Wikipedia:Professional opinion-havers

Pictured here, despite never having contributed more than 17 words to any article ever, an editor has compiled an 800 word dissection of their personal opinion regarding a dispute at WP:FAC that has escalated to WP:ARCA. Opposite, despite having spent several weeks painstakingly building the article in question, this user must surely greatly value the opinion of the editor whose watchlist consists entirely of project space.

Professional opinion-havers (collectively known as the peanut gallery) are Wikipedia "editors" who primarily express opinions rather than improving main space content in any meaningful way. Such editors typically thrive in temperate to hostile environments, and extract nutrients from their surroundings by feeding off the shreds of editors who have been torn apart in content disputes. Species tend to congregate in the highest-visibility biomes possible, and are frequently observed in areas such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:BN, and WP:ARC.

Some have speculated that professional opinion-havers may possess a natural aversion to mainspace, due to the fact that mainspace has comparatively poor acoustics, meaning editors can often not hear the sound of their own voice. This may be related to a form of echolocation, where professional opinion-havers emit inflammatory commentary into their surroundings, in the hope of locating a content dispute off of which they may feed. Evidence confirming this hypothesis is sparse, and mostly related to professional opinion-havers in captivity, while further research in natural environments is needed.

Philosophers examining the phenomenon of professional opinion-havers have posited that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, it must naturally be the encyclopedia anyone can express an opinion on, just as your cousin is surely helpful in repairing your car, given that they themselves have often seen cars drive by on the road, and just as your coworker is naturally quite adept at diagnosing your nasty rash, because they have often had the occasion to binge watch Grey's Anatomy. Theologians have historically been skeptical of professional opinion-havers, observing that opinions are like assholes, and everyone has one, while this has been countered by evidence from the medical community, documenting examples of anorectal malformations to demonstrate that, while all people do appear to have an opinion, some, in fact, do not have any asshole at all.

The most prominent theory regarding professional opinion-havers comes from ecologists, who have considered that if one regularly expresses an opinion that is sufficiently stupid, and does so in an environment where civility is a core principle, it is often impossible to correct said opinion in a way that is itself civil, and stupid opinions may linger indefinitely, because it takes less net effort from the community to ignore them rather than to correct them. This may lead to a type of feedback loop, where professional opinion-havers observe that their own opinions go uncorrected, and therefore must have been useful to the community in some way. Because opinions are much easier to construct than an encyclopedia, this may lead to a scenario where, despite not being bothered to do any actual "work", they will tend to express their opinion freely and frequently, because they feel that they are actually "helping".

If you encounter a professional opinion-haver in the wild, it is often best to keep a safe distance, despite the fact that this contributes to the fundamental cycle on which they feed. When confronted with the possibility that they have not, in fact, found a magical way in which they can "help" without doing any actual "work", professional opinion-havers tend to become quite hostile. It is often more effective to pat them on the head, and act as if you have read and carefully considered their opinion, despite seeing a wall of text attached to a username, and promptly fucked off to go do something productive instead.

Under no circumstances should you link a professional opinion-haver to an essay explaining professional opinion-havers in intricate satirical detail, as doing so will immediately lead to a discussion at WP:MFD, which will provide a nutrient-rich environment for them to freely and frequently express their opinion.