Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

Terminology
Would terms like 'train wreck' and 'a mess' be considered biting the newcomers when patrolling new pages? I try to only use them when they seem appropriate (such as situations when I would call them some pretty bad names in real life. Some people are really stupid.). UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Date added to sig – I think its absence was thwarting the archiving. DBaK (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Unprofessional and unencylopedic
Why is a joke about a tiger biting a soccer ball in this article? This just seems very idiotic and pointless.--CheeseInTea (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea


 * I've noticed that pages about Wikipeida and its functioning usually allow more informality and occasional humor. There's probably better out there than this tiger, but the replacement might also be something with at least some levity to it. B k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. In fact, it seems funny to me, because this page is indeed supposed to be humorous. Berpihakdibalutkenetralan (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

We vs you
I'm a newbie to Wikipedia (only about 250 edits, with the first edit in 2005), and I've noticed a common pattern in comments to me from editors who have made thousands of edits, of the form "We don't do what you are doing now." There's a joke I've heard a few times: "Wikipedia is a community of editors, and everybody else is an uninvited guest," and the use of we/you bolsters that perception. As much as it is advised against, there are page owners who maintain their authority partly by use of the we/you dichotomy.

I realize that "we" in English grammar can include or exclude the person being spoken to, but context often makes it clear that the experienced editor is using the exclusionary form. Even if not, it's very easy to read/misinterpret it as such unless the inclusionary form is somehow made explicit.

So, I propose adding an etiquette rule to this page such as:

"An editor is a member of the Wikipedia community from their first edit, and there is no 'we' versus 'you'." or "Avoid 'othering' editors by distinguishing between 'we, the editors' and 'you, the newbie'."

Is this something others have often observed? Is it worth adding; is it already covered elsewhere? B k (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Having heard this myself, I'm in agreement. It gives a sense that you are being allowed into their space, and you must do things their way. Rather, a discussion of "Here's how we have done things in other places, here's why, with that in mind, we should do the same on this article you've made." Not it's possible to use the terms "we" and "you" in a sentence without making someone feel excluded. El Dubs (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can relate to that. If you come as a new editor and you don't do things exactly as the "we" want then they just ban you. Dbainsford (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether the Wikipedia community has considered whether new editors even care about the community? They may care a great deal about creating missing articles, but may not give a fig for the community of Wikipedians, who are usually referred to outside THE COMMUNTIY as "Those ignorant prigs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Pwnt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to distance myself somewhat from 's speculation, though I understand where they're coming from; new editors dip their toes in the water for many different reasons (and in many ways; some edit for quite a while before they register an account), but yes, some do come here with a very specific goal in mind, including making an article on a non-notable topic and paid promotion. has a valid point; it's easy to come off as a know-it-all insider when referring to our voluminous policies and guidelines, and one reason for our templated notices is that the wording has been refined to be as clear and polite as possible. The fact is, though, this is a unique project (with 20 years of accumulated practice). The way we do things is hard to predict or even understand from the outside (such as the role of consensus and how we define it). There are even significant differences between the different-language Wikipedias (in things as fundamental as who can create new articles and the process for examining them). It's hard to not say "we do it this way" when our guidelines are fundamentally what the community has evolved. But while I share the concern, I don't think further accretion of guidelines is the best solution. The message of this essay is to remember that we were all new once, and treat new editors like human beings and remembering that it's good to have new editors. I advocate keeping the essay as simple as possible to keep the focus on that fundamental message. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point (I posted the above a year ago), I agree with you, @Yngvadottir, there _is_ a "we" versus "them", people who edit Wikipedia are not necessarily Editors, and to say otherwise is a polite fiction. Note that the very page we're discussing is written entirely in a we/they format.
 * In ostensibly flat hierarchies, an unwritten informal hierarchy invariably emerges, often based on social ties invisible to outsiders; this is more-or-less a law of nature. As desperately as everybody tries to deny it, WP is heavily run by page owners ("VIP"s), and in consensus discussions they get priority over everybody else, partly for those social reasons that moderators give them deference and they can call on associates to win debates over a lone newcomer. A year ago, I wrote in a manner that denied these realities of loose holocrocacies, but I'm accepting of those realities now.
 * [Which is not to deny that Wikipedia is an incredible achievement of humanity that for the most part works. But on the narrow topic we're discussing, flat hierarchies are all but impossible.] B k (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Aggressively policing edits
I had edited a BLP article on here a few days ago, and it has since been reverted several times by the same user @Yngvadottir which in my opinion did not benefit the encyclopedia, but made it more of a chore to read. They later cited ‘policy violations’ as their reasoning but did so in a way that came off as combative and micromanage-ish in nature.

This user has since been aggressively policing every edit I make which seems to violate this policy. Has anyone else experienced this from the same user or users in general? — @Therangerrick (talk - contribs) Therangerrick (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is in reference to Ruby Franke, where I started a section at the BLP noticeboard; see discussion there (and a section I had previously created on 's user talk). It should be noted that the Franke article is a touchy BLP and my concern went beyond this particular new editor; it's just had a drive-by BLP-violating edit by another presumably new editor, which someone else has reverted. I welcome examination of my conduct with respect to that article and elsewhere. Before leaving my note to Therangerrick, I looked at the other articles they edited, because I noticed that they were also leaving edit summaries referring to fixing grammar when the change was purely stylistic. I saw an infelicitous sentence they'd added to Matt Koleszar, as well as the common newbie mistake of reusing a reference without making a named reference, and improved their work then came back and made more thorough changes to the article; after edit conflicting with them, I noted in my edit summary that I was leaving their infobox changes, without naming the editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

But there is actually a hierarchy among non-admin Wikipedia editors
Some existing non-admin users treat new or IP users as "inferior" to them. 42.116.53.21 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)