Fediverse

Yeah, that generally sounds good. In this case though, it had been up for 6 months and a lot of people had edited the page since, so I wasn't sure how that would work.

And, to be honest, cowardice 🤣 I don't know if it's just the sort of pages I've edited, but I've found the number 1 indicator for when a reversion will get pushback is when it was put there by someone with an unholy amount of edits that have a troll / far right / aggressive theme. Some people only seem to edit controversial topics, and some push really weird theories and will argue every bizarre claim as nauseum, some are very free with personal insults, and most are totally normal people.

But the ones who've made a slightly odd, vaguely political edit to a reasonably banal page, and when you leave a polite discussion on the talk page and carefully edit it to remove the most inflammatory bits they just revert your edit within a couple of minutes - I've had a terrible time with them.

Always, they revert your edit and then either make another minor edit right afterwards, or some other account / anonymous comes in and makes a minor edit, within 2 minutes of theirs. And when you check their history and see a vast majority of their edits are on X rated pages, in my experience that means you're never going to win. Every edit you make will be reverted within minutes. If they put anything on the talk page it will be exactly as personally offensive as you can get without being outright ban-able. And their shadow account will be along right after every comment or action to agree.

It's exhausting, and it totally made me lose faith in Wikipedia. I know there are channels to report that, but I've found that they take months and the discussion is like 'yeah that was out of line but they've made so many non offensive edits, maybe they were having a bad day?' with the odd essay-length barrage of insults from new accounts that are always deleted, but just remind me that it's so easy to just create a new account for bad faith purposes that what's the point wading through all this aggro just to make sure one user gets a stern talking to on one of his many accounts, for the sake of a line or two on a page about a topic you're not that interested in.

Sorry for the tragic novella lol, it just really annoys me. Wikipedia could have been so great, but for the fact that trolls and bad actors don't worry about following the rules, certainly don't mind conflict, and can write 50 pages worth of bullshit in the time it takes an honest person to fact check the first paragraph, let alone the time and effort it takes to edit stuff by the correct channels.

And when you argue with them, that's what they enjoy. They can wear people down just by being odious, and even if enough people wade in to help you out and waste their time arguing with someone who's being deliberately inflammatory, and everyone agrees that yes the page on trees shouldn't be mostly about lynching black people or whatever - that page is going to be edited again by a new account within days. All the decent people stand to win is a temporary, hard fought knowledge that a tiny piece of the internet isn't quite as toxic as it was before, and will be again, and they lose so much energy and good will if they don't like arguing. And for the dickheads, the entire thing is win-win.

I don't know how to prevent that, other than a much stricter attitude to anonymous/ new account edits and offensive arguments, and detecting patterns like 'this account always makes innocuous edits within minutes of this other person making controversial ones', but that's a bit more tightly controlled than Wikipedia could / should be.

(I mean the other solution is some sort of mandatory therapy and socialising courses for people who actively enjoy trolling / shit stirring / making people angry, but that would be a little beyond my or Wikipedia's remit, so)

The entire tone of the article feels... condescending? (not sure the exact feeling). It feels off in the way information is presented, like subtle disdain in the writing voice.

Someone put that on in the last 12 hours, and since then, some anonymous person just deleted the entire section lol.

I legit feel really grateful, I'd been going down a bit of a 'either every source of information is corrupt and there's no hope, or I'm losing my mind' rabbit hole. I haven't quite pulled the plug on Reddit yet, which may be contributing to that.

I prefer the whole 'major additions and changes should be introduced in the talk section of a page so it can be discussed by the committee of reasonable good faith adults with lots of spare time and patience' approach to Wikipedia editing, but in retrospect that may be a wee bit idealistic in current times. So the 'one person complains and documents, another person flags, and another just deletes the entire thing' is a process that may be a good compromise between The Way Things Should Be and how to edit Wikipedia with consensus and without being harassed by neo Nazis.

They did! The change log shows the main section of 'I found a single paper criticising the fediverse so here's 600 words on how terrible the concept is', and also reassured me that I wasn't just being lazy in not wanting to trawl through the text to edit it to be less awful.

I'm bizarrely excited about it too. You can't thank anonymous Wikipedia editors, so I'll throw a vague 'thank you!' out into the world and try to pay it forward.

My next battle: figuring out why I can't edit this post, lol (maybe a mobile problem) and long term, why I didn't think of 'just edit it anonymously'.

lmao wait until it's reverted, argued over, then the editor gets banned.

Even worse. A lot of it just seems to be done by trolls.

Every now and again they have a big push to get more editors from more sections of society and normal humans, because a majority of the edits are done by a small amount of people, and these people spend so much time doing that that they don't have much time for things like jobs, hobbies, socialisation, etc.

They are doing a great service, and most of them are great editors, but they are very very online and aren't always interested in Wikipedia being a collaboration of people from all walks of life.

So they manage to get more random people to make an account and make their own first little edits, and then half those random people get yelled at for not following some hidden rules or for disagreeing with Big Mike who doesn't like to be corrected or whatever and, surprise surprise, most people whose first experience editing Wikipedia never try again. The ones who stay are the dogged, determined ones, or the ones who don't really care about criticism, and thus the cycle continues.

Seriously though, small time editors are absolutely essential to keep Wikipedia (reasonably) honest and unbiased. Literally anyone can contribute to the world's biggest shared knowledge hub, and if you're not a troll, a dick, a shill or an extremist then your contribution is really, really valuable.

If you see any page that has incorrect info, or anything that's missing information that you know, or even some clunky grammar or out of date references, please do consider making an edit. There are a bunch of best practice guidelines on editing (that aren't always very accessible) but the main ethos is to do what you can in good faith and don't sweat the red tape. Someone else can come along afterwards and tidy formatting up or send you a message saying 'hey, I've reverted your edit because you need a source / this type of source / you accidentally replaced the entire page on astrophysics with an emoji', and they'll link to the guidelines you need to follow if so.

I'd love to say it'll be fun and chill and once you've realised how easy it is you'll be evangelical about it. If you edit a totally innocuous page, it probably will be.

But it's the internet, so there are all sorts of people including the knobs, so I'll just say - by widening the pool of editors you will be benefitting Wikipedia whatever your actual edit is, and by ignoring any argumentative bastards you'll be adding to the majority of Wikipedia editors who are normal human beings and not, well, argumentative bastards.

(Obviously if you are actually an argumentative bastard troll, no offence meant, I hope you have a great life but the applications to be a Wikipedia editor are sadly closed and honestly it's not worth it 😀)

Meh. I'm holding out for wretched hive of scum and villainy.

I think this kind of critical analysis of the Fediverse could be completely right in every single one of the details and still miss the more important point that corporate social networks are being used in a directly hostile fashion towards vulnerable people RIGHT NOW to a near catastrophic degree of negligence to put things in the most charitable terms possible. Further the people who own those corporations publicly endorse narratives that invisiblize the violence happening to real human beings.

Realize that by getting lost in a baseball stats esque evaluation of the Fediverse that we cede ground already to people who are disengenous. We have to consider the context of the alternative reality of corporate social media to fairly evaluate the Fediverse.