[tux3]

Wikipedia has a similar problem to Stackoverflow, though nowhere near as bad, where the active community members really care about rules and have a whole established process and tooling for efficiently dealing with new contributions that don't necessarily meet that bar.

It all sounds utterly reasonable from the point of view of the community, who is most exposed to very low-quality content, spam, and vandalism. But newcomers mostly see a big bureaucratic machine rejecting their first attempt, per compliance with some long established policy whose full printed details could threaten a rainforest.

The problem is the rules are often (not always) there for a reason, and everyone involved has good intentions (assume good faith! you can generally assume good faith!). But it's definitely not always a pleasant experience for new users, and that's not an easy problem.

[Loughla]

The problem with this, with Wikipedia specifically is the good faith part.

It isn't adherence to strict rules that is the problem. It's the massively toxic little kingdoms that have become established among power users/moderators.

Like it or don't. Them is the facts.

[The_Colonel]

> It's the massively toxic little kingdoms that have become established among power users/moderators.

I wonder how a distributed architecture where each king operates its own kingdom is going to help with this problem.

(And yes, it is a problem, but also essentially a part of human nature. You can't fix it, only mitigate it)

[tux3]

On the other hand, it is very democratic. With many of the flaws of a democracy,

If you see a kingdom, in principle and in practice the emperor has no clothes. No single person has any special power or ownership over articles. If someone acts that way, you get to tell them what you think of it, if you like, and you'll very much be in the right. And if you are, others should agree and side with you.

There aren't moderators as such, people are supposed to talk to each other, directly. If you don't like how someone seems to act like they own the place, it won't change unless you tell em how you feel!

The thing is people who aren't afraid to give their opinions tend to talk over quieter people. I'm afraid I don't have a very good cure to offer, but please don't feel like anyone's too big of a power-user to have a little respectful, civil chat with. Please, template the regulars! They either respond politely, or they lash out and make an ass of themselves in public.

The problem is the rules apply equally to everyone, but the power users know exactly where the line is and how the bureaucracy works. "The law, in its majestic equality, allows administrators and newcomers alike to revert edits per policy, report 3RR violations, and open AN/I threads about people they don't like"

[chris_wot]

Except you get mobs forming on AN/I and they allow toxic users to fester. BrownHairedGirl was allowed to fester on the project for years. Innumerable productive members left or were banned as a direct result of her and her supporters.

[vkou]

That makes it no different from a run-of-the-mill legal system.

Which, for their flaws, do sometimes produce results.

[BobaFloutist]

It's the ancient mass-internet-moderation problem. I have yet to see a system that, even with the best of intentions, is able to do both of the following:

1. Be sufficiently hardened and responsive to mass bad-faith attacks, from trolling to toxicity to coups. 2. Be gentle, welcoming, and patient with newcomers, making it easy to join the community and learn the norms.

Most systems fall somewhere imperfect on the spectrum between the two, with rare exceptions going almost entirely to one extreme or the other.

[chuckadams]

I have corrected typos on Wikipedia and seen them reverted immediately without comment. Decided pretty quickly it wasn't worth the effort anymore.