User talk:Vanished User 1004/WP-WP editor COI

How people see WP

As I work on Wikipedia, I listen to the comments of people in person, online in blogs, online in discussion groups, and online here on various WP talk and interaction pages.

I am stricken by the depth of disrespect Wikepedia has as an information source. People use it, many of them quite a lot... but they insult the quality of the articles. As I spend a good bit of effort on this wonderful resource, this "chaps my hide," and I tend to ask why.

Why don't they fix it?

I have spoken with personal and professional friends and acquaintances, and I have asked why they don't fix the problems.

These potential or previous editors say they:

• "just can't". If pressed, they will sometimes cite the conflict with other editors
• are not willing to be seen as criticizing other editors' knowledge by correcting it
• see the effort involved in citing sources as a real problem
• have inadequate grammar or general writing skills
• are not willing to face conflict with other editors

Why don't *WE* fix it?

What I find most telling is that people are unwilling to edit articles where there is opposition by other editors.

The editors who are most likely to "care enough" to edit an article, and likely to be "knowledgeable enough" to know how to find and cite sources, are often strongly "demotivated" by the reception that one receives in disagreeing with another editor.

The power of persistence

Time and again, I have seen articles placed and left in highly misleading states, simply because an editor was unwilling to yield, and willing to be insulting to keep that position in the article. Many capable editors cannot or will not face this.

Never argue with a fool

An old saying goes "Never argue with a fool. People might not be able to see any difference between you."

This is VERY IMPORTANT in Wikipedia.

I see excellent, knowledgeable editors who simply will not work on an article, will not cite an abusive editor, simply because of this problem: It makes them look bad in the eyes of the Wikipedia community.

Conflict of Interest: best interest of Wikipedia vs. best interest of the Wikipedia career of each editor

I see otherwise apparently sensible editors arrive at an article, see one editor calling another names, and see them editing against one another, and *IMMEDIATELY* accept that both have a conflict of interest. And I see them leave without becoming involved. It is not in an editor's best interest to become involved in a contentious article. I see this as damaging Wikipedia badly.

Capable editors find that they must abandon articles that they care about to editors pressing a Point Of View, or continue to edit against the PoV and be perceived as having the same flaw. For those who hope for Admin status, this is a disaster. Since we seriously need Admins, we certainly don't want to encourage potential ones to pursue edits that will prevent their Adminship. Yet, if we do not, we will certainly continue to cut many articles off from possible help.

Growth will make it worse

As Wikipedia grows the problem will only get worse. As the number of humans editing increases, the odds that each article will have someone strongly pushing a PoV will increase.

An interesting future

I think Wikipedia is, and will continue to be, a very valuable resource.

I am very curious to see how we will address other problems:

• the problem of "the new wearing off" - I don't think this is as big an issue as many seem to think
• the issue of more and more news coming through blogs and news sites with no real-world addresses and weak editorial control
• fees for access to online copies of news

On the other hand, I see some great things happening:

• more and more books available online
• globally, more and more people are receiving education and access to the web

See Also

• Sayre's Law
• Parkinson's Law of Triviality