Wikipedia talk:Don't knit beside the guillotine

Consensus-based decision making encourages undesirable behaviour

At the root of the problem is that English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions requires a significant number of people to comment to establish consensus, even if they don't have new points to add to the discussion. Because of the importance of numbers, participants also have incentive to express themselves flamboyantly in a way that will attract more comments in agreement. These factors work against de-escalation.

In addition, using a large-scale community discussion format for conduct-related dispute resolution encourages bystanders to engage in discussion with each other and base long threads upon speculation, rather than wait for the parties in question to respond. This can lead to swamping the subjects of discussion with far too many threads asking for a response. As a result, those posing questions can become aggrieved when they do not receive a direct reply, further escalating the cycle. I understand why some support this format (including some of those who have had their behaviour examined), but it's not conducive to being efficient or non-confrontational. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. I think we both agree that it's very unlikely that en-wiki will ever abandon the concept of community consensus (insert joke about needing consensus to end the need for consensus). For what it's worth, I think that editors, as individuals, can push back against such things as assigning equal weight to every comment in a discussion, regardless of merit, expressing oneself flamboyantly, and getting off on tangents. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely in the intermediate term, but I think something going to have to change in the long term... (And I think it's somewhat more likely that a different approach for conduct-related dispute resolution might gain consensus support.) I don't agree with assigning every comment equal weight, though. That's just providing incentive for participants to flood discussions with as many comments as possible, whether or not they are adding new information. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In case I failed to make it clear, I also disagree with assigning equal weight – I was endorsing pushing back against it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I apologize; I think I read "as" to mean "by". I think the reverse occurs more frequently—editors ignore comments that don't align with their personal conclusions. I do think that some editors understandably want to limit the amount of time they spend examining a conflict, and so rapidly conclude that both sides have transgressed, thus the discussion should be closed and everyone move on. Some times that's true while other times it's not, but it can be hard to tell without investing a lot of draining effort. Moving on is de-escalating in the short term, but potentially enables future disputes to escalate faster due to more entrenched positions. It's a difficult balance to achieve. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Good luck

...but I don't think you'll stop the mob culture we currently have in our discourse. Props to you for trying. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Gender

I came to this essay after reading Joe Roe's comment at AN saying it's "excellent". I agree - its advice to editors is right on target, and it's extremely well written. So I hesitate to mention a concern I have with the title and historical examples.

Both are gendered female, and this is peculiar. In most historical examples of the cruel extremes that a mob mentality can lead to - such as the lynchings in the American South, the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, and the witch hunts in Europe and America - virtually all the perpetrators were men.

The title is addressed to Wikipedia editors, between 80% and 90% of whom are male, and men usually don't knit. My impression is that there are very few women editors who pile on, take a combative tone, and create unnecessary drama at ANI and other noticeboards. Would it be possible to revise the title and historical examples so that they don't give the unintended impression that the editors who most need to read the essay are women? NightHeron (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's something that never crossed my mind, but I'm inclined to say no, I don't think so. No one thinks that the people involved in social media are mainly female, and no one thinks that Madame DeFarge is in any way representative of women as a whole. Men can knit, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: Given that this is simply an essay (not a policy or guideline), it would be fine if you would like to write an alternative essay, with a different gender treatment. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

An outsider perspective on the WP:ANI

I assume that this essay is about general user toxicity rather than just the WP:ANI, but I'll offer my thoughts on this venue. I'm still a relatively new editor when it comes to the project side of the 'pedia and have never commented on the AN/I, but I've taken a look at some of the archived discussions, and the impression I get is that that place has become a lot better than it was 10 years ago, for example, or even 5 years ago. Rarely does one see ban or block discussions where there is an extreme polarization between "Strongest Possible Support" and "Strongest Possible Oppose", for example, and pile-on behaviour (at least for me) appears to be less common. I'm not sure if this is because some of the most toxic users have gotten banned over time, or if people have in general learnt the lesson that AN/I is only for urgent and chronic behavioural problems, though.

