Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Editor Says Site's Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide (vice.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A longtime Wikipedia editor wrote an email to a large public mailing list Tuesday, saying he was contemplating suicide due to online abuse by his fellow Wikipedians. "Nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind," he wrote. "You are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side." He lamented that obstructionism by other editors stopped him from contributing to the site's "great mission -- one I feel so keenly." The email was sent to the Wikimedia-L mailing list, which is one of the largest community-run Wikimedia mailing lists and has hundreds of subscribers. The editor was upset after an ongoing disagreement with other editors on the "talk" pages of an article about a local politician. The debate devolved into name-calling, the editor wrote, and eventually he was completely banned from editing the site he had devoted so much time to.
The online world is like drunk people. Some drunks are mean, some are nice. You get to know the real person if they have had a few drinks, honest, crook, lecherous, moral. Same for how people behave when they have some power online and can ban folks they disagree with. They are online drunks.
...fuck Wikipedia. It's entire model can literally be summed-up as, "King of the Hill." Whoever camps at their computer to edit pages is the editor, regardless of any acumen or credentials with the subject matter, and without regard to any actual rules that govern article structure or citation.
If Wikipedia wants to fix this, they need to disallow users from camping on pet articles. They need to disallow reverts based on style that have nothing to do with substance and have no real benefit, and they need to ban users that continue to engage in these practices. Until that's done the entire process will be at the whim of the cave trolls that patrol the site because they have nothing better to do.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you're contemplating suicide based on something going on with the Internet, you have lost perspective and need to go outside.
Back in the day, I hade almost several 1000 quality edits - which is to say slightly more than typo correction - but walked away for many of the reasons that this guy puts light on. Suicide would have been a bit of an over reaction, though.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Isn't wiki software open? Start your own encyclopedia.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I wouldn't kill myself if I got banned from submitting PRs to my favorite open source projects. But people can get obsessed, and those are the kind people who edit more than one page on Wikipedia.
Also, just as a friendly reminder: buying into the left's propaganda by using the word "toxic" as an adjective for anything other than chemicals is not a constructive or even informative way to describe a social environment.
And... as a followup to my post. If you get suicidal over online crap. You need to get off the internet and go outside to play.
Doesn't matter if it is a job, a website, a community knitting group.
If the people there are getting you down so much, then you need to get out.
It's highly unlikely that you can fix an aggressive rude culture like the one he describes - not in a short term anyway. Surely Wikipedia has behavioural standards for editors, etc?
Some people are more sensitive than others. Telling all of those to GTFO will lead in a lot of resources wasted. Because, believe you me, the power hungry assholes usually aren't the great contributors to society they want you to think they are.
While I agree people should have decorum, it's the internet. If you can't take it, don't use it.
better to see resources wasted, then humans.
While dated, much of FYI-28 / RFC 1855 is still applicable and the world would be a better place if more folk followed it.
The fact that something has problems does not mean that we should either accept those problems or stay away. Change begins with realizing that there is a problem.
You are an idiot :)
Now, seriously, sometimes the poster indeed is an idiot and it's painfully obvious. I see nothing wrong in calling that out - if, of course, you explain why.
I personally don't agree with "appropriate" being a measure - because it's a non-measurable convention. I'd go for "correct" versus "incorrect".
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I can relate to his experience - not in wikipedia, but other forums, including slashdot and LinkedIn. I have found that most people are nice, but there are certain people who become nasty very quickly. Those individuals can easily destroy a discussion. IMO we need to expect civility in online forums - otherwise, why have a forum? People should not make personal attacks - comments should be issue focused. I see a-lot of posts on slashdot that get personal, like "you are an idiot", etc. That is not appropriate - it is childish. IMO, a comment that embeds a personal attack should result in the commenter being banned for awhile at least.
You're an idiot.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
As Dilbert long ago pointed out, the craziest person wins any debate where the only thing that matters is persistence.
Now maybe we know what happens to the second craziest person... they commit suicide?
They are fighting over a politician's wiki page, and how awful or perfect they are.
They are all scum, problem solved.
Don't you think that making it personal derails a discussion? Why not say something like, "I think that your response seems very irrational, because it ignores all of these obvious things..." - instead of calling the _person_ an idiot. If you call someone an idiot, you most likely start a personal back and forth of attacks that no one else wants to read, and it clutters and destroys the discussion. IMO it would be much better if people simply ignored posts that appear to be irrational. It is also possible that someone posts something that seems idiotic, but is _not_ an idiot - perhaps they don't understand something. Calling them an idiot is then callous and again, disrupts the discussion.
When anything you're doing is evoking feeling so extreme, time to step away and do something completely different for a while to recollect yourself and regain some perspective. Don't do the futile thing of hoping you can cope or change things for the better in your current position while you are experiencing such extreme feelings.
Wikipedia is not a way of life, it is not someone you love, it is not worth suffering or ending yourself for. Find something that makes you happy.
Twinstiq, game news
Ditto.
Last edit I made was in an article about Greek column styles that contained a graphic, detailed description of the sexual preferences of a certain person I don't really know, but knowing the column style I could deduce that the sexual preferences, especially some involving certain rodents, are not really part of pertinent information for aforementioned columns.
No 10 minutes after I received a warning against defacing articles and the revert showed again that a certain person enjoys a rather odd variant of petplay.
I worked in good faith, I swear! I really did not know that stuffing gerbils up someone's ass is required to bring out the beauty in columns.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You are misguided in your expectations. Internet is humanity in its purest form and at no point in humanity's history have we been known to be sensitive, kind to others, and not aggressive toward the weak. You may not like this, but it got us this far.
And... as a followup to my post. If you get suicidal over online crap. You need to get off the internet and go outside to play.
