User:Butlerblog/Essays/The culture of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. As such, in order to prevent chaos, there exist guidelines, policies, and, yes, some rules that all guide the culture here. Being a somewhat egalitarian environment, we all abide by the same guidelines; and if even when/if we don't, we are still bound by them.

If you are a new editor, this may seem confusing for a number of reasons. You may have come here under the assumption that it was a "free-for-all." In other words, simply make an edit and fix something you perceive to be invalid, wrong, or just missing. Then along comes another editor who reverts your precious change and quotes Wikipedia policy at you - a policy you didn't know existed and you don't understand. Worse, that policy may be the form of what you perceive to be "shouty caps" (such as WP:SHOUTING).

"What an arrogant jerk," you may think to yourself. "How can I be expected to know all these rules? There seems to be a mountain of them, and I simply cannot be expected to know them all. Can't I just make my edit to fix the bias in this article without being shouted at by arrogant editors who seem to control all of Wikipedia as their own fiefdom?"

No. It doesn't work that way.

This essay covers that culture, which will probably not apply if you are really just looking to make a few edits and care about little else. For editors who are seeking to participate in a more meaningful way within the project, this will hopefully bridge the gap that can exist for new or inexperienced editors.

Wikipedia has a culture

Wikipedia has a culture; and it does take time and effort to learn that culture's norms. But we are not a closed society or club - we want you to learn it. We want you to participate. But we need you to participate within the norms of the culture.

You might think you actually know the culture, but your use of discussion (talk pages) may confirm otherwise. It's similar to a foreign language. You might think you know the language, and use it when in a specific country. But the minute you open your mouth, a native speaker knows you don't truly know the language. You might think you know the cultural norms, but will prove otherwise to natives. That doesn't mean you can't learn the cultural norms, but it does mean you are largely unaware that what you're saying and doing confirms to others your unfamiliarity within the culture.

In other words, you show your understanding of the cultural norms through what you actually say and do. Such is the same here. You show your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the cultural norms through your editing practices and how you participate in discussions.

The terms that are used throughout Wikipedia have specific meanings within the Wikipedia culture. Don't assume that the terms used mean what you think they mean. Terms may or may not equate to what they mean in the outside world. Please read policies and guidelines and understand that every term has a meaning. For example, what you think is a personal attack may not actually be so. And something you think is not a personal attack actually may be one.

Do: Realize the limitations of your knowledge and strive to listen to what other editors are trying to tell you.

Don't: Assume you know it all when seasoned editors try to give you direction (it's to help you, not hurt you).

What are these shouty caps you're throwing at me?

When through your editing, you show that there is a disconnect between you and the cultural norms, we know that you don't know, so we know that we have to explain it to you. Many new editors misconstrue terse responses of policy links akin to being scolded, but that's inferring something that isn't really there. The guidelines are already spelled out, so in the interest of time, it is given as a shorthand of sorts. It's up to you as a new editor to then read it and, more importantly, comprehend it. If we took the time to re-explain every existing guideline to every new user when dealing with an edit, we'd never get anywhere. It's much better to simply say "cited source is not WP:RS". Then you follow that link, read the guideline, learn what it means, what the standards are, and become an asset to the project.

We don't rush to immediately report "violators" (for lack of a better term) - or at least "we" shouldn't. Instead, many editors take the approach of trying to give WP-related advice to new editors in hopes that someone will "get it", apply it, and become a better editor for it.

Learning how the WP community actually works takes a good deal of time. We want you here, but it's a collaborative environment, so you have to be willing to learn the aspects of the culture. Otherwise, your participation becomes disruptive because it's outside the agreed-upon norms.

Do: When someone gives you a guideline link, make sure you read it, and more importantly, that you understand it. If it's unclear, ask questions!

Don't: Assume you know what a given guideline means. Some actually take a couple of readings and a little time and experience to realize how they are applied. It never hurts to review and understand why the guideline was noted.

What's with all the guidelines, anyway?

To a newer editor, the number of policies, guidelines, and associated interpretive essays may seem voluminous. It may seem daunting. Why is it so?

Remember, this is a global project. Wikipedians come from all portions of the globe, from all kinds of different languages, societies, and countries. Cultural norms within each person's location may be different than they are in some other area. What is polite or normal in one editor's culture may be offensive and crass in another.

Therefore, we define our terms. If we use certain words, we make sure we give them specific meanings. That is why it is important to know what terms we define, and what those definitions are. Otherwise, one man's personal attack may be another's good morning and how-do-you-do. (I use "personal attack" an example because that seems to be one that people really get hung up on. New editors especially see this term used and assume it means one thing, when they show through discussion that they haven't actually read our own internal definition of it; see WP:PA, or more importantly WP:NPA#WHATIS.)

