User:Yk Yk Yk/Observations and advice

My observations on how Wikipedia works and advice for editors and readers. The observations and advice come from years of observing other users' and my own behavior and mistakes on English and Malay Wikipedia.

Observations
1. Editors out to spread the truth by engaging in disuptive behavior, resorting to making snide remarks about other editors, and treating Wikipedia like a battleground of justice should be blocked right away and ignored until they demonstrate a willingness to play by the rules. Such editors draw silently hardworking Wikipedians into needless drama and bring the worst out of otherwise harmless users, effectively negating any of their positive contributions.

2. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Countless frustrated editors who refuse to play by the rules have accused other users (often labeled WikiNazis) of hiding behind the rules to censor the truth. Well guess what? They're half right.

Wikipedia does not care about the truth because it does not pay its contributors to independently investigate and research the subject matters in its articles. It is a volunteer project which collects information from reliable sources. Period.

If you just happen to know something but cannot back it up with a source, it counts for nothing considering the fact that anyone else can falsely claim they just know something.

What happens if only one point of view is published in reliable sources? Don't blame Wikipedia for censoring the truth. The sources have failed the world, not Wikipedia. Instead of blaming Wikipedia for hiding behind the rules which you played no part in making, you can rectify this injustice by starting your own encyclopedia or blog which apply your own standards of inclusion.

3. Wikipedia’s major content-related problem is dealing with inherent bias. There are editors who try their best to adhere to a neutral point of view without success. There are also editors who use Wikipedia to push their biased point of view while genuinely believing that it is the only valid one.

4. The ability of anyone with internet access to influence the world’s primary encyclopedia is a very significant empowerment of these individuals. However, only a minority of internet users are journalist material. Users unaware of their lack of competence can negatively affect Wikipedia, both in terms of content and its collaborative environment.

While Wikipedia is appreciative of all users, competence, self-awareness and basic social skills are required. That does not mean users who do not display the above characteristics should be admonished and chased away, but they should be made aware that their behavior can cause problems in the long run.

Why we really need competence: Even in Wikipedia's "everyone is equal" environment, mature and self-aware users will give a certain amount of respect to the opinions of real world expert users or users who demonstrate familiarity with the subject matter, which can only be good for building an encyclopedia. Mature users will also walk away from concluded disputes where they fall on the wrong side of consensus and move on to create and improve other articles.

Those who lose their temper make it difficult for others to understand them. Wikipedia is not therapy, and other users are not obliged to decipher the point the angry editor is making by sifting through their rants. Quite the contrary, being rude gives the community the excuse to block or ban angry editors, regardless of the validity of the point they are making.

Advice for editors
1. Don’t take things that occur on Wikipedia personally. Easier said than done! The best possible approach to avoid Wikistress is to contribute with the attitude of "I have nothing to lose by losing an argument, getting slighted, or having my edits rejected by consensus."

2. Talk spaces are not chatrooms. You have virtually all the time you want to post a message or craft a response. As a rule of thumb: Do not reply to any message within five minutes of reading it. Taking time off before responding does wonders to one's perspective.

Treating discussions like chats will more likely lead to posting off-hand condescending remarks (Oh c'mon ... You’ve got to be kidding me! ... Nonsense … This is ridiculous!) or walls of text which only escalates disputes.

Exercise restraint: don't speak unless you can provide fresh insight to a discussion.

3. Ignore all rules should never be your last line of argument for obvious reasons.

4. The truth does not provide salvation for edit crusaders.

Two conflicting truths make for a nasty back-and-forth of edits, which ultimately benefits no one: neither you, the other editor, nor the reader. Think back to advice #1 for editors, discuss the issue with civility or walk away.

5. Don't be cynical about the community. Wikipedia is the the most sought after primary point of reference for those uninitiated with a topic, for good reason. It’s not perfect; if you look through a magnifying glass you’ll find pretty bad deficiencies, mostly related to user behavior, but those deficiencies are not severe enough to bring down Wikipedia. Let detractors take potshots from the outside, but once you’re inside, show some respect for the project's success.

Advice for readers
1. Those who actively edit Wikipedia will know that other than those above GA-class, many, many articles cannot be fully trusted. Even good editors can make innocent mistakes when citing sources. For articles which attract less attention, the likelihood of scrutiny is low, making the article more susceptible to errors.

2. Always remember: Wikipedia is meant to be a depository of verifiable information. If you are here to research a topic in depth, you should be referring to the reliable sources cited in the article. Being able to access the sources (especially the online ones) with ease is Wikipedia's greatest value.

In other words: Never quote Wikipedia to justify your point. Quote the sources cited. If a piece of information on Wikipedia is unreferenced, it's as good as someone making it up. Wikipedia has mechanisms to combat such occurrences, but it's good to always maintain a healthy skepticism.