- The only reason I still edit enwiki at all is because of my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project, and the work that we are able to do. --Rschen7754 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's the knowledge equivalent of crack. Go deeper my friend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two responses. One not asked for: I readily appreciate your efforts on the "smidgen less" and do not think you have failed, at all, it is in fact a smidgen why I am still here. 2) Off-wiki, read something, explore it, and write content about it on wiki -- it is a gift to yourself and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- In times of trouble, Magic Word NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS comes to me.
- Speaking words of wisdom: 130,303
- -- that's how many folks who made an edit in the last 30 -- and only a tiny portion end up on the dramaboards. By signing up for admin and oversight you've skewed your sample to see Worst-a-pedia, not Wikipedia. Many folks volunteer for free to contribute to the best general body of knowledge ever assembled in the history of human civilization. That's pretty awesome, that's what keeps me going. That and I'll go off-wiki for months if I need to. NE Ent 01:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I edit because Wikipedia is the main source of information for so many people, and I love that I'm improving it. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is the best thing on the internet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just ran an edit-a-thon at a local library here in Chicago and not only was it productive, but it was great to be able to meet and interact both with editors that I'm familiar with and ones who I've never seen before. When I think of retaining editors, and generally having a good time volunteering with Wikipedia, I think events like these are a good approach and will go a long way to keeping attitudes about Wikipedia overall positive in spite of frustrations. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kittens have the hereditary right and trait of being good and here in Wikipedia kittens are found aplenty, so they are one of the goods [pun intended]. You'll get one of those in a minute, you're lucky I never got one of those. Admins like you are good who left me a polite note when I needed one, I mean when I was new. What would new kids on-the-block do without good actions like those? I hope after brainstorming for an hour I have been able to come up with something to make you feel good and or remind that there is still something left in Wikipedia to rejoice over. Oh oh wait there are more! I am here, nah thats self-flattery [I am probably the first one do it ;)].
Who I am trying to kid? For me in the last couple of months, I have been accused of gaming the system by none-other than my mentor, I have been subject to retaliation, I have not been able to write single GA untill now, I edit bollywood articles [Indian films] which though get million views a year will turn wikipedia slowly but surely into a bollywood-info-paedia 10-15 years later. Look at me Fluffernut, not for inspiration but for the fact even after being buried under several layers of glum each and every day I rise, draw a smile on my face and keep on editing with a hope even though there is none. Where does that hope comes from? My imagination. I suggest you use yours too you'll feel a lot better. Sohambanerjee1998 10:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fluff, I couldn't agree more. I've written about 60 fair sized articles and get criticised for not doing more, but I've run out of ideas and at the end of the day, I believe we should be left to write about the things we know about and are interested in. Being expected to write articles for the sake of wrting artcles defeats the purpose of voluntary collaboration. Nowadays, apart from watching over WP:WPSCH and cleaning up and expanding school articles for lazy creators, all I do is meta and admin stuff. Even there, I'm sick and tired of the constant bickering about admins and the tarring of them all with the same brush. While admins are expected to lead by example, some people hold them to ridiculously high standards and no matter what an active, front-line admin says or does, they are going to take flak for it. I've been on the verge twice this year of seriously considering handing my tools in, but the day I do that will be the day I abandon Wikipedia for good - and I will miss going to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Fluff. Don't hang out at your talk page often, so sorry about the tardiness of this note. The thing I've always found about Wikipedia is that it does split pretty nicely in two - the useful and the not useful. The "not useful", everything to do with the administration of the site, needs constant managing to ensure that the useful is done. That might mean things like arbitration cases over petty arguments, or admins stepping in to stop people acting horribly to each other. It takes a toll on those who do it, especially when you can see how life could just much simpler and no one will listen.