I still can understand why those who have been dragged to AN/I may feel differently about the place, and I don't think the WP:CESSPIT should have its target changed. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Another thing that has changed for the better is that our best admins no longer ignore the elephants in the room of super-users hurling slurs, insults and invective at other users and getting away with it on the grounds of being "productive contributors". The existence of such a culture partly propagated the WP:KNIT mentality on ANI, when you had people piling on those contributors for what they saw as bright-line civility violations, and then other people piling on top of those people for allowing civil POV pushing. It's precisely why WP:RFC/U got eliminated. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think some of the unpleasantness of the ANI and to a lesser degree WP:AN is inevitable (it's human nature to want to escalate and engage in conflicts). But these places can be improved if there were more aggressive efforts at shutting down unproductive discussions where there is constant bickering between editors; applying WP:DENY more effectively to trolling and suspicious IP complaints; people didn't rush to outright site bans, even for very disruptive editors; among other approaches.

Of course, I'm only making suggestions, and concrete change will only occur at the WP:VP. Yet, I recall seeing somewhere on the noticeboards a user rejoice at participating on a proposal for a warning, rather than a ban. A warning!

Regards, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed additions

It would be educational and informative to read about how different types of contagions contribute to the behavior under discussion. This could include a brief discussion about social contagion, emotional contagion, peer contagion, behavioral contagion, and memory conformity, as only a sample. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you see specific ways these things might be manifested at Wikipedia? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I would have to give more thought to it, so I will sleep on your question. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Flawed

I think this essay, and certainly the recent citations of it that I've seen from its author, fall into the same trap as the accusation of virtue signalling does, in that one is observing a behaviour and at the same time declaring the person guilty of a unworthy motivation. But in both cases one cannot reliably do this. It ends up as a kind of general personal attack against people who vote differently to oneself at AN/I, just as virtue signalling has become a personal attack by conservatives towards anything someone perceived to be a liberal might do or say.

That isn't to say that some people might be "knitting beside the guillotine" just as others might be "virtue signalling", but in all cases, the act of accusing people (even pre-emptively) of doing this is simply uncivil and unfair. Unfair because one cannot demonstrate one's motives are pure in any way that might convince the accuser, and because the fact that one's votes align with a group (or "mob" as this essay derogatorily calls it) is not the fault of any one individual.

The very nature of determining consensus on Wikipedia involves a significant number of people declaring they all agree about something. Unlike other areas of life, such as at work where one's boss has authority or in a crowd where a police officer has authority, it isn't typically enough for one person to declare something. While it might be personally hurtful for one to see a wiki friend being brought down by the mob, that is to how a crowd contributed project with no hierarchy will do it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting and insightful points, but I find this essay to be one of the best in its class, not just from my own experience but also because I have become acquainted with the author over the years and feel that I understand his own motivations and reasons for writing the essay at a more personal level. I think you’re also either avoiding or ignoring the fundamental problem. Although Wikipedia doesn’t use the karma system of moderation and voting like slashdot, Reddit, and Hacker News, the problems of the "mob" remain the same albeit in different ways, as Tryptofish outlines in this essay. Analogously, Reddit is famous for being able to see this kind of bias emerge in real time; it is extremely common for a content matter expert to be downvoted to oblivion for responding with the correct answer, while the wrong answer written by a troll is upvoted to the top. This happens because the majority of Redditors are influenced not by what they read or how they evaluate it, but by how other people vote. This is the social contagion hypothesis I refer to up above. This phenomenon is well known and proven throughout modern society, best seen in what has come to be known as the bandwagon fallacy. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, but this kind of consensus-driven moderation is not without its flaws. Tryptofish’s essay is attempting to illustrate some of these problems. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not acquainted with the other forums and their methods. I'm not disputing the behaviour exists and can be a problem. Just as people may well signal their virtue, though not perhaps as often as people are accused of it. And I'm not claiming that the crowd determines the "Truth" through popularity of opinion, but that is exactly how a forum like AN/I determines the action to be made, and nobody is proposing a different way.

