User:Willscrlt/WikiHumanity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
Hello. I am a Wikipedian. That means that I am one of the people who form The Wikipedia Community. I am something else, too. I am a human. Sadly, The Wikipedia Community often treats Wikipedians just as coldly and without emotion as the article on humans does.
Contents |
[edit] The challenges
Wikipedia faces a number of conflicting challenges. Two of the largest challenges can be summarized as efficiency versus empathy.
Wikipedia attracts large numbers of users, from all countries, all walks of life, and all technical skill levels. Many, at the English Wikipedia, have a fairly solid grasp on the English language, but there are many others for which English is a challenge (and translation software is a critical tool). There are people who have been actively involved in sophisticated chat or message forums for years, who find something unique in Wikipedia that was missing in their earlier efforts. There are people who know a lot about some topics, but very little about how to use a computer or properly write an article. There are others who are retired executives, professors, or scientists who look upon Wikipedia as a terrific place to help spread some of their hard-earned knowledge and wisdom.
All of these people have one thing in common: when they start contributing to Wikipedia, they will face enormous amounts of frustration, criticism, and even actions that come across as insulting or offensive.
It is usually not a conscious decision, act of aggression, or deliberate slight that face these users, termed newbies in standard Internet parlance. It is usually unintentional and entirely impersonal. It is some act, undertaken by an administrator, a more experienced Wikipedian, or sometimes another well-meaning newbie that starts the process. Then, under the flag of efficiency and policy enforcement, many other users join in in a feeding frenzy that devours much of the good will these newbies held.
It is as much the natural order at Wikipedia as it is for a pack of hungry wild animals to attack weaker prey. The prey is not always killed, but the prey usually becomes scarred in the process. Eventually, the prey might join the attackers, and begin attacking new prey. It is rare that anyone in the pack objects, since those in the pack share the scars from their own early battles.
To put it succinctly, The Wikipedia Community devours much of the good will newbies bring to Wikipedia in the name of efficiency and policy enforcement.
[edit] Administrators
According to the Wikipedia statistics page, as of January 5, 2007, out of the 3.2 million registered members, there are only a little over 1000 administrators, 0.03%, or three out of every 10,000 members. That number is roughly equal to the percent of all United States high school senior boys playing interscholastic basketball who eventually are drafted by an NBA team.[1] It is a very, very small percentage.
Wikipedians are told, from "early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else." Most administrators seem to hold true to that statement in their hearts, though there are occasional exceptions.
It is not the exceptions that concerns this author. It is the vast experience and specialist knowledge, which most administrators share, that acts as a highly effective buffer between newbies and successful editors. Many administrators fall into the mental trap that "this situation is just the same as that other situation", and thus can quickly and efficiently deal with the matter. In part, it is human nature, since our minds work better at establishing correlations and comparisons to things, so that we only have to remember how something differs from the standard.
[edit] Experienced Wikipedians
Administrators are certainly not the only group that suffers this condition. In sheer numbers, experienced Wikipedians, the ones who proudly bear their battle scars, are a far larger group than the administrators. In general, they are also subject to less scrutiny than administrators, and are more likely to overtly attack newbies.
Experienced Wikipedians, like administrators, carry a very powerful weapon that can harm the good will of newbies: expert knowledge. Often the knowledge is not about a topic, but about the twists and turns of Wikipedia's policies.
In many cases, these weapons are used without even considering or being aware that they may hurt a newbie, possibly in a permanent manner.
[edit] Good faith
We are told, and some practically chant it as a mantra, that we must assume good faith on the part of other users: "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." It means that most newbies, and most Wikipedians in general, attempt to do good and improve Wikipedia rather than harm it. Any harmful actions are nearly always innocently brought about.
There are several efficient methods of dealing with such harmful actions. These vary from simple reverts, to article, category, template, or miscellaneous deletion policies, and blocks. These methods move at a reasonably slow pace in Wiki-time, usually several days to a little over a week.
Some methods flout their efficiency, such as speedy deletion, which wastes far less Wiki-time than the drawn out discussion methods mentioned above. There are even some that fall in between, lasting a few days.
Administrators and experienced Wikipedians often maintain extensive watch lists, check actions and messages several times daily. Some even proudly claim that they sit, staring at their monitors waiting for someone who does something wrong so they can fix it. Efficient, indeed.