Yup.
This is the challenge of putting anything out to the public, since it becomes a form of public domain. Even if the copyright technically belongs to a small group, the stake holders are in the millions and the unofficial armchair committee huge. Sometimes the best thing is to know when you need to agree to differ and walk away from the shitfest. It is not always easy, but the short term pain may make the long term so much better.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I gave up on fixing Wikipedia errors when I received an official notice warning me about vandalizing a page for fixing errors on it.
Because the editors don't like it. So they tell you it's not an error - it's true. And they have citations. And they' point out that your citations are invalid because WP:CiteRule1 and WP:CredibleSources and so you must be wrong because they can apply WP:Fringe and WP:SourceType does not apply to their article.
FTFA: "Wikipedia is ... has a dizzying list of guidelines, principles, and rules that are disproportionately applied across the site."
Yea, that's putting it mildly. None of your corrections were accepted because the editor had a different opinion, and he can dismiss any link or citation with some arbitrary reference to some rule (that references some other rule, that references several other guidelines), whether they are really applicable or not. They'll berate you with that stuff on the Talk pages and if you don't respond appropriately a ban request is easy to get approved.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
If one were in a tribe in neolithic times, one could use that argument to persuade everyone that there should be no improvements to existing norms.
It is in some ways an ongoing global problem. The Internet by its nature allows a disproportionate amount of attention to the jerks on the fringe. There are some mechanisms for limiting this, such as Slashdot's karma/moderation system, but these are generally limited in scope. Unless ways of dealing with it on a wider scale are invented, we will continue to see "journalism" which consists of finding ten racists on Twitter and the headline reads "Internet reacts...."
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I've done idiotic things quite a few times. I'd like to think generally I am not an idiot however. Luckily those who pointed it out at the time weren't too harsh.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Lets assume we could change human nature. Is there even a good reason to? Sure, civilized anonymous discussion on the internet would be nice to have, but what would be the actual costs of getting there? More docile, non-confrontational society would likely be also less able to maintain egalitarian society, allowing rare exploitators go much further in corrupting law and order. Such society would also likely be more prone to cults and religions, as questioning authority requires a great deal of confrontation. Such society would also be less innovative, as many breakthroughs are built on conflict.
So could you justify such cost just to get few impressionable people more comfortable on the internet? Perhaps it is more effective to change (or ignore) the few that believe there is a problem?
Personally I try to skip editing the pages where there is any element of sensitivity to the content. Let others war over that stuff. There is plenty of other material that needs improving. It's peaceful that way, and you'll accomplish more.
-Bob-
Instead of being an "editor", just "quit" and go outside more. Problem solved.
I just can't comprehend the idea of using the internet to satisfy my social needs to the point that some jackasses on Wikipedia could ruin my day. I've noticed that paradoxically there's something about conversations where getting punched in the face isn't a possibility that tends to make them very uncivilized.
The actual message is here. The politician mentioned in the story is this guy.
The politician, Salim Mehajer, is really something. Sort of an Australian Donald Trump. He runs people over with his super car, threatens people, violates election laws and then gets himself acquitted or wrist-slapped for all of it in court. The editor wanted to elaborate on details of this stuff in Salim Mehajer's Wikipedia page and the powers-that-be blocked him. Seems like the editor was trying to do the equivalent of investigative reporting, to the degree that it amounted to original research and detail excessive for a Wikipedia page.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
What are they, 13? Probably shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor if they can't take criticism. Also, everything sounds a lot harsher when you read it in email.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It is not about changing human nature - you are right, we can't do that. But it is possible to establish norms of behavior. The right norms of behavior _can_ make things more functional and more fair. Norms of behavior do not have to emphasize political correctness - they can instead emphasize civility. Civility promotes intelligent discourse, where all ideas are given a chance, even if an idea is not popular. Sometimes unpopular ideas are the best ones - the game changers; but rudeness can silence those who have unpopular ideas.
The democratization of anything leads to a decline in the quality of the conversation. Look at what it has done to politics!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If one were in a tribe in neolithic times
Fellow neolithic tribe member would just bash your head open in a fight over potential mate. We evolved quite a bit since then, so I will restrict myself to pointing out how out of touch your expectations of utopia and human enlightenment. I might call you a fool, but you are 100% safe from rock-bashing from my side.
But, get afoul of the wrong people, or post even a minor change in a topic that some troll considers his personal property, and you will see the toxicity, From the article:
Yep.
http://gizmodo.com/updated-anti-science-trolls-are-starting-edit-wars-on-1724422402
Here's the link to the Wikipedia editor's message
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084230.html
And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total. There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't know where. I pray my family forgives me.
Chris
Ta bu shi da yu
Sent from my iPhone [!]
But don't worry, he's fine!
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-May/084241.html
Followup: Chris is fine :-) All is well. He's quite touched at how
many people rallied around to help him. Mostly he's a bit embarrassed
about just how many people this email went out to, but he's pretty
public about his depressive illness in order that others will be less
shy.
He wants you to know: "Please tell anyone else who has similar
suicidal feelings that life is wonderful and it's worth every painful
and wonderful moment."
Also I told him to put 127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org in /etc/hosts ;-)
Tragedy of the Commons.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Don't do it, allowing bad behavior to destroy good things just encourages more bad behavior. People who know how to accomplish something worthwhile are the only hope in a world full of loonies.
JoeR
Now we get to the crux of the matter - establishing norms of behavior. Sure we can establish any norm, but how are you going to enforce it and still allow anonymity/pseudonymity? Human nature won't allow you to have it both ways and to me anonymity/pseudonymity has much higher value than unsullied sensibilities of oversensitive people.
