Chilling Atmosphere

I see all these good suggestions, but few even mention the elephant in the room: the typical situation of many established projects, where rules are applied unevenly, and who you know seems to be at least as important as what you do. Wikipedia is not unique in this regard - I've left other volunteer organizations because of it.

In my experience in wikipedia, it's been obvious that civility policies aren't applied to numerous individuals, far too many of which are admins. It's also clear that notability guidelines are applied unevenly, and a long list of articles about what not to do in deletion discussions seem in practice to describe standard operating procedure. I imagine this becomes obvious to most new editors before they've become fully competent and productive. At that point, disillusionment and demotivation set in, and another newbie stops contributing, or drops back to merely fixing obvious problems they encounter as a wikipedia user.

Note that it's possible to avoid becoming a target. I've seen the pattern before, after all, and learned how to deal with it. But the vigilance required to avoid being targeted is off putting - and includes staying away from topics with uncivil owners, many of whom are admins. (2 policies violated at once there.) It includes backing down immediately when a bully begins edit warring - they are better known then you (the newbie) by definition, so if you revert them repeatedly, like as not only one person will get blamed for edit warring, and it won't be them. It includes a whole raft of behaviour that can be mistaken for civility, but is in fact something else entirely. It also includes not pointing out the elephant in the room, or at the very least backing down immediately when the response is unhelpful denial. This works, but one would have to be very dedicated to the purpose of the organization to bother doing all this - one normally only bothers with such nonsense when getting paid for one's time, and then only if one cannot find a better job.

Alternatively, one can be idealistic, believe the policies instead of the reality, tilt at windmills, make waves - and become a "known troublemaker" in the eyes of the established. I've watched experienced admins wind up banned and/or retired for doing this. What newbie - less invested in wikpedia by definition - is going to care enough about wikipedia to do this?

I know nothing about what this contributor wrote since I'm a newcomer and have not participated in the fray here at Wikipedia. However, I have to say I found it very compelling because I've seen these patterns repeated in many mature organizations. To get more visibility into the issue, I'd suggest these approaches (if they don't already exist):

• Survey and debrief user/editors who've stopped participating and learn the real reasons for their withdrawal.
• Create an independent group that is empowered to address situations where established/powerful/admin users are perceived to be flouting policy or widely accepted etiquette.

As I'm sure many of you know, there's software to detect the tone and style of text-based interactions, such as Cataphora. Since Wikipedia uses automation to detect vandalism, why not use it to detect bullying and power struggles? The politics behind Wikipedia and the creation/editing of articles seems to me at least as, if not more, fascinating than the articles themselves. This topic seems to fit right in.

I've run into admins who are jerks too. I think the jerkiness of those who are "in" drive out the newbies, and less active editors. I've done quite a bit of work on Wikipedia, and over the last couple of years, it has become way more common to attract jerks with "authority" who just beat on you for minor issues. It makes me less likely to want to participate. I think the rigidity of the admins is a major factor that drives people away. KellyCoinGuy 21:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with almost everything written above. Add to that the backroom block shopping game: I need a WP:UNINVOLVED admin to block a "disruptive" editor with whom I'm having a content disagreement. If you do me that favor, in return I'm going to block an editor of your choosing at a future time. This type of deal takes place in IRC channels outside of Wikimedia control, and by email often individually, but also in semi-formal mailing lists.

And when the "disruptive" editor is blocked, the number of "very" active editors will drop by one. More importantly, when it comes to voting, the IRC kids have eliminated another vote. --Erik Warmelink 22:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of the "chilling atmosphere" on the English project sites.

On the English Wikiversity, at least half a dozen credentialed academics have departed as a result of inappropriate conduct by misguided officials who are abusive toward members of the academic community.

Among these are four who notably objected to the hostile takeover of the site by thuggish characters who have transformed the project into a clone of Mafia Wars.

Here is a tribute to those four that I saw fit to post on the Meta talk page of User:JWSchmidt, one of the founders of Wikiversity.

Has anybody here seen my old friend Emesee? Can you tell me where he's gone? He freed a lot of people, But it seems the good they die young. You know, I just looked around and he's gone. Anybody here seen my old friend John? Can you tell me where he's gone? He freed a lot of people, But it seems the good they die young. I just looked around and he's gone. Anybody here seen my old friend Moulton? Can you tell me where he's gone? He freed a lot of people, But it seems the good they die young. I just looked 'round and he's gone. Didn't you love the things that they stood for? Didn't they try to find some good for you and me? And we'll be free Some day soon, and it's a-gonna be one day ... Anybody here seen my old friend Hillgentleman? Can you tell me where he's gone? I thought I saw him walkin' up over the hill, With Emesee, Moulton and John.

No sooner had I posted that tribute than Tanvir Rahman reverted it and arranged for Peter Symonds to block the MIT Media Lab on Meta.

Is it any wonder that there is a decline in participation by members of the academic communities?