What is so easy for administrators and experienced Wikipedians to forget, is that each situation where a newbie faces one of those methods is a unique, possibly frightening experience, and almost certainly frustrating experience. This is true for any action undertaken by any other Wikipedian against anything the newbie contributed.
Since few newbies have acclimated to the relatively fast pace of Wiki-time (especially compared to the static pace of most traditional websites, let alone hardcopy encyclopedias) by the time they run afoul of a policy or guideline, by the time they return to continue their efforts, their work may have been wiped out.
If the timer on the action has not run out, the user is thrust into the middle of a highly intimidating and policy ridden tribunal (no matter how civilly it is conducted, it still feels similar to stepping into a court room as a defendant -- naked). The newbie usually has very little, if any, experience in debate, and probably no experience in Wiki proceedings.
If the newbie is brave enough to voice an opinion, the answer is nearly always the same. A cryptic set of letters (maybe 75% of the time helpfully hyperlinked to the policy in question) that supposedly explain what the newbie did wrong. The newbie might be given conflicting advice: to boldly edit and improve the Wikipedia, and also that all the edits made in such a manner are substandard (and there are so many standards for a nitpicker to choose from) and therefore worthless.
If the newbie attempts to explain, the newbie is politely patted on the head, is told that there were better ways that he or she should have done things (often without giving concrete examples of the same), and is wished better luck next time. A short time later, because the policies are carved in bureaucraticite (a very firm and unyielding type of fictitious stone, presumed to exist in great quantities in governments and other institutions), the newbie sadly watches as his or her efforts are impersonally blasted into the ether with the push of an administrator's button.
Assume good faith is supposed to flow both ways, but if you are the newbie, it's awfully difficult to assume that what just happened is anything but personal, and it feels like a whole lot of bad faith just got dumped on you.
[edit] Consequences
I imagine that for a lot of newbies, such an action is their final memory of Wikipedia. It certainly will not be the last time they discuss Wikipedia, however. They will share the painful experience with their friends, maybe with influential people who pass along a distorted version of the events. No matter, the story builds plenty of bad faith for Wikipedia over the long term.
Some Wikipedians are made of tougher stuff (or maybe they are just plain stubborn or maybe they enjoy abuse), and they try again. At this point, good faith might no longer be present in their actions. They may react and even retaliate. This bad faith, which often ends in blocks or other administrative actions, sours the more experienced users, who do not understand why a user would act in such a manner. Wikipedia is, after all, an efficient utopia -- with the exception of rogue editors like the former newbie turned wrong.
Fortunately, most of the "tougher" newbies who stick it out, evolve into experienced Wikipedians. Some even progress to the honored rank of administrator. Regardless, they have been taught (the hard way) how Wikipedia works, and they begin the process of passing that information on to new generations of newbies. It is pointless to think of extending much empathy to newbies at this point, because the experiences have taught this Wikipedian the value of an efficient, consensus building Wikipedian Community.
[edit] Missing empathy
What has been forgotten in this entire exchange is that the newbie is just that, a newbie. Newbies, coming from diverse backgrounds, may not even recognize the newbie-ness of themselves. Experienced Internet users generally assume that things work much the same as they do elsewhere on the Internet. They may even have edited other wikis, since the software is spreading so rapidly, but never encountered one with such a sharp learning curve or firmly entrenched bureaucracy.
Many experienced Wikipedians and administrators likely do not see Wikipedia in that light. In fact, some may even vehemently deny that such a situation exists. Well, as a very experienced Internet user, an anonymous Wikipedia reader for a few years, and recently an active editor (who has accidentally run afoul of one policy and then another, but fortunately not repeating the mistakes) this author can confirm that such a situation truly does exist.
Fortunately, there are some outstanding administrators and some helpful experienced Wikipedians with good empathic skills, that sense frustration in newbies, and provide the helping hand and calm voice of reason when frustration levels are at a high point the newbie has rarely, if ever, experienced before.
That simple act of reaching out, of stepping outside the bureaucracy for a moment, and engaging at a personal level, that makes all the difference. Sadly, far too few people do it. Sadly, efficiency appears to far outweigh empathy on the scales of Wikipedia process.
