Wikipedia talk:Lurkers

Two subunits of currency
The sentiment behind this essay is laudable, but I fear it's also unsupported by reality. I have yet to see a single credible instance of a new user who "hit the ground running" so fast that they could be confused for a sockpuppet, regardless of how much lurking preceded account creation. That doesn't mean that someone who is obviously not a newbie is also a sockpuppet&mdash; there are a number of legitimate reasons why a new account would have an experienced editor behind it&mdash; but the presumption that a new account that starts front-loaded with knowledge of policy and wiki markup is more likely to be a lurker than an experienced editor is unwarranted by past experience. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this essay but let's not confuse ourselves. Those who do end up being suspected of being sockpuppets usually do so because they did more than just edit. They cause problems by jumping straight into heated debates and generally act disruptive. A quick look at the user creation log will reveal just how many new accounts are created in let's say just one hour. The vast majority of those accounts never cause any problems. The truth is that the serious problems are caused by a very small minority of our editors and as Coren says above suspicions of sockpuppetry usually turn out to be right. That's not to say that we should assume bad faith because shouldn't - the vast majority of new editors come here in good faith, regardless of how experienced they might seem. It's not signs of experience that gets them labelled as suspected socks - it's the correlation between experience and familiar disruptive behaviour. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I point you all to the recent Durova case. There are admins who actively seek out such people with the assumption that they are sockpuppets. Jtrainor (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that this was the impetus behind the essay was evident. Need I remind you that the editor in the middle of all this was emphatically not a lurker?  It wasn't a sock either, but it's proof against the essay's thesis&mdash; not support for it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can cite an example of a newbie hitting the ground running: David Gerard. (Yes, I have been around Wikipedia that long.) I'll admit that this is unusual, but I believe the point of this essay is that it never hurts to compile more evidence than you think you need to prove your point. (I can think of one former Admin who should have done that.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this article describes me pretty well. I know I exist. Laced8 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Lurkers come in many varieties...
I think that this essay is missing the point somewhat, especially in the light of how its creation is related to the whole Durova mess. There are many varieties of "lurkers", some of whom are more obvious than others. If you look at the profile of users allegedly targetted by the secret mailing list cabal, most of these don't really qualify as "lurking". Off the top of my head, I can think of many legitimate reasons an new editor seems more knowledgable than "they should be".


 * Many users contribute as anonymous editors before getting around to registering accounts. Sometimes, this goes on for months or years before an account is set up. When this is done, they may seem to have an advanced understanding of Wiki markup & our policies. However, as they have been active contributers, this hardly fits in with the classic definition of "lurking".
 * Other users come here from other Wikis, either from the other Wikimedia projects and/or smaller, private wikis. Oftentimes, these users are admins at their homewikis, and may have a very advanced knowledge of the nuts and bolts of this place. Again, I don't see how this can be construed as "lurking".
 * Per Sock puppetry, it's perfectly legitimate to abandon one account and start anew. I don't know how often this happens, but I imagine that there's a greater than zero chance that several experienced "retired" editors (probably including some former admins) decided to walk away from the bickering and politicking, but came back to contribute semi-anonymously.
 * I myself was a classic lurker. I created my account years ago, likely in 2002 or 2003, but I cant recall. Either way, it was long enough ago where I don't show up on the User Creation Log. I originally came here as a refugee from the wiki-like everything2 after I became disenchanted with the content policies there. Although I had set up an account, I never found the desire to contribute (except occasionally as an anon) until August of last year. And while I had a basic knowledge how WP worked, I took baby steps to emmerse myself deeper and deeper into the project.

All of this doesn't discount that some of the "overexperienced" lurkers may be socks of banned/indef blocked editors, which is an unfortunate reality of projects like this. If this essay is going to -- even if it's in veiled terms -- speak out against witchhunts, I think it should address some of the things I mentioned. Caknuck (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is going to be an essay against witchhunts, let it speak directly and plainly about witchunts and not pussyfoot around trying to seem like it is talking about something else.144.15.255.227 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the qualifier "witch hunt" is that, sadly, there are witches to be hunted (whereas the term "witch hunt" usually implies that the target of the hunt is illusory or imaginary). It is important to understand that all "experienced newbies" are not socks, but I agree that attempting to pussyfoot around the perceived problem will not serve anyone.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue here is that often the duck rule is valid also. (If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, it's likley a duck). Thats why it's alwase a good idea to treat everyone with civility. :)  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But, then again, there's also that other "duck rule" - if it weighs the same as a duck... —Random832 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the Lurker who only occasionally edits or contributes (Such as I), shouldn't they be included in the essay so they are not clumped in with the sockpuppets?--Knife Knut (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to meta
I think we should move this to meta. It is quite possible that users may have experience on one Wikimedia project and then start work on another one, and be mistaken for a sock. Mr. Ambassador (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy it. It's useful to have in both places.--Father Goose (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's generally good to have two copies (rather than redirecting one to the other). Then people will likely be making edits to both (perhaps not even aware of the other version's existence), and they will tend to diverge and/or have some duplication of work.


 * I suppose the thing to do is wait a week to make sure there are no objections, and then move to the transwiki namespace. Then someone can do an import to Meta, so that the whole history will be moved and we can remain GFDL-compliant. (I take it that only admins can do imports?) Mr. Ambassador (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, put a link on meta to this page. I see no compelling reason to remove it from en.wiki.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)