Part of this problem is that some people react differently in online communication versus face-to-face. This can smooth out conversations as you cut through the non-verbal communication and go right to the "verbal" (well, written) communication. Unfortunately, it can also lead to people not thinking of the poster they are replying to as an actual human being. Their reactions don't get moderated like they might if a person was right in front of them and "I disagree because of these reasons..." becomes "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!!!"
Unfortunately, another part of this problem is that some portions of society seem to be more accepting of the "YOU'RE AN IDIOT AND DESERVE TO DIE!" response and less accepting of the "I disagree because of these reasons..." response.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I think that you have not experienced more intellectual and civilized forums. There are many on the Internet. When you are in a forum where most people have PhDs or are very accomplished, they don't behave this way. Not all parts of the Internet are the same.
You are right, that it can't be completely enforced - someone who gets banned can always create a new account. But if the community expects better, it gets better. Most people don't want to get banned, and most people don't want to be seen as rude. Are you familiar with the "broken windows theory"? It tells us that if things are in a state of chaos, they become even more chaotic. By setting a higher standard, we get better behavior.
Sure, more intelligent people are better at arguing, but there is as much conflict, skullduggery, and politicking going on. Such places are equally unkind to outgroup members and wrongthink ideas.
I've tried to make edits. There was a page where I had cited evidence from multiple sources that my change should be accepted, and no reason was given just a "nope". So why bother?
Solution: stop making Wikipedia an important part of your life. They only have as much power over you as you give them.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yes, true. They can be as nasty - they are just more civilized about it. But being civilized is still important - without that, one can't even have a discussion that allows fringe points of view, and without fringe points of view, nothing ever changes.
A depressed person when confronted with the shitheads of the internet thinks of suicide.
A healthy person when exposed to the same people on the internet thinks of homicide. Because the world would be a better place without the shitheads in it.
Do your duty, make the world a better place for everyone.
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by the NRA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
lots of comments here are saying 'get a life', 'get out', 'stay away from them if they make you miserable'
if only life was this easy
'get out' of the place you have been dedicating a lot of work
'get a life' when life and internet are something mixed up together now, and the people you most speak with are the one part of the community you are supposed to leave
'stay away from them if they make you miserable' and ignore all the ones that make your life brighter
i was part of a wiki community (UrbanDead Wiki), and it was a toxic environment at times. There were several occasions were i felt bad about what was happening there, and left it for a while, only to return a few weeks later and resume my work there. In other occasions, i prolly was the toxic guy, which helped drive some users away from it. Its insane, and full of Drama, and reflects the same kind of toxicity that i noticed on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia communities. Its not part of the code, but its something embedded on it like a curse.
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
Yes. Exactly. I think that if those who don't like rude behavior speak up and call it out, things actually get better. The people who are rude should not get away with it - if they get away with it, they don't change; but if they sense that others won't tolerate it, they will restrain themselves. And you are right that a-lot of it has to do with not being face-to-face - people can more easily be dehumanized ("he's an idiot so I don't need to treat him like a human").
Sure it still sucks, but show me something better and that will suck too.
For Science and Math and a lot of facts, it is much better. But for propaganda, it's much worse. The encyclopaedia entry on a given politician did not used to be made by that politician's intern or PR firm.
Real lawyers write in C++
Well, I'm convinced. How many pieces of flair do we want to standardize on?
Bullying destroys lives. Simple. Don't bully.
I loved that movie too. To the point, being considerate does not equate to being conformist. In fact, being considerate and civil fosters diversity of ideas.
To the point, being considerate does not equate to being conformist.
It does if you're an asshole. I'm pretty sure that more than a few Slashdot users self-identify as assholes. Maybe you were looking for "no-assholes.com".
It's admirable to be "considerate". I try to be "considerate", too. But I don't have any illusions that that word really means anything. Or that it isn't abused every day by people who just want everybody else to conform to their own arbitrary standard.
Come, now. It's the Internet. Everyone knows "Your an idiot" is what you write to achieve maximum rage and trolling value. I'm ashamed of your intentional use of proper spelling.
Or, perhaps people should have a "don't be an asshole" course instead.
When you have the choice to be an asshole or a reasonable person, why be an asshole?
Love sees no species.
How can you believe anything there? I've seen a number of things I know to be wrong - truth by consensus merely means we agree on our untruths, not that it describes reality.
There is no functional difference between the two, only the intent should be considered - to belittle and discredit opposition. You can be Mr.Manners and still be as effective at enforcing conformity of views.
Just look at SJW movement, despite all of their safe spaces, trigger warnings, and so on dissent from within or deviation from accepted views is brutally suppressed. Sure, they are mostly civilized, but so what?
And it's worth it.
It's not my intent to be callous to its effects on the people who put the effort in, but Wikipedia is without a question the most correct, current, and expansive singular source of knowledge that mankind has every seen. It's far from perfect, but it's literally the best that has ever been. It might just be that zealotry and incivility is the only known way to provide a rigid standard of quality control in an organization where there are no genuine laws, authoritarian oversight, or wage structure to hold over peoples' heads. So, if the ends justify the means, then keep it up!
But if it doesn't-- if the emotional effects on some is too great a cost for the benefits, then someone needs to find another way to facilitate the intellectual and emotional drive for people to volunteer their own time to put so many hours of work into building and maintaining such an important source of information.
Complaining about its imperfections is insufficient.
Now, that something only a self-identified asshole would say.
I keep hearing over and over again about how communities are better than individuals, multilateralism is better than unilateralism, open source is better than proprietary, or whatever, and then I see entities like wikipedia which epitomize the "mob mentality" where the most involved are contemplating suicide.