But in recent days the author linked to this essay several times at AN/I. And my interpretation of doing so was to pre-emptively attack the inevitable mob that was about to (and did) community ban their friend, at a time when they were proposing a minor sanction. I think using this essay in that way is wrong for the same reason that, while the world is indeed full of dicks, calling someone that is unlikely to be constructive. If, for example, it became common to attack the majority group calling for sanctions, by citing this essay, I have no doubt this would at some future point occur when any one of us, including the author, is among the majority group calling for sanctions. Oh, but this time my heart is pure, one thinks, and the accusation is unfair. It seems to me therefore, that citing this essay about a person or a group, can only ever be problematic and perhaps tell us more about the person citing it than about the people it is being used to attack. For example, I see there is an essay Wikipedia:Don't be a WikiBigot which includes a warning not to cite it at anyone (or group). -- Colin°^Talk 15:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Having been absent a couple of days, I just caught up on reading that big AN/I discussion. It is far far worse than I thought, with just a few links to WP:DEFARGE. Turns out, the repeated accusation of "performative indignation" / "performative outrage" against one editor led to a humungus shitshow. I think nothing demonstrates better than that, that accusing anyone at AN/I of the behaviour in this essay is a monumentally bad idea. -- Colin°^Talk 16:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm don't think it's apt to discuss that one further here since Tryptofish is wanting to walk away from that interaction. I don't think the essay was really the issue there, but just a case where an editor can be prone to flail about when their behavior is an issue and they feel extremely passionate.

Stepping aside of that, maybe the better term to incorporate is "righteous indignation" since it's not always intentionally performative. It's still component of the mob mentality the essay addresses. KoA (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

AFAICS, "righteous indication" is a religious term. My point really is that the motive for one's anger or criticism (pure thoughts, righteous, or letting one's long-held grudge get the better, and so on) are things we shouldn't speculate or accuse each other of, especially not at AN/I. All these accusations do no good. Someone might well be demonstrating their grudge, or performatively outraging, say, but telling them that or telling the crowd that is an even more fantastically stupid thing to do that holding a grudge and letting it boil out at AN/I. -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of the whole origin of the term for when someone is so convinced their anger is righteous that it excuses poor behavior or puts the blinders on. It's a common propaganda technique too (the Crusades are a good historical example of that with the religion example). The whole point of the essay is avoiding issues that come with mob mentality and exploring things to be conscious of. If someone or a bunch of people are being disruptive at an admin board, it is best to identify it outright. Yup, some are going to make a fuss, but that's usually something disruptive editors are going to be doing regardless of the essay being cited or not. It's moreso for the other community members to help identify the issues, but there's always hope it may guide editors who have been disruptive off the brink even if the chances are often low. KoA (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief. For those who don't know, Colin does this at nearly every essay I write. I read his comments, and try to consider them seriously, and look to see if they tell me of anything I should do to improve the essay in question. But I think one of the best lessons of this essay is that it's best for me not to engage further. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record, here are the essays I have commented on over the last six months or so:

• Wikipedia talk:Don't bludgeon the process Written by Dennis Brown
• Wikipedia talk:Two times does not mean two times more Written by WhatamIdoing
• Wikipedia talk:Bring me a rock Written by WhatamIdoing
• Wikipedia talk:Two wrongs don't make a right Written by Tryptofish
• Wikipedia talk:Status quo stonewalling Written by Born2cycle

I have also commented on many policy, guideline and information pages and created two essays of my own (WP:UPPERCASE and WP:OUROWNWORDS. As for other essays by Tryptofish:

• Wikipedia:Don't be the Fun Police started by MjolnirPants with contributions by Tryptofish
• User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments (user space)
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions.