[edit] Thoughts on fixing things
Efficiency experts will likely argue that any of the following suggestions would harm Wikipedia by increasing acts of vandalism, creating a backlog of work, and allowing cruft to accumulate within Wikipedia for one Wiki-second longer than it needs to.
Bah-humbug.
If Wikipedia were to work on helping all newbies become better newbies editors, and if newbie editors were to stick around longer at Wikipedia, there would be a lot more experienced Wikipedians around to help with all the chores, and fewer disgruntled former newbies wreaking havoc on Wikipedia.
Which institution is generally held in higher regard and earns greater loyalty? One that is sanitized, stark, modern, impersonal, and serious? Or is it the one that is clean enough to be healthy, messy enough to avoid constant worry, warm enough to be comfortable, and serious enough that things never get too far out of control? Certainly the latter describes the type of institution that a large number of people would prefer, yet Wikipedia's unwaivering adherence to policy is more likely to be found in the first situation.
One way to fix things a bit, is to look at the specifics of the situation, not the generalities. Don't ever automatically assume that this case is the same as any other case, even if some of the same parties are involved.
If the case involves a newbie (either self-admitted, as evidenced by edit histories, or through performing actions common of newbies) cut the newbie some slack. Except in the most egregious of situations, finding a newbie is at the center of the discussion (either the creator of the problem or someone that stepped innocently into the middle of an existing mess) should extend an automatic limited stay of execution for the material in question. One or more mentors (admins or other Wikipedians) should help the newbie understand the issue, help him or her fix the problem (if possible), or come to terms with (maybe even bringing the newbie around so that he or she endorses) the action. Once things have been settled, one way or the other, there will either no longer be a need for the action, or the action may proceed as usual, but without baffling or alienating the newbie in the process.
There are several levels of newbie-ism at Wikipedia. Every time someone first tries to implement a feature, one runs the risk of running afoul of some previously unknown policy or procedure. Even some fairly experienced administrators occasionally find themselves in this situation. Wikipedia is a complex environment, so there are always new things to learn and new ways to make mistakes.
So, if an experienced Wikipedian, even an administrator, discovers that he or she has made a mistake and the results end up in a discussion for action, the Wikipedian can admit his or her ignorance and accept mentoring from other Wikipedians experienced in the matter to resolve it in a constructive manner. Theoretically one should learn after the first mistake, and the stay of action should not be repeated, but if a long time has passed, policies have changed, or new methods have been implemented since Wikipedian last fell afoul in a related mater, leniency would be preferable to help the person improve as an editor.
Real-time versus Wiki-time is another situation that is difficult for long-time Wikipedians to understand. Experienced Wikipedians settle into routines, where they check for messages and actions at regular times. OFten once per day is not often enough, especially as watchlists grow. An administrator who only checked things once a day would probably be checked to see if he or she still had a pulse in that case. Newbies, and even experienced Wikipedians, often maintain a very active life outside of Wikipedia. For newbies that have never received a message before, the concept of checking for messages is unknown. The first few messages are novelties. Regardless, Wikipedia is something to be checked occasionally at best. Therefore, a week since the last sign of activity is not a long time to wait for a response in real-time. Perhaps the user only has access to an Internet connection once each week, or maybe the person only thinks about it when a certain television or radio program airs. While many decisions cannot wait indefinitely for a response from a newbie, a full week of real time (which probably feels like a month of Wiki-time for average Wikipedians, and a Wiki-year for some Wikipedians interested in efficiency) is probably the minimum time that should be extended to newbies to engage in any actions.
"How do I talk?" is another question many newbies face. Obviously, if they have run afoul of some policy, they have probably figured out how to edit something. But it is not a safe assumption that the person knows how to participate in discussions, vote, or otherwise actively engage in a conversation on Wikipedia. While Talk pages are second nature for established Wikipedians, newbies can rarely tell the difference. Mainspace, userspace, and all the other various spaces are a baffling convention that makes little sense at first. The newbie may face an additional level of frustration if he or she is fairly experienced in Internet communications. E-mail and instant messaging may seem the far more intelligent and preferable way to communicate. "Talking" on a public page that anyone can edit is a very uncomfortable and unsettling notion for many people. All this initial apprehension can be overcome with a patient, non-demeaning, and non-demanding manner. A little basic training, and soon the newbie can communicate efficiently. At that stage, a little education on the specific polices that were crossed, and constructive suggestions for avoiding the problem in the future will benefit. Guiding the willing newbie through the correction process helps the user gain some confidence, and also helps the newbie assume responsibility for his or her mistakes.