Somewhere Rey is camping in a little hut where she doesn't need to be told by a cackle of editors how to spend her time or whether her life is important.
Look guys, if you want to avoid the road to suicide (and by suicide I include the majority of people on slashdot who are searching for technology as another way to check out from life) you're going to have to do something radical. Like Jesus Christ radical.
The world and its desires are passing away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. 1 John 2:17
It doesn't seem like this person crumbled at the first mean thing said to them, it's more like an on-going series of incidents over a long period of time. Most normal people are like that - generally stable and able to cope with what life throws at them, but if put under sustained pressure will eventually crack.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What of the emotionally strong with a sense of self-worth who figure that they can go contribute somewhere not populated with self-important assholes who never grew out of the terrible twos?
Save the GTFOs for the assholes.
I self identify as an asshole but would rather not be one, and am fine with being modded down when I'm actually an asshole..
We're terrible people at Slashdot. We should be better. Good moderation would help. Perhaps adding a (-1, Personal attack) to the list of negative mods might work.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yeah, you never get assaulted in real life, that only happens on the internet.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Well, I wanted to self-identify as a dick, but I couldn't. With both hands and a road map.
"...some people think it is because of Political Correctness is taking over. It isn't it is because we as a culture are trying to flatten the class structure."
We've been flattening class structure since the 1600s and has nothing to do with Trump's popularity. PC is fairly new and it *IS* causing huge unnecessary problems and conflict. By labeling nearly EVERYTHING racist or sexist to silence your opposition there can be no middle-ground or compromise. I believe it's impossible to govern a republic based on democratic principles for very long without compromise -- you end up with sometimes more than 50% of the population against the establishment. .
Trump is popular because he's talking about things both the Ds and the Rs wont talk about -- like illegal immigration for instance. PC crap and 'micro aggressions" are just really starting to piss people off. I swear its right out of George Orwell how we're changing language to change perception. "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice"? That's so crazy minor compared to a young black woman calling out a young white man with dreadlocks for stealing her culture -- or taking "felon" and "criminal" out of our lexicon in favor of "persons who have been involved in the justice system" or "individuals who have been incarcerated". I'm not making that up!
When the press and the establishment both refuse to use the term "illegal immigrant" and refer to those who have a PROBLEM with unregulated and vetted migration across our sovereign borders as "anti - immigrant" (rather than anti-ILLEGAL-immigration) it's appalling.
You can only shut down the opposition so much via tactics like this for so long before something fractures. There's no more ability to compromise and "meet in the middle". You are right that people feel less empowered -- but not just white people (how long until we want to call ourselves 'melanin lacking individuals'?) And it's because our system broke. Things that should require a constitutional amendment are being forced on a country not fully ready for it by judicial fiat. That takes sovereignty out of the hands of the individual.
It's no wonder why Trump is so popular. It's also no wonder why he's so hated.
*I'm not a Trump supporter. He strikes me as a psychopath the way he attacks and loves in almost the same sentence. That doesn't mean I can't see the appeal to FINALLY have someone speak honestly and blow off PC dribble and talk about topics that are basically quasi-taboo to the establishment of both parties.
"When you have the choice to be an asshole or a reasonable person, why be an asshole?"
When I'm talking to someone and I want to be understood I speak the common tongue (English in my case). If I want to speak to someone who doesn't speak english maybe I switch to THEIR tongue so I can be understood.
When someone *IS* unreasonable and *IS* an asshole sometimes they only UNDERSTAND the language of 'asshole'.
Seriously, do it already.
While I wouldn't encourage anyone's suicide, it would be Wikipedia deletion mania taken to it's logical extreme.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sure, everyone gets pissed at the Wikipedia community from time to time.
The answer lies on the following line of options:
1) Pick a less contentious set of articles to edit...politics is toxic either with or without Wikipedians. .... ...
2) Take a "Wiki-break" - simply leave the site for a month and do something else.
3) Delete your Wikipedia account - treat Wikipedia as a read-only medium.
4) Boycott Wikipedia altogether.
5) Disconnect the Internet to your house.
27) Go live on a far distant island where the word "Internet" is unknown.
999) Kill yourself.
Personally, I'd want to get up through at least the first couple of options before jumping to the last one.
www.sjbaker.org
The problem with Wikipedia - as I see it - is that it is no longer an open space for collecting whatever-quality information from the general public; and it cannot, ever, reach anywhere near the new goal it has set for itself, which is a hig-quality, peer-reviewed site with accurate and/or balanced content. Basically, they shot themselves in the foot by reaching (way) too high.
Anyone with any sense knows that counting on Wikipedia for fundamental accuracy is, and has always been, hugely hit-and-miss. As it stands now, some pages by their very nature settle out at one extreme or another; one I am familiar with is the page on Atheism, which begins with one accurate sentence, and then wanders off into absolute theist-oriented nonsense before the paragraph is done. The page has a history of being locked to change, while presenting incredibly distorted views of the subject matter. It can't stay accurate, even if it were to be edited to be so at any one point in time, because atheists understand atheism to be one thing, and theists understand it to be another, and never the twain shall meet. When the editors freeze it, though, then it ends up in whatever extreme it was last edited in and... we have an echo chamber.
Some pages are reasonably accurate, typically those that engender little or no controversy. Others are like the atheism page, pretty much tripe that you'd have to say "oh, no way" if you wanted to provide someone an accurate reference to the matter therein. Knowing which is which requires someone expert on the subject matter before they even arrive; and that makes the pages into an echo chamber at best, and completely misleading at worst.
I have no objection to a net resource that is not accurate (that pretty much describes the whole Internet universe, in my opinion) but I am uncomfortable with a resource that claims accuracy, but can't actually reach that goal, and worse, as in this example, actually promotes nonsense. It's too reminiscent of Fox News "entertainment" take on reporting for me.