I haven't commented on any of those. You could say I'm interested in and have commented on editor behaviour essays. To suggest "Colin does this at nearly every essay [Tryptofish] write[s]" requires some inflation of the facts and ego as well as bad faith. This is a essay about Wikipedian behaviour that is in Wikipedia space. -- Colin°^Talk 12:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"If someone or a bunch of people are being disruptive at an admin board, it is best to identify it outright". Ah but there's two ways of doing that. There's the stupid way, where you assume their behaviour is motivated by something negative (like a grudge, or performative, or signalling, or trying to remove the other side's pawn from the board, etc) and tell them and others so in a clear loud voice on that drama board. And then there's the better way, where you concentrate on what they wrote or the volume or frequency or whatever, and comment on that. And it might be better to let them know on their user page or even by email rather than on a drama board. And generally, this only works if you are friendly with this person, or at least are respected by them. If not, no good will come of it, no matter how wonderful your advice or comments are.

I mean, letting people know why you think someone has written something, and stating or hinting that that reason is a negative one, is exactly what the post above this one did. It never goes anywhere good, and as I noted above, generally tells us more negative things about the accuser than the accused.

I think what follows "What can you do if you see this behavior in other editors?" needs revised. The "if you are alert to the list of underlying motivations, you will readily see them even where you didn't recognize them before. And it's often just a matter of speaking up" is terrible advice. Perhaps the essay should be solely focused on self-improvement, to spot such behaviour in oneself, rather than encouraging folk to psychoanalyse people they are in dispute with and accuse them of ill intent. At the very least, there should be a warning that if you think you spot this behaviour in people you are in dispute with, bite your tongue. You are not the one to make that call, as your judgement is clouded. -- Colin°^Talk 19:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, speaking only for myself, I find your advice helpful and informative. The part where you say "bite your tongue" is a really hard row to hoe. Some people are really good at communicating effectively when they find bad behavior, but most are not because our emotions get in the way. I'm working on it, so I take your advice to heart and somewhat agree with you, however, there are times where you have to make your voice heard, and we aren't going to agree on those times, because it's purely a matter of style and approach. Perhaps I'm a congenital optimist of sorts (which informs my perspective), as I believe that we all have the potential to use the right words, if we could only find them. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Lemmings

@Tryptofish: why would you revert me? This is a public essay, anyone is welcome to edit. You don't WP:OWN it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Because it was WP:POINTy, and not constructive. Saying that there are errors on the essay page and inviting readers to look for them was clearly not a good-faith edit, and you did it as an immediate response to my revert of you at User:Roxy the dog. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an essay, and pointing out that this essay is pushing a misconception is certainly constructive. I did not know that this page existed before you linked it at Roxy the dog... If you did not mean to draw community interest in this essay why link it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back there is a convention wrt essays in Wikipedia space. Although anyone can edit, generally the edits should be in line with and supportive of the essay's purpose or opinion. If you hold an opposing opinion or think some or all of it is misguided and wrong, then point that out on the talk page (e.g., what I did above). It may be that there is consensus for some of the more outrageous ideas or misconceptions get trimmed out or mellowed, for example. Or rarely that there is consensus for a section that notes flaws or limitations with the overall approach. I confess to not really understanding your edit, and if there are misconceptions within the body then please explain them here. Ultimately, you are welcome to create your own opposing essay, though I suspect this one is not notable enough to warrant that effort.

Tryptofish, I think it would be enough to say you did not think it was constructive. The rest, about WP:POINTy and "not good-faith" because of your perception of a link to an earlier revert are not helpful and, honestly, you've been here long enough I shouldn't have to point this sort of thing out. Don't psychoanalyse your fellow editors, especially those you are in dispute with. None of us are good at doing that (as I noted above) and all you have done on this page recently is prove my point that some of the advice in this essay is terrible. I don't know, maybe someone should write Wikipedia:Don't accuse anyone of knitting beside the guillotine as a general point about flinging accusations of bad-faith / bad-motivation in anger at people one is in conflict with. But maybe there's already some guidelines or essays covering that? -- Colin°^Talk 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that pushing fringe pseudoscience is the essay's purpose or opinion. It seems tangential. @Tryptofish: is fringe pushing the point of this essay? My take is that you don't intend to be pushing fringe, you just didn't know its fringe. Do I have that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