Anywhere along the way, a newbie might not be willing to do as the mentors suggest. It would be unwise to assume bad faith. There are many reasons the newbie may reject such useful advice. It could be a personality conflict between the newbie and the mentor. A retired college professor newbie being mentored by a high school aged Wikipedian with only modest English skills may not be a good match for effective mentoring. The newbie may continue to feel that he or she has done nothing wrong, and that the other users are just acting stupid. It might be a far more emotional situation, especially if the newbie is closely associated with a given topic. And some newbies just do not seem to accept that they need any help.
If communication appears to be the main stumbling block, an additional mentor may step in at the request of the other, and see if the communication with the newbie can be improved. If not, then the stay of action is suspended, and the procedure may move forward as usual. The newbie will hopefully realize that Wikipedia is not a heartless place, but even if he or she does not, the attempt was made.
Over time, this will build a much more empowered and positive Wikipedia Community. One that coaches rather than debates, one that guides rather than prods, and one that weighs empathy roughly on the level with efficiency.
[edit] Final points
- Try never to say, "fix it yourself," "do better next time," or that "a standardized system makes far more sense than inventing a new one." If the user could fix it without help, he or she probably would have; instead offer to help the user fix it together. Doing it better next time is a slap in the face, and generally impossible to accomplish without proper guidance; offer concrete examples to help the person see how to do it the right way next time. If the newbie had been aware of the standardized system in the first place, he or she would have been unlikely to go through the effort of creating a new system; help the user learn about the various existing ways that could be used, but also listen to the newbie's ideas, because fresh ideas are sometimes very good ideas.
- Always remember that a real person exists on the other end of every comment. In many cases, the person is uncomfortable, or even downright scared, to speak up. Always be supportive, encouraging, and use as little jargon as possible. If you must use abbreviated policy names, be certain to hyperlink them every time you use them. Newbies may not decide to click until the second or third time they encounter the phrase.
- Do not assume English is the primary language of the person. Poor grammar may indicate that automated translation has been used. In such cases, especially ensure that you do not use jargon or slang and keep abbreviations to a minimum.
- Do not insult the user, directly or indirectly. Remain civil, and always assume good faith, not because it is policy written in stone, but because it is the right thing to do when interacting with another human being.
- Wikipedia is inhabited both by words and by humans. The words do not care how they are treated, but the humans reading them always will.
Wikipedia's ultimate success is dependent upon remembering to keep the humanity as rich and wonderful as the words within its articles. That is the WikiHumanity that is often ignored in the pursuit of efficiency. And doing so, could be Wikipedia's ultimate downfall.
[edit] Original author
The original author of this essay was Willscrlt. It was his 1,453rd edit to the English Wikipedia after one and one-half months of becoming a very active member. Prior to writing this essay, Will sweated and suffered through several articles for deletion (AfD) on topics he had edited, had participated in AFDs on other topics, learned (the hard way) that certain templates should only be used on Talk pages, created several new articles and categories (some of which were under categories for deletion (CFD) discussion when this article was written), and several other events that reduced a fairly confident, long-time Internet user to the highly uncomfortable feeling of being a newbie again. More than that, he had seen several other people be practically ignored, who were obviously in need of a little human compassion and mentoring. Instead, policies were imposed, and well-meaning individuals sought out ways to remain effective, while others began to actively work to confound them in their efforts because the efforts were becoming less and less acceptable. Rarely would anyone make overtures to help these people, but often any offers came too late, because the person had become soured to The Wikipedia Community, and an adversarial relationship had developed. By writing this essay, Will hopes that newbies will gain some hope, and experienced Wikipedians will regain some empathy in their dealings with newbies. WikiHumanity is a word Will coined to express his hope that Wikipedia never forgets the humanity crucial for its success. Will fully expects that over time other editors will edit and improve this essay, though hopefully never in a way that is unbalanced or encourages either empathy or efficiency over the other. Will believes that a proper balance between the two is the best way to proceed. Will is uncomfortable referring to himself in the third-person. :-) Will hopes that this one paragraph is left unaltered by other editors.
[edit] References
- ^ NBA statistics. National Basketball Association. Retrieved January 5, 2007.
