User:Stevie fae Scotland/Is Wikipedia worth it?

Is Wikipedia worth it? A question that every Wikipedia editor will have a different answer for. Some will, without hesitation, defend the site and may even question why someone would even ask such a question. For others, it's a far more difficult proposition. Whether it's unnecessary bureaucracy or difficult discussions or disruptive editors, sometimes an editor is left doubting their well-valued contributions to the encyclopedia.

Like many things in life, there are pros and cons to participation in the massive collaborative effort that is Wikipedia.

The Puppy Paradox

An editor who thinks Wikipedia is worth it may find themselves in the Puppy Paradox.

A young pup has much to learn and every moment is an opportunity to be taught something new, often without even knowing it. When puppies play, they use their mouths. Whether it be a toy, their siblings or your finger, each nip is them testing the world around them. They seek to find out what they can and can't do. When you yelp in pain because they've nipped a little too hard, they have learned that biting someone in their "pack", someone they have affection for, will cause them pain. That is not something they want to do. You come out of it with a sore finger but the puppy learns an important life lesson. That is the Puppy Paradox, that getting your finger bitten is actually a good thing.

Even experienced editors can have their fingers bitten. It's not always fun but, if lessons are learned and everyone takes the opportunity to grow, not only do you benefit but so does Wikipedia. This paradox implies that things can only get better. The reality isn't as simple.

Wikipedia isn't worth it

There are behavioural guidelines which outline how any editor should treat newcomers. Unfortunately, that doesn't always mean newcomers are treated in the way they should be. Some editors don't make it past the "newbie" phase as a result. Are their contributions any less valued? No. Unfortunately, however, they may never believe that. They leave under the assumption that Wikipedia is not worth it.

For more experienced editors, the story may be a little different. Although Wikipedia is one big collaborative effort, there are many communities of editors within. Sometimes this can result in ownership issues if an editor viewed as an interloper by one community makes changes they weren't expecting. Change is not always a good or a bad thing. Sometimes it has to happen, sometimes it does not.

You're told about the countless editorial policies and guidelines when you sign up and, over time you learn about them. You read some of them, the most relevant to your particular area of interest, and you alter your editing style to make it as helpful as possible. Now, almost no one knows every single policy so compliance across articles varies. It's at this point conflict can arise. You do something to improve Wikipedia, something that meets a specific policy, guideline or consensus. You're then reverted and told "that's not how we do things" or "there's nothing wrong with the way it was". There are several variations on that which have been used as justification for reverts even when the edit undoes something which was more in line with Wikipedia policy than what preceded it. Even just once, this negative experience can put editors off, particularly if any subsequent discussion doesn't go constructively.

There's no right answer

From one day to the next, an editor may change their mind about whether their contributions to Wikipedia are valued.