User talk:Backin72

'''Unfortunately, I've been the target of threats and harassment on-wiki. Therefore, please do not release or repeat any personal information connecting me with this account. Backin72 (n.b.) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)'''

Why civility matters on Wikipedia

Remember when WP:No personal attacks was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?

I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP. I've also come to see why it exists: writing an encyclopedia is an elevated endeavor, requiring a welcoming intellectual environment. Use of ad hominem, rudeness, and edit warring ruin that environment. They may help get rid of trolls, disruptors and hopelessly clueless people, but they also drive away productive editors. In other words, the disease is cured, but the patient dies.

There is a better way: use normal means of dealing with trolls, stay civil, and use expert oversight to keep articls from drifting off track. Let a group of editors vert a "last good version" that is readily visible to readers, while the editing of provisional versions continues.

So, I've stopped editing because the environment has become toxic, and nothing much is being done to stop it. So, ciao, and best of luck editing happily within the existing, and flawed, rules & lack thereof here.

'''What else is wrong with Wikipedia? I'm in broad agreement with what User:Gleng says on his user page. Well worth the time to read.''' --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Citizendium. We are looking for expert editors. -- Dēmatt (chat)  22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Got that right. As usual your timing is exquisite. :-)  Dematt, I'm sorry, but if WP is sick, then CZ is dead.  Or, to be charitable, on life support.  The front page is messy and the interface is non-intuitive.  Larry blew it; by failing to fork WP's articles completely, CZ became a backwater.  It barely scratches the search engines (I posted an article there last Thanksgiving, and it's not in Google AT ALL, no matter what search terms I use).  At best, if they grow slowly, they might turn out to be a sort of Alibris.com to WP's Amazon.  see ya, Backin72 (n.b.) 10:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Greetings. I hope you stick around. I understand your decision and will still support you as an honest and well-meaning editor. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now.  ;-)  Hope your New Year brings peace and good times.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
... despite my attempt to back out of anything involving wikipolitics and process, I've been involved, at least tangentially, in the most recent ArbCom case relating to "fringe science". I saw your statement in the evidence section there. We haven't interacted much, particularly recently, but I just wanted to let you know that I've found you to be generally reasonable and a good editor (which is the best I could say about myself, on a good day). When I see the problems encountered by people like yourself and Dematt - that is, people with practical experience in "non-mainstream" areas who make an effort to work within Wikipedia's strictures - it greatly discourages me. There needs to be some sort of room on Wikipedia for people who practice "alternative" or non-mainstream concepts, but are able to wear their Wikipedia hats and be editors first. I'm concerned that in the present environment, there is no such room - everything is too polarized to admit any nuance.

I once proposed at WT:MED that the best way to improve our coverage of alternative-medicine articles would be to identify reasonable, quality editors with expertise in those areas - I had in mind people like you and Dematt - and support/co-opt them. The best bulwark against extremism of any flavor would be a strong middle ground of reasonable folk. It's really just rational self-interest - I really think that the job of defending Wikipedia's content against "undue weight" would be much easier if we could reach out and support people like you. Unfortunately, I never had the time, energy, or balls to go through with anything of the sort. Anyhow, sorry for rambling, but I just wanted to say that I've found you in the past to be a good editor, and I'm deeply sorry that the atmosphere here is what it is. I will also apologize for my part - I feel responsible on some level for not taking a more active role in improving the atmosphere. Best wishes. MastCell Talk 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that note. I really appreciate it, and I think your expert oversight idea is excellent.  Don't feel too responsible for the present atmosphere; you're only one out of how many?  I'm really burned out, and don't know whether sticking around is going to be a net positive experience.  Good luck, happy editing.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists
True, but it is more amusing than a more reasonable example; hopefully I argued the nuances well enough in the rest of the section. If not, it appears to be no loss unless the arbiters change their minds. I think that the standard Wikipedia 'everything must be well sourced' requirement suffices for that article, you appear to prefer that it be made more explicit - I can live with that. Incidentally, I agree with MastCell above - there is a reason why RationalWiki does not feature highly in most search engines. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... it's become a very tiresome, obsessive-compulsive debate, with a couple of editors dug in strongly. It's weird how no one else seems to care that stuff was edit-warred onto that list without consensus.  You and Fyslee, for example, know it was wrong, but you're cool with the result, so you let it remain.  Why should I bother?  Anyway, good luck. --Backin72 (n.b.) 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up
There are some good people here (as is obvious from the comments above), but the overall editing environment is just too toxic. It's all about fighting, not sincere intellectual exchange, compromise and collaboration.

It doesn't have to be this way. WP could have instituted expert oversight a long time ago, but has resisted, in its fetishization of egalitarianism. Incredibly, WP has instead tolerated abandonment of basic civility. This isn't usenet: it was supposed to be an elevated thing, something good, something about spreading knowledge.

But it hasn't worked out that way. Admins and Arbs are significantly responsible for all this, but the buck stops with Jimbo Wales. You blew it. You let the ideal of consensus degenerate into a sort of slow-motion mob rule that has equated "NPOV" with "mainstream", and doesn't care about properly weighting significant minority views. I'm sorry to say that, but WP:SPADE and all.

My disillusionment has reached critical mass. There are better things to do with my time. --Backin72 (n.b.) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost got back into it to try and fix an article, but not worth the hassle. Ciao. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little in the dark here. Did I say or do something to drive you away? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, more just the nudge I needed. I thought I could help fix up that list, but it's too polarized, and I've been on the cusp of leaving for a long time.  best, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. If it is any consolation, I think Fyslee and I may have agreed on plausible solution which could make everyone happy - we'll see though. There's a little wP:BRD happening now, but you never know! If you truly are leaving, then "Happy trails, amigo." :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)