User:Demi/Turf considered harmful
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From time to time, a Wikipedian will put stakes in the ground, outlining their "turf." This is counterproductive, as it creates an "us" vs. "them" attitude that excludes new editors, and sometimes, genuine improvement. This notion of turf can be expressed in terms of individual articles, or the wiki as a whole.
Contents |
[edit] Article ownership
When considering articles other than "their own," most Wikipedians agree that article ownership is not a good idea. Article owners sit on "their" articles, challenging any change and (if not behaving in an outright disruptive manner) don't work to incorporate the contributions of others. Many times, they will argue endlessly on the talk page about any changes in content or tone.
[edit] The perimeter
More damaging, perhaps, are those that view Wikipedia as "under attack" and adopt a bunker mentality where the "outside world" is full of trolls, vandals, POV warriors, and, for all I know, charlatans and lawyers.
[edit] RC patrol
Spending a lot of time on RC patrol can reinforce this attitude greatly. It generates a false sense of urgency (it's more important that responses to bad edits, including vandalism, be measured rather than quick) and the same kind of desperate blasting you usually have to play Missile Command for.
[edit] AfD
Most of the articles in WP:AFD end up being deleted, and users who frequent it might leave with an impression that everything being added is complete nonsense.
[edit] Projects
The same kind of attitude can apply to projects and subject areas. New editors can be discouraged and new ideas rejected because "all the usual editors" have already agreed on an approach--sometimes counter to what the community as a whole would prefer. Wikiprojects need to watch that their "internal rules" and approaches don't become calcified.
[edit] The result
Between these and other similar areas, some users begin to actively fight any and all additions, assuming first that it's vandalism and biting the newbies who make honest mistakes. The assumption of good faith disappears, and people who could become good contributors end up leaving.
This hurts the growth of the project, a trend that could hurt the long term health of Wikipedia.
