

Some new editors that are just... um... unfortunate

 * those who lack the ability to improve an article
 * those people who are deplorable

Another large block of frustrated new editors are simply people who lack the ability to contribute to an article at the level the current article is written. It is a simple fact that some of the kids in school make the high grades while most of them do not. When Johnnie C-minus comes along and edits an article that clearly degrades the quality by the standards of the other editors, it comes to a great shock to Johnnie C-minus because he is incapable of seeing the problem himself. He leaves frustrated. The Encyclopedia is better off. Same goes for the biased people like racists, political extremists, Creationists, and so forth. They are too radicalized to see their own bias. It is a good thing that editors like Christian-extremist Andrew Schlafly leave Wikipedia. If deplorable people, like racists and bigots, get reverted and blocked from adding their racist or bigoted material, so much the better.

Wikipedia is generally welcoming to newcomers
In all my years of editing, I have very rarely seen new editors reverted (and never blocked) by established editors without good reason. Sometimes there is simply a misunderstanding. At Wikipedia, we try to assume good faith to prevent such misunderstandings. Rudeness was perceived were there wasn't any intention to be rude. Other times, on most occasions where I have personally investigated claims that "elite users" were preventing a person from contributing, it has almost always turned out that the alienated new user did not tell the full story and was also on the wrong side of the argument. I'm reminded of a quote from Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby: "the intimate revelations of young men, or at least the terms in which they express them, are usually plagiaristic and marred by obvious suppression." These are editors who've subscribed to a convenient fiction for themselves. I have not found any case of experienced editors censoring new editors simply because they were new editors. To the contrary, I have seen many instances of experienced editors being helpful and courteous to new users. Therefore, I reject the claim that Wikipedia is dominated by "elite editors" that discourage new editors. I believe that most alienated new user's experiences are the result of an unwillingness to learn the basic principles of Wikipedia before contributing and misinterpreted situations due to lack of editing experience.

Rude editors do exist
Yes, there are some editors who are unfriendly. They can be aggressive, abrasive, and downright rude. Sometimes it's a normally nice person whose been having a bad day. Other times it's somebody who really just has a nasty personally, at least on-line. They are a minority and it's usually just a matter of time before they get in trouble for it. It is our policy to be civil to each other. As with any large group of people, there's going to be some who are jerks. This is especially true of open on-line communities. Try not to take ad hominem attacks personally. If they persist, there are ways to handle it.

Also try to assume good faith because sometimes you will interpret people's intentions incorrectly.

Ask for proof
When you come across a person claiming their edits were reverted "for no reason" or something similar. Follow-up on that. Ask them to prove it. Ask them what article and when and about what. It has been my experience that very few people are willing to try to back-up their remarks with actual evidence and most will weasel-out at this point. Of those who have accepted my challenge, almost all have failed to give a fair account of the situation and the reverts ended up being well justified. Moral? Don't take for granted as accurate people's description of events that reflect on themselves.

Concluding remarks
Don't be dissuaded from editing Wikipedia by the people claiming you'll just get your edits reverted. Those people are more than likely not worth listening to. Create an account and start editing! Be smart and start slowly with simple uncontroversial edits. Build up experience. Converse with other editors. Ask questions. We are actually quite willing to help you. You'll make mistakes. We all do. Don't get offended if your edits are reverted. Remember Wikipedia is a collaboration. You'll occasionally have to discuss why you think your ideas are best because other people will disagree. Remain civil and even-headed and you'll soon find yourself one of those supposed "elite" editors... which is just a fancy way of saying "somebody who has a clue".