User:Gerald Waldo Luis/Signpost Opinion1
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
|
Treating vandals, IPs, and newbies
Early June, 2020. Just another type of evening, opening Google Chrome and searching "en.wikipedia.org," and going on the adventure of editing. I just started editing Wikipedia on May 24, meaning I was still relatively new at the time, and so some of the things I see are still unfamiliar to me. Especially with the edifice of policies there are on Wikipedia, and the headache-inducing wiki coding. Often this leads to a reversion of my edit, which gives me an anxiety-infused stomach ache, thinking I did something seriously wrong, but luckily the nice summaries by the person calmed me down.
I was doing a series of edits, specifically on my userpage, and linked the words "transport aviation" to "airline." I just heard the term "redirect" a few moments ago, and also learnt something called a hatnote. I wondered if linking words to an article that is not the word a redirect, and whether that would warrant a hatnote on said article. Being the fussy newbie I was, I thought to myself Yes! and placed a hatnote on the Airline article, reading "'Transport aviation' redirects here. For other uses, see Transport aviation (disambiguation)."
But "Transport aviation (disambiguation)" was a redlink. Being annoyed that it targets the readers to nowhere, I made a page titled Transport aviation (disambiguation). I visit it again, and it was tagged for deletion - someone listed it for deletion. I was shaking. My article!, I screamed internally. Everyone shared the same spirit with the nominator Fuddle. Someone mentioned how it isn't a synonym, so I, without shame, suggest that it be redirected to Airline (disambiguation)― which I presently screamed But that is still not synonymous you shameless fuck! It was then deleted.
After the deletion, I made more edits on Wikipedia, trying to figure out why in the world is my page deleted ― it's my freaking page you cannot delete it you need consent from me! But I soon learnt what a redirect is, what a hatnote is, what a disambiguation is, when should you create one, is a redirect actually needed, and the many other manuals of Wikipedia. Words cannot express the patience of the many experienced editors here who guided me through my journey and helped me to understand Wikipedia's editing guidelines.
And one question from this: if I am treated nicely, why not others?
The vandalism pandemic is so obvious. Chances are once in your life, you've dealt with vandalism or even the vandal themselves. People, who either understand Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or not, goes and ruins an article. And often it is hard to deal with one, with various reasons, but I see that it's mainly because the environment of consulting a vandal is already intense. It's like interviewing with a murderer - you won't know what's gonna come. My first encounter with a vandal was an IP 103.139.56.42 from Kanpur, India. On 00:01, July 9 2020 UTC, the IP edited the Anti-Chinese sentiment article, altering the lead from "It often targets Chinese minorities living outside of China and involves…" to "It often targets Chinese minorities living outside of Ching chong and involves…." Being a Chinese, I was offended by this, and immediately undid their certainly-bad-faith edits. Then they did it again, and I undid it again (yes my edit summaries are too formal at my early days), did it, undid, did it, and then it's manually reverted by Motorbicycle. I warned them on their talk page, and soon after Glen blocked them for 31 hours to "prevent further vandalism." Oh and if you see the talk page, I was hysterical as shit, and for a good reason. My ethnicity is often targeted for violence and hate speech, so there's a scar left. The article was then pending-protected, and I gave Airplaneman a thanks.
Since then I tried learning how to deal with a vandal and found myself bombed with badass vandals like Joanny C. Chavarria, but I also learnt one thing. When you are already old enough to be considered a normal editor on Wikipedia, you often feel like the guidelines are easy. You feel like the nature of editing Wikipedia is easy. Thus, you consider all newbies losers. Often I unwillingly thought, IP kinda sus. As if they're some criminal. Something like black people -― you don't hate them, but sometimes it felt uncomfortable.
As with Joannych, oh it was a mayhem. After getting his autobiography deleted and a biography of someone he is close with drafted (now it is an article), he vented, expressing how he thinks editing Wikipedia is hard, and how he hates editing with people he don't know. He took it to heart and blanked the then-draft, and Robert McClenon took so far as to level-5 warn him. I asked if he would love to healthily talk, and he called me a harasser. I felt personally attacked, remembering my old bully experiences, to the point where I broke my arm and got it fragile ever since. However when ThatMontrealIP told him[1] that the draft's published, he used the same message with the one to me, so it seems that he just considers everyone a bully.