By "fringe pseudoscience" do you mean the lemmings myth? Because your edit claimed there were other "misconceptions" in the article. I don't think an image caption's comment about lemmings was (or remains) a problem and making a deal about it seems pedantic. -- Colin°^Talk 15:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My edit makes no such claim at all! Is that your opinion about all fringe content or just this particular fringe content? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so you asked readers "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" without believing there were any. And you have an odd definition of "fringe content". You know what, I don't care. -- Colin°^Talk 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It was meant to be humorous, reminiscent of the humorous sidepieces in my childhood textbooks. I thought it was less aggressive than simply removing it. That appear not to have been the case. "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." is the common definition of fringe in the context of wikipedia, the idea that lemmings commit mass suicide off cliffs or by drowning is one of those sea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I am wondering if I should have stuck with my "don't care any longer" but here goes. Horse Eye's Back, you are now telling me you posted something "humorous" but then decided to edit war to retain it (even if Tryptofish was wrong to use rollback) and repeatedly claimed here the "essay" was pushing a misconception. I read it from your use of the words "essay" rather than "caption" and your suggestion to the reader that they find "other misconceptions on this page" that you seriously thought there were misconceptions in the essay. It now seems that no, your only problem was the caption. Which, Horse Eye's Back, isn't "the essay"; it's "the caption".

And no, the lemmings/cliff myth is what we call a "myth" like the idea of storks delivering babies or folk science like the five-second rule or the belief that slapping someone with a wet fish has a long term behaviour modifying effect. The difference between the two is that a fringe theory is held by, wait for it, a fringe group, who believe in it in the face of all evidence and the knowledge that it isn't believed to be true by the mainstream. Whereas the only people who believe in lemmings suicide or storks delivering babies or that the five-second rule is actually scientifically sound are children or very naïve adults who nobody corrected, and everyone else is just having fun. Wikipedians continue to slap each other with wet fish despite the absence of randomised placebo controlled trials, never mind any meta analyses of such. The reference to lemmings here was just having fun with a myth, and any concern that it is an actual "fringe theory" or that Tryptofish is peddling mammalian misconceptions in his essay (vs an actual article in the actual encyclopaedia) is, em, pedantry at worse and frankly wasting all our time. Can we go do something else now. -- Colin°^Talk 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

How is the caption not part of the essay? The essay is the entire page, not the big bit of text down the middle. I agree that this isn't productive, overall your comments on Tryptofish's essay pages don't appear to be so either. Also note that reverting a rollback misuse is automatic, if they hadn't used rollback there would be no revert. I also don't think "myth" appropriate sums up the fake science about lemmings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Tryptofish took you to AN/I over this and was unaware other editors were tackling both of you there. It would have been nice if this section had some tag on it that the dispute has spilled over there. Honestly, HEB, I don't understand what you are doing. And no reverting a rollback misuse is not "automatic". You can choose to do something else instead. And I strongly recommend you do. -- Colin°^Talk 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever not reverted rollback misuse (also known as rollback abuse), what good editor doesn't? My apologies, I wasn't aware that you weren't aware of the ANI thread. I would have directed you there if I was aware of that. I haven't edited the page in 48 hours and my initial concern has been addressed. The only thing that is keeping me here is not wanting to be rude and leave you hanging. Perhaps that looks like I'm trying to have the last word? If so I apologize and will just leave this here unless there is something specific you still wish to discuss. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

List with dashes as item markers

Regarding this version: it's worse than the earlier version with respect to accessibility, as it nests a <dl> list inside a list item for a <ul> list, where the earlier version just has one <dl> list. There's nothing too wrong with the earlier version. If a change were to be made, it should be to make the dash a list item marker, with something like this:

<ul style="list-style-image: none; list-style-type:'– ';">
<li>item 1</li>
<li>item 2</li>
<li>item 3</li>
</ul>

Resulting output:

• item 1
• item 2
• item 3

As far as I know, though, it would require using HTML-based markup instead of wikitext, which some might find less convenient. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What a waste of time. I've rolled it back to what it was originally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Tryptofish: I am so sorry, I did not realize that my revision was worse for accessibility than before.

You've convinced me that it should stay like this. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 23:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's really no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)