They have other severe problems. Put up an image you took, and they will very likely take it down. They're absolutely insane about attribution and so on; I used to try to provide high-quality, relevant source images in the areas I am qualified to do so, but the static level from "editors" never sank below a deafening roar, and my images were as likely to be deleted as not. I have better things to do with my time than try to fight those kinds of battles, especially as there's no winning against such opponents.
Someday, it is my hope that someone will start a wikipedia-like site (the code is available, though the cost of a site like this is high) and keep their eye on the ball: collecting information from the people at large, without claiming any particular level of ultimate accuracy that is impossible to actually achieve. An information free-for-all is one thing; a kingdom ruled by a small cadre of anally retentive assholes is entirely another.
Copyright law and that lowest class of human beings, lawyers (and legislators, but really, I repeat myself), aren't helping either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wait a second, let's clarify some things.
Written online interaction has limited scope - participants NEED to establish this framework before even participating to said interaction.
The framework is: the conversation revolves around the conversation subject only, and is limited in scope to the information conveyed within the conversation.
Assuming participant A and participant B are discussing:
A: Cows never fart.
B: You're an idiot, cows do fart.
Participant B saying A is an idiot means that participant A's statement was idiotic and participant A indeed is an idiot strictly related to the statement within the conversation. It does NOT mean participant A is an idiot, generally or medically speaking. Furthermore, there is nothing personal about participant's B reply. Anyone has a derp moment, here participant A experienced such a moment and was called out for it. I see nothing wrong in that... ...unless participant A doesn't understand the framework. Well, that can't be resolved but by participant A only.
Your alternative ("I think that your response seems very irrational, because it ignores all of these obvious things...") reeks of political correctness and fear of (god forbid!) offending someone else, not from a personal perspective but from a general acceptance perspective. It is generally accepted that such a reply isn't offensive, whereas in fact the other participant could very easily be offended by being called out irrational or whatever. What your alternative is doing is covering own's ass in relation to an idealized general audience (society). I think this approach weakens a discussion to the point where an argument between two or more people becomes a ridiculous dance which carefully avoids any sort of perceived offense - this goal superseding the actual discussion topic.
I've seen this before. People avoiding to call out a particularly retarded participant and playing his game towards complete destruction of the discussion. "Let's politely listen to the idiot until he's done" never works as an approach.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
So explain all the groupthink on tech sites like Slashdot. It's arguably worse here (and other similar sites) than other places on the net.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
> (Upon seeing the email, Motherboard immediately contacted local law enforcement, who are responding to the situation. We are not naming the person who made the post, but we believe the story is notable because of its public nature and the fact that nearly the entirety of the editor’s letter centered on the toxicity of the Wikimedia community, a topic that is increasingly a part of the overall Wikipedia conversation.) > Update: The person who posted the letter has been contacted by local law enforcement and says he is feeling better. I see this as over the top.
My wife is involved in a number of Facebook communities, and some of the other members can get pretty mean sometimes. They’ll belittle you for remarks they disagree with, or whatever. Sometimes it gets a little upsetting. So what she does is temporarily deactivate her account and stop participating for a while. When she’s over it, she reactivates and continues on.
Reminds me of the difference between goth and emo:
Emo: Life sucks. I wish I was dead.
Goth: Life sucks. I wish you were dead.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I doubt that you're actually familiar with the principles upon which the US was founded; if you were, you probably wouldn't be touting them. You can review them here. Warning: there are a lot of references to God and Religion. The Founders were also strong supporters of property rights. As far as unregulated migration is concerned, I believe the applicable principle is, "A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men." You know, like the laws against unregulated migration.
You are right, that civility is not a sufficient condition for fair discourse: it is only a necessary condition.
I disagree with you, so I will censor your opinion. No, we don't each get our own section for conflicting views, I delete your text, and substitute my own.
/. does.
Oh, wait. That's not what
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
It seems that you hear "you're an idiot" differently than I do. If someone says to me, "You're an idiot", I hear a nasty insult. I pretty much stop listing to the content at that point, and conclude that the other person is nasty and that I can't have an intelligent discussion with them. It sounds like when you say, "You're an idiot", you don't mean it that way. But given that many people are like me and will hear it as an insult, why say that? And it adds nothing: it is too non-specific to address anything useful in the discussion. It is far more useful to just say what you disagree with, which guarantees that no one will hear it as an attack. That is not being politically correct: it does not prevent you from disagreeing with any of the points being discussed. Remember that in an online forum, you don't know the other people personally, and you don't know how they will react, so it just makes common sense to be polite - not to be PC, but to merely be polite.
You know what, I just realized the root cause: cultural difference. :)
I'm Romanian, here you really need to work on people to offend them. Also, I've been taught to not to lose track of the idea/topic being discussed, much like in that movie (forgot the title) where you have to perform basketball throws and your opponent can only throw you off with words (insults included). I'd be very good at that game
So yeah, in my culture if someone's an idiot (in a particular discussion) you tell them that. They'll not be happy about it, that's for sure, but it's expected from them to realize the scope is narrowed down to that discussion rather than their whole life. Being overly polite will gain you the title of "pussy". We're more primitive around here heh heh.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
No, you just get modded to a -1, which doesn't delete your text, but it hides it from everyone.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
This hasn't proven to be the case online at all - several major sites have tried setting higher standards of behavior by enforcing real name policies or Facebook logins along with stricter Terms of Service. All it has done is A) lower the number of comments overall B) make the trolls (and I admit to dipping my finger into that pond now and then) more creative and vicious, leading to an increase in the results of point A).
