Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is in the real world

don't be bold
So this page shows why we should _not_ be bold when editing or creating pages on wikipedia. when did this happen? Theking2 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

An interesting perspective
On first read, I find the content largely jives with my own views, so perhaps my comments may be a bit biased. I am assuming that this might be directed at relative newcomers, so I'm not sure how much reference to internal behaviour one would want to make (the climbing the Reichstag bit might be a little too WP-centric, for example). I'll let this percolate for a while and see if I come up with anything else. Oh, and I like the images! Risker 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the last line really necessary?
It's incredibly ominous. I think the point can get across adequately with out it. Otherwise, this is a pretty good essay.  . V .  [Talk 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a sentence that I see as unnecessary as per WP:BEANS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the WP:BEANS part, so can we find a humerous way to put it (ala WP:SPIDER above that)? Mangoe 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it
It reads as common sense to me. However, I've never been entirely clear on the "public:private" distinction with WP, in practice I've thought it best to treat it as a public space with the rules of a private club. Also, while WP may not be a "role playing game" per se, when so much of ordinary life is (see Dramaturgy (sociology)), I don't see how we could practically admonish against the "role playing" aspects of it. Also, I didn't immediately understand the "Reichstag" and "Wizard of Id" metaphors, though I agreed with the substance of those sections. All in all, the beginning of a good guide to defensive editing on WP.--Academy Leader 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... I understand your point about dramaturgy, but the point is to discourage people from thinking that their are creating a persona utterly separate from the one they create through their "real life" actions, when the truth is that, when put to the test, the creation of that separate persona is one of those real life actions. Thus, if you will, the drama of Wikipedia is a play-within-a-play of the larger drama of life itself, and as such is a component part of it, judged within the whole.


 * Part of what I was trying to get at (and I don't think I was that successful) was discouraging people from taking Wikipedia as a stage for their grand opera acting out. Ther eis some room for improvement.


 * I agree the Wizard of Id reference is probably a bit dated. The point of the WP:SPIDER reference is for new users to look at the link, say "Huh?", and click through. Mangoe 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See Also section?
≈ jossi ≈ has a good point about the privacy policy. I assume he means this one. Perhaps a See Also section might be useful, including links to the privacy policy, the user name policy...more additions will come to mind...Risker 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I intendeted to have such a section; just ran out of time. I think we probably should include more links to specific WP policies than we have. Mangoe 20:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

some tweaks and wikilinks, revert at will
I included some wikilinks I deemed helpful, and also created a see also section for useful further reading. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 19:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to switch Central Park to Hyde Park in honour of its Speaker's Corner, but mostly to better reflect the international flavour of Wikipedia. Feel free to revert as above. 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hyde Park is good. Mangoe 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it as well. It makes a lot of sense. Skult of Caro (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course this view of Wikipedia is from the real world …
… just not from this Universe, that's all.

I'd love to know what's indelible about anything on Wikipedia.--86.143.198.23 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear 86, This is just an essjay, so it's not really required to say anything that's actually true, in any real world sense of the word, y'know. Juzon Vürßt 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Section on anonymity
I'm not too happy with this diff. Structurally it's a problem because it disturbs the parallelism of the section titles, but it also seems wimpy to me. Can we come up with a better compromise version? Mangoe 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wimpy? I would say that is more accurate than saying that "Your anonymity cannot be guaranteed". Maybe ... "Don't count on your anonymity" ? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can accept the latter version. The main thing is to get something which puts the major points directly in the section headers. Mangoe 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready to put this on the notice board?
We seem to be stable enough to do so. Mangoe 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which noticeboard? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite yet
Hi, I enjoyed the essay but it simply isn't true. Wikipedia rarely impinges on the real world. Most of its dramas are entirely internal. It is rather like a private club, with its own internal dynamic. If the outside world did scrutinise it, it would mostly find it a bit odd.

But it can. I agree with you there. But worrying about what you post is a lot less pressing from my pov than worrying about what we write about people and places.

You are also right about real-world conflicts. However, your solution is well off the mark. Wikipedia is fundamentally broken in this respect. It rewards commitment and numbers. When the real world figures this out, it will become a battlefield. I suppose we can be thankful that it hasn't. Dude, when Microsoft figures out that it should not hire one editor to write puffery, but should hire 20 and take the long view, well, then it's all on. Twenty editors, working full time, could easily create a power bloc, within six months, that could control any article. It's a measure of Wikipedia's not being quite as important as some think it is that this hasn't yet happened. Grace Note 10:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If I had mod points, I'd mark this as "Insightful" --86.143.198.23 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. These doom and gloom views of the future of WP, are speculation. WP is an experiment, and so far it has succeeded despite the naysayers. Yes, there are many problems and challenges ahead, and we should not underestimate neither the negative possibilities, or the positive ones. Could WP implode? Sure. But that is not what this essay is saying. WP is in the real world, and that is a fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

