[WikiEN-l] [Ticket#: 115103-FW] Just wondering

Tue Mar 22 17:59:10 UTC 2005

Geoff Burling wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, David Gerard wrote:
>  
>
>>Geoff Burling wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>What is Lir's current status, out of curiousity? (I don't pay attention to
>>>this editor's actions at all, so I'm not sure if Lir is banned, rehabilitated,
>>>      
>>>
>>>or quietly making useful & valued contributions.) And if this is isn't one
>>>of Lir's identities, why would this user bother behaving in a manner that
>>>is at best annoying, & at worst self-destructively disfunctional?
>>>      
>>>
>>Currently banned for a year. Keeps coming back, acting like Lir, getting
>>noticed and resetting the ban.
>>    
>>
>That was meant as a rhetorical question -- mostly. Although I have to wonder
>why someone who wants to be annoying would adopt one of the least effective
>tactics that has been attempted, refuted, & is well-known to those who know.
>And if one does *not* want to be annoying & taken seriously, why not avoid
>behaving like a known nuisence.
>
It can probably be summarized in one word - "maturity" ... or lack thereof.

>Then David Gerard wrote later that same day:
>  
>
>>I'm currently trying to flesh out my 'addiction' model of
>>pathological behaviour on Wikipedia. You can see this in
>>editors who are hardworking, but seem to love Wikipedia
>>*just a little too much* and possibly in ways nature didn't
>>really intend. And when they get banned, they go fucking
>>batshit with junkie rage at being cut off from their fix,
>>c.f. Wik and the vandalbot.
>>    
>>
>
>Now consider that there are a fair number of folks on Wikipedia for
>whom this is a major part of their life -- it is that important for
>them. (And before anyone assumes I am being snarky or insulting here,
>I consider myself one of them.) Their role at Wikipedia helps give
>their life some meaning; it's the reason that they get out of bed in
>the morning.
>
>Some people take this identification very seriously, & treat their
>relationship to Wikipedia seriously, hoping to leave something better
>after their efforts. Vandalism is dealt with. Typos get fixed. They
>take the time to introduce Wikipedia to potential users & contributors.
>And some of us try to add content.
>
For some the recognition and ownership of their efforts is important.  
I've remarked how on some user pages there is a very long list of the 
articles on which they have worked.  They are often dilligent about 
keeping it up to date.  When they stop keeping it up the list it's a 
good sign that they have begun learning to submerge their ego.

Most of us can't be bothered to go through somebody else's list unless 
we are trying to track down POV warrioring.

>FWIW, if I were kicked off Wikipedia for some reason, it wouldn't be
>the end of my world. I wouldn't be happy being unable to make contributions
>to Wikipedia, but I would find something else to fill the loss.
>
For some of us that reality doesn't even get close.  We know that there 
is probably some room for edit wars and personal comments, but we don't 
carried away with it.  Even more importantly, we know when to stop and 
take time to listen to others.

Ec