Isn't everyone an editor on Wikipedia? By definition, you need to be an editor in order to leave comments. Who other than editors would leave toxic comments?
They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work.
Their work is immediately reverted by an editor.
A few hours later the editor adds their work back, but under their own name.
> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor.
My 2 day wikipedia career in a nutshell, I guess I'm not alone.
That's the whole concept of a wiki: you edit an article like everyone else, you change everyone else's changes as you please, and it converges to a stable point by a consensus-based process. If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute.
That's supposed to the be process, yes, but the editors who've deemed themselves the chosen ones generally just skip right to the reverting.
If your expectation is to write stuff that only you can change, write a blog.
I'm not sure you got the point.
The whole point is that in Wikipedia everyone is an editor.
Even unregistered users are editors, which mean those who didn't even bothered to login.
In Wikipedia everyone is an editor. I mean, that's the whole concept, isn't it? That's what it was designed to do: allow everyone to edit a doc. Everyone is an editor. Do you see what I mean?
Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Oh, well, we're trying to build some inter-related foundation of knowledge via categories and references, text and images. So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense.
It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam, "Well, it's email! It's designed so anyone can send anyone else with an email address a message, that's the point."
I'm not sure you go the point. If someone's complain is that others can also edit wikipedia articles, they are complaining about the fundamental nature and purpose of a wiki. Don't you understand how fundamentally flawed is the concept of conplaining that others just like you can also edit wikipedia? Those damned editors.
> Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it?
Yes, others can edit it, including your own changes. That is the whole concept of a wiki. Whining that others also edited a wiki shows a fundamental failure to understand what a wiki is and how it's designed and expected to work.
> So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense.
No. Anyone can edit it as they see fit. The whole concept of a wiki is a consensus-based process that concurrent changes converge to a stable point accepted by the community. Expecting that your edit should be set in stone while you reserve your right to edit other people's work is simply absurd.
That's why it's important to clarify what an editor really is (not a figure of authority, but a guy just like you) and why it's absurd to be offended and feel entitled to edit over everyone's work but not have your own contributions edited. That's not what a wiki is, nor is it why the concept is a huge success.
> It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam (...)
That's an amusing remark, because to me you're actually arguing in favor and in defense of spammers, as they are the ones complaining that their abusive misuse of a system should not be prevented, criticised or fought by the community.
The wiki is for something. That something is to build an interrelated foundation of references and facts. That anyone can edit is merely a means to get there. The misuse of editing at least-worst, impedes creating that hyperlinked mass of information.
And no, you have the spammer thing backward, entirely. That anyone can send something to someone else is a merely a property of email. The point of email is communication that people want. And so the misuse of "sending a message to anybody" is that it can get in the way of communication people do want.
Nobody said any of it should be "set in stone," good grief. We're a month past November 5th, let's put the strawman away. Engage with some of the examples provided by people of bad actors for some good faith discussion.
No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor.
> Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work.
This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits.
Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars.
> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor.
In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety.
I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.
>User is automatically added to the group when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection.
Are you talking about Semaphor or about the original article's authors?
The accusation isn't directed at users with specific role-oriented permissions. The accusation is directed at editors. Everyone in wikipedia is an editor. Even users who haven't logged in, or have an account at all. It's a nonsense claim, particularly when we take into account that the whole concept of a wiki is that everyone in the world is an editor.
There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia, and then there are people who do it all the time and participate in the wider culture/community/bureaucracy of Wikipedia.
I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles.
I'm not. I'm pointing out the absurdity of complaining that in Wikipedia you have editors editing.
> There are people who rarely make edits on Wikipedia (...)
It really doesn't matter. Wikipedia allows them to edit anything as they please, even if they choose not to.
Again, the whole point of a wiki is that everyone is an editor. The very definition of a wiki is that "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content."
I stress "allowing any user to add and edit content."
Any user.
Do you see what I mean?
> I believe the original comment was talking about people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles.
Again, the original comment makes no sense because everyone is an editor. You cannot add a contribution without editing it. You cannot revert a change without editing it. Any operation on an article represents an edit. Anyone can edit articles on wikipedia. Everyone is an editor, even those without user accounts. Don't you understand that the original comment makes no sense, knowing what a wiki is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
Adding to this, the original comment tries to refer to "Editor" as if it's somekind of authority figure which is somehow victimizing him for editing content they added. Yet, isn't that the whole concept of a wiki, that anyone is free to edit anything they see fit? Do you understand the absurdity of that comment?
> In this paper, we analyze all 57 million comments made on user talk pages of 8.5 million editors across the six most active language editions of Wikipedia
I know that wikipedia supports granting special rights to some editors. I have those. That's why I'm stating that an editor does not have special rights, because everyone is an editor.
And by the way, in general Wikipedia's "special rights" granted to non-administrator user accounts aren't that special. They unlock some UI features like bulk editing to fight vandalism, move pages, mark edits as minor, etc. See for yourself, and compare the difference between the permissions granted to Administrator accounts, everyone in the world (all users, registered accounts), and other groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#T...
Claiming that an editor posted a toxic comment has the same weight as claiming that a random passerby shouted at you in the street.
And I already edited the original comment, explaining that I misunderstood.
No, it really doesn't. Anyone can revert any edit, even if you haven't registered an account and/or you aren't logged in.
The only thing that the reversion permission capability grants you is access to a button in the UI.
Also, all you need to do to be granted access to that permission is a) have an account, b) ask for the permission, b) not have an abuse-riddled contribution history.
Also, anyone who is knowledgeable enough to edit a talk page most likely has edited regular articles in the past as well.
Your second point is a great one.
It's not semantics. Accusing Wikipedia editors of doing something in an attempt at portraying Wikipedia in a negative light has the same meaning as blaming wikipedia for accepting changes from everyone in the world who stumbles upon a page.
By definition, an editor is anyone who edits anything at all on Wikipedia. In wikipedia, you don't even need to be logged in to edit articles or leave comments.
I think the article is using "editor" in a broad way meaning all users with accounts. I think we are arguing semantics in a way the article isn't. From the article:
>A user’s talk page is a place where other editors can communicate with the user either on more personal topics or to extend their discussion from an article talk page.