People and organizations with money and power dominate and sometimes control the reliable published sources that we depend on for determining notability and reliability. They already control wikipedia content by controlling our sources. 4.250.198.222 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can write an essay which helps individuals decide how to participate in Wikipedia. I cannot write an essay about how to fix all of Wikipedia's problems, at least not one which anyone is going to heed. I'm not trying to advocate any policy here. If you want to write that proposal, fine; but take it somewhere else. Mangoe 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If 20-30+ people ever figured out how to smartly work together by the "rules" of Wikipedia, they wouldn't control an article, they would be in position to launch themselves into control of nearly anything. Imagine if Microsoft or Google simply made a WP PR team. 40 editors, all coordinating. Making sure only 30% of their work was on MS or Google related content. Play by the rules, plan, wait, execute. By the time 6-12 months rolled around they could have 20 of 40 or more as admins with no one the wiser. Edit from home IPs. Cake. Next thing you know, they quietly have a consensus lockdown on any article at any time, and can theoretically cross-promote each other via RFA to adminship. Scary. Mivonks 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"are" vs. "reflect" real-world conflicts
I've preferred "are" over "reflect" because POV edits to controversial subjects are done as part of the controversy, not as a testimony to it. Mangoe 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, being in the real world" does not generate controversy per se, rather, it reflects (or continues) the controversy that already exists. A compromise could be "Conflicts in Wikipedia are not different than real world conflicts". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That version seems good, maybe better than the original. Mangoe 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong points and good ideas
I think this essay is pretty much spot-on. I think it could use a little expansion to discuss our impacts on the real world. What we type here immediately is in the real world, and can have often-disturbing impacts on real lives. We have to remember that what we publish can affect the day-to-day lives of people who have never heard of us. Kudos to you, Mangoe. FCYTravis 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Such as the Seigenthaler controversy and why the policy of Biographies of living persons is so important. &mdash; Michael Linnear   07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. Mangoe 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a real-world example, freshly referred to from a website-I-am-apparently-not-allowed-to-mention: A political activist is detained apparently on the basis of anonymous edits made to their Wikipedia article.

Don't discourage those who dislike controversy...

 * "Even if you try to be scrupulously careful about avoiding POV edits, other editors working on the same topic may assume that you are a party to the dispute and assign you to one of the various camps. If this offends, annoys, or troubles you, you should consider staying out of the fray."

This is in danger of encouraging people with a more NPOV approach to stay out - the opposite of what we actually should be encouraging. I see the value in the advice, but could it be expressed differently? Perhaps advise people not to take it personally, stick to NPOV, not be swayed by uncivil responses, and remind them that following NPOV is always good...? --Chriswaterguy talk 14:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people who are neutral walk up to these articles, try to correct some of the more glaring faults, and then get blind-sided by whichever partisan they are (because of their edit) opposing. Yes, it's going to discourage some people from editing, but a lot of those people might edit one of these articles, get attacked for having some personal integrity, and throw in the towel anyway. I think the neutrals will have a better chance if they know what they are in for and are emotionally prepared for it. Mangoe 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to this essay on the talk page
An editor new to this page has been making significant changes to the essay, without discussing the reasoning behind these changes. I have asked him on his talk page to please discuss here on the talk page. Risker 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do not understand the reasons for that deletion. There is no "potentially offensive releigious [sic] references", that I can see. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a corollary to your essay (Mangoe?)
Is that you need to come out of the closet. I edited for years on USENET under my real name, also. Just as Jimbo does here. It can be unpleasant, but it won't kill you. And it will make you tougher and you'll learn a lot. No silly fears, bud. My note on Wikichickens:  S  B Harris 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * VICTIMOLOGY: There is a major problem inasmuch as anonymous people tend to act more nastily ANYWHERE, vs. people whose identities are in evidence. Wikipedia allows anonymity among its editors and its police, and has to deal with the result: faceless vandals being forever chased by hooded narcs. What a waste of time. Occasionally a wikicop goes rogue and unlike real cops, the Wikipolice won't give you an identity, or even a badge number (remember Essjay? I got blocked by him.) The wars of sockpuppets and meatpuppets and checkuser logs are a part of the more general problem which is allowed indeed to fester from the problems of victimology. Here it is: somebody once knew an administrator, you see, who got a death threat! How horrible. Nevermind that out in the real world, death threats from faceless cowards (anonymous people on a phone, usually, vindicating my point) are made  against cops, judges, doctors, politicians, dogcatchers. It's part of public life. Jimbo Wales edits here under his own name. So do I. Guess what—it won't kill you. And you probably won't even get any death threats, and even if you do, the chance of you actually being assassinated over your wikipedia activities, vs. the chance of you dying from a freeway accident or natural causes (heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc), are very, very, very, small. So if this worries you, as with the idea that Al Qaeda terrorists are going to fly a hijacked jet into your house, I would suggest that you need some serious help with realistic readjustment about your risks in the real world. See a professional. Meanwhile, could everyone here please try to be a sane and unhysterical, and try not to ruin this encyclopedia with the products of needless fears about dying due to your edits? The worst thing that's going to happen to you on Wikipedia, is that your privacy will be violated. And if it is, you'll just get a new outlook on WP:BLP. You'll experience something much like what happens to the average celebrity or public figure. Do you feel bad for the exposure of public figures? Perhaps you should. There are good lessons to be learned here, but this thing is constructed to make it nearly impossible for anybody to learn them. "If you don't like the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen," is something we routinely say to people in public life. Well, Wikipedia is part of the real world too (WP:WRW), and this is something that needs to be said to those who edit and sysop here. But don't worry. Skiing or scuba diving or the 10 Freeway may get you, but not this place. Calm yourselves.  S  B Harris 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikistress
Noting this, I think a section on wikistress, and how our behavior affects other editors, would be a good idea. Paradoctor (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone vandalised the "wikipedia is not a role playing game" section - anyone dis/agree
The links to a the three RPGs are mis-labelled, unless I'm missing the point/joke 94.174.162.214 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Expected to be published in the Wikipedia Signpost in a few days
The 4 September 2019 version of this essay was used as the starting point for an essay that is expected to publish in the October 2019 issue of The Wikipedia Signpost at the end of the month. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

a comment
"Loose lips might sink ships" WOOW!!!! as "magic" "words"!

how about tight lips then

no ship will be left in the end!

"Wikipedia is in the real world" not so "real" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.211.194 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)