The positive is out there though. Get out of the administration of the site and suddenly there's a world of Wikipedia, you can see the gratitude and the difference actually being made. I'm talking about places like the Teahouse, or the article review processes, or even the reference desks. People in Wikiprojects can be so grateful if you actually write articles. Socially, go to a meet up or two! The real people behind Wikipedia are the ones that make it for me, I've met dozens over the years and it's a whole lot harder to be angry when you meet them. I'll give you an example, I met User:Rich Farmbrough towards the beginning of the year, he appeared at a meet up, just after my first arbitration action - I expected retribution, an earbashing of immense proportions. Instead, I found a personable chap who was friendly and didn't appear to hold ill-will towards me. I've met a number of other banned users and found the same. I've met people who were trying to spam wikipedia, yet they were just people. Get yourself to meetups, you'll soon find what people love about Wikipedia. And if you ever fancy a chat, you know where to find me. WormTT(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, since you asked, I'm just a lurker 99.99% of the time, but wikipedia is in my top 5 websites that I visit on a regular basis. I barely participate in the community, and usually feel like I'm not good enough or smart enough to contribute more than the occasional revert vandalism. Sometimes I'm just here for the "drama", but more than that, I'm here to learn. I learn about the subjects of the articles, but I also learn a lot about HOW the articles come to be...the wiki policies challenge me to be aware of my own assumptions and biases, and when things are working well, the discussions demonstrate just why we've been so successful as a social species: we can, with work, overcome our differences for a great good. I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into this project and I wish it weren't such a frustrating endeavour, but then...if it weren't difficult, anyone could do it, right?Quietmarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I write articles, in one fairly narrow topic area, at a snail-like pace. I'm fortunate to have such a quiet WikiProject to work in, but I'm well aware of the bitterness that's out there. I've had one nasty spat, and I read far more of the goings-on in the "central" areas of WP than I ever comment about (that's how I wander onto pages like this, where I've never been). Writing about my chosen subject is my purpose. It's not easy; I have to absorb huge quantities of information from the sources, mull them over and let them all percolate through my mind, then try to integrate them with the next wave of sources. Yesterday I discovered that the sources that discuss my current project are so numerous that there are volumes of bibliographies just dedicated to cataloguing and analyzing them all. I yelled about how overwhelmed I felt. But then I looked back at the sources I had, and pieces started to fall into place and I started writing based on them. When that happens—when I can look at a subject and see how the disparate pieces of a subject fit together and how to make the article reflect the insight—that, for me, is what Wikipedia is for.
- And it is still possible for us knowledge gluttons to cooperate. My current project ranges out of the usual topic area (ancient Egyptian religion) and into another, so I've recently talked to a couple of editors from the neighboring field (religion in ancient Rome). My one long conversation with them was amiable and kind of amusing. The Greece and Rome project in general seems to have that sense of camaraderie, if this is any indication. I'm sure they're not alone. There are still friendly people on Wikipedia, and if you can avoid the shouting, the joy of knowledge is still out there, too. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've only just spotted this, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm pretty much inactive these days, largely because I've been ground down in many of the ways you suggest -- and being an admin tends to get you the worst from the worst. Sadly, there's a surprisingly large number of people on the internet who are happy to treat you as if you're the bad one in Pol Pot's family - when they're hiding behind their keyboards. And in some ways it's understandable. As a species we've evolved to understand and respond to body language and all sorts of visual clues in our interactions with each other, and when stripped of those we often tend to be more aggressive in our interactions. (Think about it yourself, and see if you can honestly say you've never treated anyone in this online medium more harshly than you would face-to-face - I certainly fail that test.)
So what are the good things that make it worthwhile? Well, I've been mostly logged out of late, and I come across Wikipedia when I'm Googling to find out things - and it's surprised me to be reminded just how much I (and millions of others) use Wikipedia every day of the week. And you know what? It's bloody good! And *we* did that! You, me, and the countless others who've actually worked at it. And every time I find something I was looking for, learn something new, get information I need for my day job, or just enjoy a pleasurable bit of reading - I silently thank you for it (well, all the individual yous who've donated their own valuable time with no thought of personal gain, but you're one of them).
So ignore those whose lives are so empty they have nothing more productive to do than denigrate the efforts and achievements of others. (Did you see what I did there? I was far more insulting to anonymous people than I would be face to face!) And instead think of the millions who benefit from this project every minute of every day - you're doing it for them, not for the very small minority of whingers and whiners. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)