Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Genesis

• Lord Jones, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. When you return from your R&R would you consider starting a page, somewhere, maybe in a sandbox or something, where we could collect the stated reasons that editors give for retiring. I suggest this to you because you seem to have an interest and awareness of retiring editors. We are Editor Retention and we are searching for ways that we can be a part of the solution to the problem. I think some of our answers as to our future direction lie in the soliloquies that frustrated editors "purge to anyone listening" as to what is wrong and why they can't take it anymore. As they are walking out the WP Door, they want us to know whats wrong and that we need to fix it. I would be more than happy to assist and should this sub-project get legs, I'm sure other editors will get involved. Thank You. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Feel free to add epitaths that you find or know about. What I want to save is the essence of why the editor is leaving. I'm not interested in the sad story because they are all sad stories and there is not much that can be done about the history of them. In other words: No Specifics! Negative reflections toward fellow collaborators will be removed. and replaced with Anonomous. To the best of my ability I will copy edit to achieve documentation of the Core Reason that the editor has CHOSEN TO LEAVE. ```Buster Seven Talk 10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) .

Soliloquies

Note: It is not necessary to include the editors name. You may choose to, but it is not necessary.

• So why am I leaving? I am not leaving because I'm angry at this ruling, though to be honest I do find it a massive slap in the face. Ultimately, I am leaving simply because I have ceased to enjoy editing wikipedia. Honestly, I've lost any and all passion I once had for editing, even if I were to come back I no longer have the motivation to contribute. Its simply gone.
• In the end, though, Wikipedia is just no longer fun for me to work at. I can no longer just focus on my research and writing. My editing has gone down significantly in the last two years, most especially in the last 6 months. I used to do 3500-4500 edits a month, now I barely do 1000 (and that's mostly doing reverts of the vandals and performing some other automated tasks). I also drastically cut down my watchlist, from over 2000 items to less than 450, most being my FAs, GAs, FLs, and articles I'm currently working on. It hasn't helped. The real world is stressful enough without having what is, in the end, a hobby add to it.
• "The core problem is that the Wikipedia power structure is fundamentally flawed, and while neither WMF nor Arbcom will do anything about it (the latter repeatedly refuses to do anything about blatantly-unsuitable admins), we'll just keep on repeating the same fights over and over again - and I'm not prepared to do that any more".
• As long as children are our governing body, I'm not coming back.
• Right now, the world seems bleak and even though my own aspirations are doing better than ever, I can't find the energy to be happy. I won't be actively editing Wikipedia for a while, since I don't have the extra energy to deal with the negativity that is inherent with wiki activity. I'm sure this will change, just know that I won't be available for the time being.
• Warmest thanks and best wishes to the many editors with whom it has been a pleasure and a privilege to collaborate. No thanks, but good wishes all the same, to the minority of editors who carped, sniped, arrogated a monopoly of wisdom, and ultimately killed the joy of contributing to this wonderful project.
• I've had quite some time to think about it, and I have decided to end my involvement with the English Wikipedia. Over the past few weeks, I have been considering how I have been rewarded for my work, reading AN/ANI, and keeping up with the latest news. It has definitely taken me all too long to arrive at an inevitable conclusion: this amazing project is also home to a community that belittles and harasses its own members for the most idiotic and childish reasons (e.g. grudges, boredom, amusement, sport, dirty politics). The problem here, is not with the WMF, site rules, or individual editors, but with the contagious witch-hunt mentality of the community. I know, it's easy, and perhaps even fun to ostracize and single an editor out, seduce the masses with promises of drama, and freely harass and attack that poor soul without fear of retribution. During such times, and even in general, we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive; stellar contributions are rewarded with silence, and mistakes, regardless of how minute or well-intentioned, are met with aggressive complaints and/or trips to AN/ANI.

• I quit Wikipedia some time ago, after a good number of content edits. I was going to type here before, but did not get a chance. So here are my key points:

1. Fear of attrition: The community at large has a high level of "fear of editor attrition" to the point that they defend unproductive and at times mentally unstable editors for long. That results in the loss of good editors who get fed up with long debates and walk away. Raul got it right long ago.

2. Rough neighborhood: There are a number of polite and civil editors on Wikipedia, but as a whole the environment tolerates incivility and has since become a web site where roughnecks and lumberjacks thrive. Why a respectable academic should tolerate this environment is beyond me. In my entire life (and I mean that) I have NEVER encountered so much profanity as on this "encyclopedia". Most of it was not even directed at me, but just reading it is distasteful. In many cases, only roughnecks and lumberjacks may put up with this level of contention as they "donate" effort to the website. Donations of knowledge should not be met with contention.

3. Everyone has a voice: This was a major issue for me. It does not matter if someone has developed serious content or signed up 12 minutes ago, they still get the same say in policy debates. And this builds on items 1 and 2 as the pundits with no content history defend useless editors for long on WP:RFC/U discussions, Pending changes debates, etc. driving away the better users. This was no environment for my continued involvement.

• I used to believe that the "everyone's equal, nothing's permanent" philosophy was working here. It took me a long time to realize that, without a hierarchy, all but the most prominent conflicts on Wikipedia come down to who can be more stubborn. There's no real system for deciding smaller or even regular-sized conflicts, as we're deluded into thinking there's no need for one. The gods of discussion and compromise fail us frequently, in all the little invisible places that make up the multitude of this place. They might've worked back when we were a small group of like-minded individuals, but now we're everyone. Wikipedia became "might makes right" while we weren't looking. Any community that lets everyone in and lacks power structure would devolve similarly. We're Lord of the Flies. Only better, because we get to feel intellectual while we indulge our baser instincts. If you don't want to fight, your only option is to walk away, and the people mature enough to do that are, of course, least likely to get their way. Those conflicts that do resolve are likely to crop back up again, since by design, nothing here ever lasts....or maybe I'm just tired of drawing lines in the sand. What's it for? Jan, 2013

break one

• Well, thanks for trying, but after the experience at AN/I, where I saw that there is no energy within Wikipedia administration to address the advocacy problem, I am not feeling keen to give this website much more, if any, of my time - and as far as ANYTHING related to topics where this GMO group gathers, just shoot me now. There are some things that are blatantly obvious to me, and offensive, taking place with regard to the Food Industry and its extremely successful attempt to sway Wikipedia articles [and you'll notice (or maybe you won't), the edits aren't about the topic, they are only to do with issues related to how the Industry is portrayed]. However, I sort feel like an alien here with regard to these observations. I feel very alone in what I'm seeing, which leads me to doubt whether this is a place for me. I actually don't believe it is. If the Admins take the reigns a bit and help when such obvious malfeasance is going on, I will happily return and I will enjoy editing articles again. But I can't see why a sane person would throw away time and energy trying to improve articles when it's 99% guaranteed that if a Special Interest has "people" here to help them out, they will win the day - either by just being complete assh*les until editors leave the page, ignoring (and somehow getting away with) the rules, twisting guidelines and (with the help of seemingly innumerable buddies) abusing noticeboards. I'm going on a vacation, so no need to reply since I won't be checking this page. Cheers, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• After enough losses sometimes it's time to move on. I must be gone and with it my wiki life. Twas a fascinating endeavor while it lasted, but alas all good things must come to an end (this side of Heaven). Farewell.
• Nonetheless, I do not want to work for an organization that (1) hamstrings my ability to prevent disruption caused by socking, (2) micromanages my actions, and (3) is unappreciative of my CU work. For these reasons, I am leaving the project.