Even here on Slashdot where meta-moderation works reasonably well, we end up with obvious troll/Poe comments highly upvoted because obviously someone thinks it is amusing (for various reasons).
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
That's not why I think Trump is popular, I think it is because people are worried about there lively hoods, they are suffering, they see few future job prospects for them and their children, and they are looking for someone to blame. Immigrants, Muslims, China are a good scapegoats that Trump is offering. He is not the first person to do that.
Instead of looking at the real problem of endless, needless consumption of crap, massive income inequality due to rent seeking. Basically decades of consuming more than they produce, they want to blame people who are on a fraction of there income, who are just trying to make their lives better, just like them.
What needs to be addressed are the source problems, but in order to do that you need to fix the political system that lets the companies run the country, there is no way hell that they will allow any law that even slightly reduces there ability to make a profit. What you want to encourage people not to buy the latest gadget or car every couple of years, that's just UN-American.
Regulating migration is against the principles upon which the US was founded, and against freedom.
The US, from the very beginning, has long made the determination of who, when, and how people are let into the country.
It's a poorly disguised form of racism in which people try desperately to find justification for why people who seem like them are more worthy to some area of land than others. The very idea that immigration can be illegal is ridiculous. It's like complaining about people making illegal speech or illegal assembly.
tl;dr go fuck yourself.
Absolute rubbish.
However, if they are oversensitive all the time, they retard the interactions of others with their drama. At some point it's better to let them find a way to build a hugbox that doesn't derail the point of the organization.
Interesting. Yes, I am in the US and US folks ("Americans") are pretty sensitive I think. I have noticed that I often get offended when chatting with a fellow who I know who lives in the Netherlands - I have been told that they are more like your culture. Oriental cultures are even more sensitive than US culture. Good point. Of course, it also depends on the situation. When I was in grad school, my friends and I would greet each other such as "Joe you XXXhole", etc., and we would all laugh. But we knew each other well, so it was different ;-)
Yeah, I guess each online community is going to migrate toward a standard that is preferred by that community. One thing I won't do though is "pile on" or add to the nastiness.
It's like complaining about people making illegal speech or illegal assembly.
Interesting, since it's the PC crowd pushing concepts like 'hate speech' and 'cultural appropriation' into the common lexicon. Racism? You mean like assuming someone is oppressed/is an oppressor because of race? Again, that's the policy of the PC crowd.
Immigration is one thing. Unchecked borders are something else. If you can't/won't defend your borders, you don't have a country.
Wouldn't a normal person realize that this is online, and that they can just walk away? It's not like this is your physical neighbors doing this, where it really would be reasonably difficult to solve the problem. Find something else to do online.
This sounds like someone who wants more attention than what they're getting.
false dilemma, since 'asshole' and 'reasonable' are subjective depending on the rationality of the person making the judgement.
Seriously. It's on the internet so it will never be what you want it to be. I can't speak for anyone but myself here but I'm at my most "sane"where anything online is concerned when I don't give a shit about it. Internet things are simultaneously incredibly important and completely worthless. The idea is usually important but as soon as you involve human beings in your holy quest to make a free encyclopedia or a free operating system or anything else you could do online for the betterment of well, "everyone" you bring in some life-crushing assholes who disagree with you. Note, you may very well be someone else's version of a life-crushing asshole. You probably are. You have to be able to walk away from it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Illegal immigrants should not be working in the country in the first place. If they're being mistreated the best thing to do is send them home.
Dear Wikipedia Editor, If it wasn't wikipedia, I'm sure you would find something else to get gloopy about to the point where you want to end your life. Step away step away.. alter your reality and destroy your illusions..
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
You aren't wrong.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I like to avoid confrontration and have a tendency to reject group think... Confrontation is bad in my view, it never leads anywhere and the winner of the argument is whoever is the best bully. At some point it's better to give up rather than argue with idiots; they're never going to be swayed by any argument so why waste the energy trying.
If some shit I'm doing makes me want to kill myself, I stop doing that shit. Especially if I'm doing it for free. Gotta wonder what kind of person would consider killing themselves versus just leaving with a giant "Fuck you, assclowns" note on the way out.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Extremists on any side like to define language to suit their purposes. Ie, right-to-life versus pro-choice, both of those are terms designed to make their side seem more moral than the other side. "Pro" sound positive, "anti" sounds negative, so people like to use positive sounding terms.
As far as microaggressions and all, it's just typical college age nonsense. Children leave home with heightened idealism, a new sense of independence, and a desire to create a persona for themselves, then it gets the better of them; and this is not just PC correctness because the same thing occurs for conservative students as well.
When a reasonable person goes up against a reasonable person, a solution may be worked out.
When an asshole goes up against an asshole, a solution may be hammered out.
When a reasonable person goes up against an asshole, the asshole wins. Worse, the reasonable person will find himself without support, because all the other "reasonable people" -- even if they agree with him -- will tell him it's not worth the conflict, to pick his battles or to not die on this hill or whatever metaphor they prefer.
Thus, when dealing with assholes, be an asshole. And if you're a reasonable person on the sidelines of a reasonable person/asshole fight, for crying out loud resist the urge to play Neville Chamberlain.
"The founders" were a small minority of residents in the colonies. A very large fraction of people came here trying to get out of debt, who were convicts sentenced to be laborers, and indentured servants. The founders were fond of property rights because they came from the upper classes. Also remember that the American revolution was not initially supported by the majority of residents. I would not place any special wisdom or divine provenance in the founders.
Of course there are many many residents in the west descended from Mexican citizens from before the US took the land, and they've been told "go back home" by ignorant morons. Everyone in the US except for native Americans descended from immigrants (technically that's true for native Americans too if you go back far enough). The colonists were also unwelcome immigrants who showed up without permission.
