Wikipedia:Types of Wikipedia Users
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any research or serious use (unless the research is about Wikipedia itself). |
[edit] Types of Wikipedia Users
WikiGnomes are users who do thankless menial tasks such as fixing disambiguation links, sorting stubs, reverting vandalism, and other simple edits that could probably be automated by a cleverly programmed bot. It is only their supernaturally high edit counts that keep the enclyopedia from falling into an unorganized abyss.
WikiLawyers exist to debate or alter policy, often going on single-minded crusades to delete articles unworthy of this, the most noble of all encyclopedias. WikiLawyers take pleasure in molding Wikipedia into the type of encyclopedia they want it to be, by defending or deleting content, working to change policy, or taking a stand against what they see as a rising tide of user-inspired chaos, or even bureaucratic bloat.
WikiNoobs enter into the Golden Gates of WikiDom out of the untameable swampy morass of the internets, all doe-eyed and in awe of our marvelous giant bag of trivia. They show up, add some articles or content on their favorite obscure fancruft topic, then run away while their work is mirrored on sites all over the world.
WikiCrusaders wage an all out assault on certain articles or topics to push their point of view over the top until the whole online world is forced to accept it as truth. Curiously, they don't believe they have any sort of POV, but everyone else does, and needs to be clearly tagged as such. They recognize Wikipedia as humanity's last battleground for fighting for the truth of such forgotten concepts as astrology, communism, or theism. If they can win here, they can win anywhere.
WikiHotShots are the three hundred and eighty one people who actually write the articles that the rest of us read and occasionally edit. They do research (Google) on topics, try to write articles that have actual sources for information rather than quoting Wikipedia itself, and they tirelessly work to make one article that's worth reading every day. Without them, this would just be a giant editable message board with the world's most elaborate structure of rules. Thanks to them, we're well on our way to replacing all the major religious works of the last several thousand years as humanity's most fervently adhered to source for truth.