Tribe of Tiger came in and I used her ping to pour out my hatred. It felt like an orgasm ― I felt guilty afterwards, slowly. I understand that he is a newcomer who doesn't understand the policies. In fact his character resonated with me, as I once thought the same thing as him. Don't fucking delete my articles, why are you guys so mean, ughhh why Shelly?! WHY?! TMIP labelled him a troll ― citing that such attitudes are begging us to satisfy them more ― but there are skepticisms that he is even one. Because I'm him too in my early days. At least.
It is normal for newcomers to face many stressors.[2] You feel so weird and fresh when arriving at a new place. A lot of thoughts wobble around your brain spontaneously. What is this place? Where am I? What should I do? What can I do? Where should I go to? What should I know? How do I do this? Can I do this? Will people welcome me? Will they recognize that I am here? How do I get around? If you are once a new kid in school, you remember the moment you were dropped to the building; you look high up the building, jaw dropping, confused, probably a bit astonished, and also worried.
When I first arrived here in 2018, I do not make this account for editing, but simply to get rid of the annoying "not logged in" text. It's in May 2020 that I made the first edit, and thus a journey was started. I clicked the "Publish" button as careful as putting a glass properly so that it doesn't fall off— it's that scary. You don't know what you're gonna stumble: not a revert, not a welcome, but whatever it is, it's eerie for sure. Sure enough, it's later reverted by XLinkBot because I linked an external link in the body. Strangely enough, scars of that feeling still resists till today— every time my Microsoft Edge is loading Wikipedia, a series of nervousness arise. Any reverts? Thanks? Any vandals? Messages? What again this time? Thank God, that disappeared after marking the watchlist as read.
Other than creating Transport aviation (disambiguation), I couldn't remember all the times I have made supposedly unencyclopedic contributions here. But yet, every time I do bad edits which I have no knowledge of, I was taught by amazing Wikipedians who taught me about relevant policies and welcomed me to the site with warm words. If I can put it, I'm a fortunate vandal saved by the good-hearted. So if I get to still be here, why not others who really have the chance? This is not a survivor guilt piece or shit like that, but this confusing intolerance should not exist within this community. In 1917 (2019 film)'s talk page, IP 91.217.214.194 responded to a discussion, and MapReader said "No-one takes [an] anonymous commentary from an IP account seriously." Other than discriminative and hateful, it is obviously fake news, because many IP editors here have an extravagant position: 76.66.193.90, 76.117.247.55, 69.181.249.92, and possibly many more. I have also interacted with IPs who are non-offending and are here to build an encyclopedia. Many IP editors are also being heard and being accepted as part of the community and are taken seriously. The level of anti-IP, anti-vandal, and anti-newbie sentiment is so big, it can be statistically considered same with Islamophobia, sinophobia, christianophobia, and anti-black racism.
After spending some time researching, there are a variety of things that are stereotyped among vandals, IPs, and newbies:
- Newbies don't know anything we have known, and so they are gonna be hard to work with us and are incompetent.
- Newbies do mistakes, and we don't do mistakes here. I shall give them a block threat.
- Newbies do bad edits, so they must be blocked because they're not here to build the encyclopedia.
- IPs have a scary username and do not bother to create an account, so they are vandals.
- IPs are vandals because a lot of times they are vandals.
- Vandals are just vandals; they are trolls that will never change and shan't be welcomed back on Wikipedia.
- Vandals know what they're doing.
While at times these may be right, at others (others are most) they are wrong and lethally inaccurate. Believe it or not, you still make mistakes despite being an expert editor. You still have some room for incompetency, because for something as large as Wikipedia, you will never be truly competent. I remember an editor who's been here since 2006 that still gets a level-2 warning on their talk page. Just because you do a disruptive edit doesn't mean it is really intended in bad faith, something many editors think on newbies— a toxic stereotype at its best. Chances are, everyone can build this encyclopedia.
Wikipedia has a create-an-account feature that resembles creating an account on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter— so they should expect someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia to create one and not use one for building the encyclopedia. But to build the encyclopedia does not mean you must create an account, similar to how helping the poor does not necessarily require money. Yet some still care about accounts. And that if you don't make an account, which unbeknownst to newbies there is a compendium of policies in making a name, you are somehow disruptive. In fact, a 2007 study found out that IPs mostly to copyediting/formatting/wikilinking instead of vandalism.