Because you can't make it anywhere in politics by being a reasonable person.
I would not place any special wisdom or divine provenance in the founders.
That, of course, is your right, as guaranteed by the Constitution put in place by those not especially wise folks. Aside from that, I wasn't the person who invoked the Founders; I was just pointing out that the poster's invocation of "founding principles" was likely misplaced.
As to the economic well-being of the average Colonist, you might want to look at this, which says in part, "The gross national product (GNP) of British North America multiplied some 25 times between 1650 and 1770, and scholars estimate that American colonists may have enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world by the time of the Revolution."
Participant B saying A is an idiot means that participant A's statement was idiotic and participant A indeed is an idiot strictly related to the statement within the conversation.
Whoa, hold on, that's not how the average person interprets such a statement! Usually that's interpreted as "You are generally an idiot, because only a particularly stupid person says something as dumb and as at odds with reality."
In the last 15 years, we have seen the death of habeas corpus, the death of the Fourth Amendment, and the death of the Sixth Amendment (and of course the bastardization of the 2nd Amendment). Recently, there have been assaults to the 1st Amendment... and your post appears to be on the wrong side of that battle.
The Admin and the Engineer
For them, it's only harassment if they're the "victim".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
OP is correct! I edited the article with a citation and within 9 minutes it was rejected by a journalism student named Alex McCann from Ohio University. I wonder if his professors know he is engaging in censorship on Wikipedia. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
EOF
He should seek professional help to work through things. However, the whole "a bunch of people online behaving like children makes me want to kill myself" is just blaming others for one's own problems and seems like attention seeking.
The online world is like drunk people. Some drunks are mean, some are nice. You get to know the real person if they have had a few drinks, honest, crook, lecherous, moral. Same for how people behave when they have some power online and can ban folks they disagree with. They are online drunks.
Citation Needed
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
The real problem comes in when you give the assholes free reign. Unfortunately they're not likely to be eliminated in all contexts but they can be placed at arm's length.
Since assholes stuck at the terrible-twos don't tend to produch much other than stress and resentment, organizations that don't control the problem tend to fail while their employees fling feces at each other.
Obligatory Penny Arcade comic: John Gabriel's Internet ******* Theory
... like unplugging his internet access and living in the real world instead of online.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Over-protected children tend to think that nothing and no-one can harm them. So they think they are invulnerable, and free to harm others without risk. And they think the internet is anonymous, which of course it is not.
So they embark on journeys of destruction, until something catches up with them. With luck, they survive it. But they never are the same again...
P.S., Please don't feed the trolls.
Outside is overrated though. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
... I'm Romanian, here you really need to work on people to offend them. ...
Does no one, where you live, carry guns?
There is an old saying, "An armed society is a polite society." Sometimes it seems to be true, but maybe not always. The U.S. started as an armed society, although many have become a bit complacent about it. Some states still have laws on the books about "fighting words" and stuff.
About two hundred years ago, my several-times-great grandfather killed a man on main street in Charleston, South Carolina. For snapping his fingers in my grandfather's face (which at that time was a serious insult). And it was ruled by the court to be justifiable homicide.
P.S., keep in mind that the internet is not really anonymous...
This isn't sensitivity -- it's someone who sounds depressed, which is often a failure to properly frame a problem (though it can also be a difficulty emotionally handling a properly framed problem). Going outside quite literally expands your horizons, but really any change can be beneficial. Additionally, the author may want to seek help, whether it's self-help or professional. Depression is not a joke, and the OP's advice is solid, even if the delivery may have been flippant. Besides, nobody said he should never come back, just get some perspective first.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Fortunately for us, we do have proper gun control, thank the $Deity.
That means you can't carry a gun unless you're a police officer, soldier on mission or you had previously completed a shitload of paperwork, went through very close scrutiny and have a very, VERY good justification for asking for a gun permit.
Hunters do have a license for hunting guns but they are not allowed to carry guns with them unless they go hunting, and when they do go hunting, they're not allowed to have their guns loaded unless they're on the hunting ground proper.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The average person has a rather sad IQ level - to boot with. I guess the statement "you are an idiot" would generally apply to them anyway :)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Fortunately for us, we do have proper gun control, thank the $Deity. ...
Perhaps that is why the habit, of being casually rude, has developed there.
Be aware that some of the people that you are talking to might be armed. In some countries, legally. In other countries, perhaps not legally. Be cautious. ;-)
Some people are more sensitive than others. Telling all of those to GTFO will lead in a lot of resources wasted. Because, believe you me, the power hungry assholes usually aren't the great contributors to society they want you to think they are.
As an example I was having some difficulty with some Linux software installs I was doing, and in the group I was involved with, there was one of these agressive assholes - one of the lucky people who were born knowing everything. I kept reporting the issues to the group, and it was like a freaking yelowjacket stinging after every post. I was an idiot, I didn't know anything about Linux, I didn't know how to compile and install programs. All just completely un-needed and false noise. Finally he even got the guy that wrote the software to join in the "Ol Olsoc doesn't know what he's doing" jeremiad.
As it turned out, it was an issue in Ubuntu Mate and after finding out about it, they fixed it. When I reported back my success, and with one problem the software eally did have during the configure - it asked for a portaudio file, I installed that and it worked - the guy fires right back that I shouldn't have done that, because he likes PulseAudio and more of how stupid I am - My last post was that if it's my mistake when the config asks me to install something, I do it, and it works, the world has gone crazy.
Contemplate suicide? Hell no. Just be as valuable as you can be at all times, so that if you do bow out due to assholes, its a double hit. Your lack of presence is felt, and now the assholes take over, feeling they won, and thus encouraged to go after more productive people. I used to contribute regularly to the group wiki, and helped out the noobs, who are usually pilloried by the assholes. And if the owner can't keep the assholes in line? - his software suffers.