Do: Make sure you know what terms mean, especially ones that get used along with links (like "personal attacks" with WP:PA). If it has a link, it has a specific (and important) definition. If it's unclear, ask questions!

Don't: Assume you know what a given term means. Follow the link to be sure - even if you think you know, you may not actually know.

Without guidelines, it would be chaos

If we didn't have policies and guidelines, it would simply be chaos and every edit would be an edit war where the loudest or most persistent wins. That doesn't produce a good end result. We have a set of guidelines to... err... guide that process. People who choose to ignore this reality are not able to contribute in a productive way because they often edit based on their own approach rather than following guidelines everyone else has agreed to. That's why they get reverted, and that's why they get angry about being reverted - because they have refused to assimilate into the existing cultural norms.

So you're offended that another editor used an existing policy as their response to correct your edit? Think of it this way - how can we expect a new editor to know things if we don't tell them? We do not approach this like law (i.e. ignorantia juris non excusat), but rather as an initial assumption that a new editor, being new, can be excused for not knowing because how can they be expected to know standards if they're new? We have to tell them. And so we do tell you. And we expect you to do your part and learn as you go.

Long term editors know that we need more long term editors, and the only way to get more long term editors is to get new editors and help them along the process to grow into good editors. And guess what? We all quote policy not just to new editors - we quote it to each other. How a particular guideline or policy fits into something to support a position is how we build consensus. And consensus is how we keep things moving forward. It's critical to the model here.

The culture is egalitarian

Don't assume there is a hierarchy or a caste system here. No one editor is more important than another. Yes, there are editors that have different permissions, but that does not exempt them from any community policies or guidelines, nor does it make them more relevant than anyone else.

New users coming from other areas of the Internet often assume that an administrator is somehow inviolate. But administrators here are editors just like everyone else. They just have additional tools at their disposal. But how they use those additional tools is subject to the same community guidelines as anyone else.

Being an egalitarian society, however, does not mean that it's not tribal or that there aren't cliques. That certainly exists. Simply due to human nature, editors will gravitate to other editors they are familiar with. Some editors have been here a long time, or may edit a lot, or a combination of both. That doesn't provide that user any special privileges, but it does mean that they may know more editors within the community and, more likely, have an established track record with other editors, either positive or negative. A positive track record in the community builds trust. That doesn't make one bulletproof. Everyone is still required to abide by the same set of principles. Don't assume that because someone is trusted that means their opinion is given more weight. But don't likewise simply discount that as tribalism. Often, if there's a pattern of trust, it also means the editor has been here long enough to learn the culture. Often there is a reason why someone's opinion matters, and that reason is often because the opinion given is rooted in the policies, guidelines, and explanatory essays that abound here. The reason for other editors accepting the position of one editor over another more often than not is based on that editor's understanding of the principle involved, rather than just being the result of cliquish tribalism. Remember that time and experience often mean deeper assimilation and understanding of the culture. If another editor's opinion is given more weight in a dispute, then try to learn why that it rather than rejecting everything as negative.

Do: Be bold! Your efforts are just as important as any other editor.

Do: Follow guidelines as best you can. Build trust over time.

Do: Learn from other experienced editors. When something seems like it was based on an editor's perceived status, that may be a misconception. Take the time to learn from it and figure out why.

Don't: Presume that other editors are offered any special dispensation based solely on their perceived status, longevity, or connections.

The onus is on you to learn it

If you're new, it's your responsibility to learn the culture of the project you want to participate in. Some long-term editors are gentle in this regard, others may be more terse. Note, however, that the onus is still on you as the new editor to learn the culture.

When your edit is reverted for something, don't whine about it - figure out why. And don't do the same thing over and over and wonder why you're being reverted. Show that you are figuring it out. Ask for help - there are plenty of assets here to help you, and places for you to actually ask for help, such as the Teahouse.

If you thought this was the Wild West and you could edit whatever you like, well... news flash! It's not. And if you don't like that, then you won't last long here. But if you can accept that, and have a willingness to figure it out, to learn the internal culture, and don't take things so damned personally, then you probably have what it takes to become a long-term asset to what we do here.

Your time here will be what you make of it. We're all human and far from perfect, but if you assume the worst, your experience here will reflect that. If, however, you take a positive view and view things as half full, your experience will likewise reflect that.

Do: Have a positive outlook.

Do: Assume good faith of other editors.