It feels— at least from my perspective— that intolerance is getting less and less attractive, but it's still here among the experts, and that's a huge problem. And when I say intolerance, I mostly refer to the vandals-will-never change conspiracy theory. Take the example of Wikipedian in residence Lane Rasberry. Rasberry, who is known for editing health-related articles, has a unique history with Wikipedia: he started off as a vandal. "Someone [then] reviewed [my edit] and they said, "You're doing something inappropriate." [...] A year passed, and he said that he stil "has the appetite" to vandalize it. After the second penalty, he realized his wrongdoings, decided to be "a good member of the community," and started "editing almost everday."[3] If Rasberry can be a valuable vandal to the project, how can many think all vandals can't be valuable?
One of my favorite movies was the 1998 Mulan. I'm bringing this up because of its portrayal of being a newcomer. Mulan starts the journey by having no idea of the things she's up to. But so does others. Mulan slowly became experienced by learning from these experiences, slowly growing to become the great fighter. When Mulan exhibits inability, the others don't just cast Mulan away. Why? Because they are incapable of certain things too.
Unfortunately, many expert Wikipedians believe that the best way to handle an incapable person is to shove them off, because apparently Wikipedia is only for the experts. Listen you degenerate: you are not an expert. You can edit COVID-19 pandemic without having a medical degree. You can edit Sun without being a NASA astronaut. You are amateur in a lot of things, yet you can still edit them. Since when is Wikipedia unwelcomed for the newbies? Because if that's the case then I wouldn't be here. If you have a sassy 7-year-old, you don't get away with it by throwing her to the garbage bin. Maybe use your editing integrity and improve newbies instead of using it— whom you got it whilst being a newbie— and exhibit selfishness and just deemed people who make "bad" edits "not here to build an encyclopedia," a very bullshit term among many newbies.
Footnotes[edit]
- ^ Chavarria, Joanny C. (2020-08-02). "User:Joannych". English Wikipedia (7 ed.). Retrieved 2020-11-03.
- ^ Crooks, Claire V.; Smith, Alexandra C. G.; Robinson-Link, Natasha; Orenstein, Shawn; Hoover, Sharon (2020-05-01). "Psychosocial interventions in schools with newcomers: A structured conceptualization of system, design, and individual needs". Children and Youth Services Review. 112: 104894. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104894. ISSN 0190-7409.
- ^ Meet The People Who Devote Their Time To Editing Wikipedia [INSIGHTS] (YouTube video). Bustle. 2017-01-27. Retrieved 2020-11-10.
{{cite AV media}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help)
This page is a draft for the next issue of the Signpost. Below is some helpful code that will help you write and format a Signpost draft. If it's blank, you can fill out a template by copy-pasting this in and pressing 'publish changes': {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}}
Images and Galleries
|
|---|
To put an image in your article, use the following template (link): This will create the file on the right. Keep the 300px in most cases. If writing a 'full width' article, change
Placing (link) will instead create an inline image like below [[File:|300px|center|alt=Placeholder alt text]] CAPTION
To create a gallery, use the following to create |
Quotes
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
To insert a framed quote like the one on the right, use this template (link): If writing a 'full width' article, change
To insert a pull quote like
use this template (link):
To insert a long inline quote like
use this template (link): |
Side frames
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Side frames help put content in sidebar vignettes. For instance, this one (link): gives the frame on the right. This is useful when you want to insert non-standard images, quotes, graphs, and the like.
A caption
For example, to insert the {{Graph:Chart}} generated by in a frame, simple put the graph code in to get the framed Graph:Chart on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change |
Two-column vs full width styles
|
|---|
|
If you keep the 'normal' preloaded draft and work from there, you will be using the two-column style. This is perfectly fine in most cases and you don't need to do anything. However, every time you have a However, you can also fine-tune which style is used at which point in an article. To switch from two-column → full width style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. To switch from full width → two-column style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. |
Links and such
|
|---|
By the way, the template that you're reading right now is {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue}}. |
Discuss this story