Be excellent to each other, but if you can't, make certain you are missed.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's true power hungry assholes are generally not good contributors, but neither are people who crumble because someone said something mean on the Internet. Emotional weakness leads to a tendency to avoid confrontation and so a tendency to follow what the group think.
Define crumble. Is allowing a group to suffer because assholes have taken over, crumbling? I've left a few groups in my wake when it bacame obvious that the tragedy of the commons had taken over, and the assholes were in complete power, and further participation was pointless unless I wanted to be one of the assholes. When the wings have been blown off the plane, you can either bail, or try to start it flying again. Option one tends to work best.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's not why I think Trump is popular, I think it is because people are worried about there lively hoods, they are suffering, they see few future job prospects for them and their children, and they are looking for someone to blame.
Wait until they find out he isn't who they think he is. Oh yeah, gonna be a fun convention.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Frankly, both of the people could be defined as emotionally weak. Many people act out and mistreat others because of their own weaknesses which are often brought on by past experience with being abused verbally and/or physically.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
What of the emotionally strong with a sense of self-worth who figure that they can go contribute somewhere not populated with self-important assholes who never grew out of the terrible twos?
Save the GTFOs for the assholes.
I've been involved in some groups where the assholes took over completely. At that point I had to determine if there was a point in fighting them. In a few cases, I stuck around and fought and won. In more cases, there wasn't any point, because I could have fought for the rest of my life, and still lost.
That had the double effect of allowing the assholes to take their group to it's inevitable failure, and allowed me to contribute on a professional level, and not merely deal with personality conflicts, in a new and productive group.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Here's a hint for you about "migration" and illegal immigration. If someone from the US were to enter Mexico illegally and try to work, they would be locked up in prison for a number of years, and upon being released, forced to walk back over the border. Why is it that you think the US should have to allow people to break our LAWS, and enter this country illegally, but Mexico, and Canada don't have to play by the same rules? If the US is not allowed to maintain the integrity of our borders, than why even have countries anymore, we should just all be one giant world government. I nominate the US to be in charge of the rest of the world.
Oh, and another hint, Mexico WANTS the wall, and are willing to pay for some of it. They feel it will reduce the drug running that is destroying the northern part of their country. Who are you to tell Mexico that they can't improve their internal security because you are afraid it might be racist?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So explain all the groupthink on tech sites like Slashdot. It's arguably worse here (and other similar sites) than other places on the net.
How? I've been modded down both ways, and up both ways. it seems to be just a matter of luck. But even so, if you want to post the ever stupid "I fscked your mother" asshattery, or homophobic haiku, it just gets modded down - it doesn't disappear. If you can't abide by the rules of a place that allows every post - you need to take a chill. And if every post is modded down, just consider that you might be having a few social issues in the first place.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, you just get modded to a -1, which doesn't delete your text, but it hides it from everyone.
Do you actually know how slashdot works? From your post, it is not at all clear that you do.
Tell of how simply getting a -1 automatically hides your post from everyone.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
When someone thinks of killing himself, I believe the word "crumble" is appropriate. Don't you think?
I'm curious... Do you think I should start to learn Mandarin, Russian or Arabic? Because if we don't stop right now this folly of always catering to the weak, the West will fall.
You need to get out of the country, man. You have a pretty skewed perception of the outside world.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Not really, the problem is that people used to actually smack both sets of idiot idealistic brats around until they got over the 'typical college age nonsense.' You didn't have it getting carried on and encouraged as long as you had the correct set of sociopolitical views.
When someone thinks of killing himself, I believe the word "crumble" is appropriate. Don't you think?
I'm curious... Do you think I should start to learn Mandarin, Russian or Arabic? Because if we don't stop right now this folly of always catering to the weak, the West will fall.
When someone is overly sensitive, I think of you. Why the over the top reaction?
My point, in the most delicate way to put it, is that to mean people, a not mean person who decides that it isn't worth it to stick around and be mean in their dealings - migh be considered crumbling. By the mean people.
This Wikipedia editor who is contemplating suicide has much deeper issues than the mean people that are being mean to him.
While I was raising a rhetorical question, perhaps to further discussion - you took it as a personal insult. Most abject apologies, I'll make certain to try not to do that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
LOL! Just to put things in context, I spend a lot of time arguing with feminists and social justice warriors. I can assure you I get insulted a lot, and it's far worse than "when someone is overly sensitive, I think of you".
LOL! Just to put things in context, I spend a lot of time arguing with feminists and social justice warriors. I can assure you I get insulted a lot, and it's far worse than "when someone is overly sensitive, I think of you".
Your reaction to my apologizing to you is merely proving you are oversensitive.
Okay. Be that way. I don't give a fuck if you argue with feminists or SJW's Most of those people are just as big of assholes, as those they argue with two sides of the same coin. And overly sensitive. Have a nice day, and good day sir.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I don't know why, I'm now thinking of the Energizer bunny... ;)
He said 'then' humans.. so they should both be wasted, humans last for some reason.
;)
Perhaps so.
But perhaps it is the other way around?
Imagine a place where everyone is carefully polite. Where if you need help, many people will help and are trained as volunteer firemen and paramedics and some carry guns, where people don't always lock their cars or even their houses. Where if you pull your car off of the highway, some times the person behind you will also pull off to see if you need help.
Of course the whole U.S. is not like that, the big cities where there is crowding and they banned guns are much more dangerous. But small rural towns can be like where I live. Very quiet. 8-)
You've just exemplified my point about reasonable people on the sidelines.