User:Hammersoft

I am seriously mad at you over your deletion of my work, which - it turns out - I spent a lot of MONEY on.

How dare you delete my entire paragraph on the article on “choking” in sports, about the Azzurri’s history of “choking”. My expensive (see below), well-sourced, laboriously-crafted paragraph was all just “bah - rubbish!” from your disdainful perspective.

It so happens that I wasted a lot of money trying to write it. I had to buy a subscription to The Atlantic in order to read that article in its entirety. I signed up for a 30-day free trial, but I later realized I had forgotten to cancel it and it was more than 30 days later. So now I’ll be wasting money on a magazine subscription for an entire year.

The least you could do is leave my expensive work alone. I wasted money on that work, only for you to smugly delete it.

Your grounds for deleting the whole paragraph make me angry. “The sources didn’t mention ‘choking’” - did you even read the Atlantic article? The article that I wasted my money on? I’ll admit they did not literally state the word “choking”, but all three of my sources were describing a series of painful disappointments for the Azzurri which, when considered together, almost anyone would agree seem suspiciously similar to “choking”. Or at least merit consideration for the phenomenon known as “choking”.

I mean, Italy blew their chances to qualify for the 2022 World Cup because they surrendered a decisive goal in stoppage time, to a massive underdog in North Macedonia, after maintaining a scoreless draw for the whole 90 minutes. They were surviving for all that time, and then poof! - their hopes were all gone in one moment at the literal last minute. (Kind of like how all my work vanished in one moment, when you deleted it!)

That’s heartbreaking for Azzurri fans, and when you combine it with the other three heartbreaking losses I mentioned, this definitely smells of “choking”. Even if it’s not precisely the same thing as “choking”, almost anyone would start performing the Heimlich maneuver when they heard all that coughing and gasping for air. All that “Mamma mia!” from Azzurri.

Claiming that my sources are totally irrelevant to “choking” because they didn’t literally use the word “choking” is like claiming that Donald Trump is not a racist because he has never literally stated, “Black people are inferior to white people”.

What adds to my anger is that a few weeks ago, after I realized that I had wasted my money on an Atlantic subscription, I felt worried that someone (like YOU) might delete my paragraph anyway on the grounds that I had not cited a source for all four of the Azzurri losses that I had mentioned.

The Atlantic article only specifically mentioned two of those four events. So I went out of my way to find new sources for Italy’s World Cup upsets by Slovakia (2010) and Costa Rica (2014), and to edit my paragraph accordingly. I don’t have much energy in life, but I recall spending a significant amount of energy on doing that. I had to look up how to cite internet news articles and everything.

But the reason I did it was to lower the probability that someone like you would come along and delete the entire paragraph, thereby ensuring that the money I’m giving The Atlantic is a COMPLETE waste.

If I have to waste all this money on a magazine subscription, then the least you could do is not utterly eviscerate the work that I spent it on.

I wouldn’t be quite so angry about this were it not for my having lost money over it. But as it is, I worked hard on that paragraph, I spent money on it, only for you to remark, ”If they’d rather die, then let them, and decrease the surplus population” as you deleted the whole thing.

OK, I think I’ve made my point by now. I can’t imagine you actually read this message anyway, so I’ll wrap it up.

In summary: I wasted a lot of time and money writing a paragraph on Wikipedia, to which you responded, ”Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”.

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Principles

1. The highest position anyone can hold on the project is "editor". Every other position on the project works in support of the work of editors. You do not 'advance' to any position on the project. An arbitrator does not outrank an admin does not outrank an extended confirmed editor does not outrank an editor. See this hierarchical structure of Wikipedia. Anyone acting in good faith on the project is a member of the "community". Note how everything is beneath the community.
2. The newest editor, acting in good faith, should enjoy the same privileges as the most experienced editor. This ideal, however, is frequently demonized. As the project ages, the need to protect what has already been done is an ever increasing pressure. The amount of learning a new editor needs to do to contribute at a high level is far greater now than in years before. Thus, many new editors are improperly viewed with disdain because they do not yet possess the knowledge and experience to contribute at a high level. This tendency destroys the very lifeblood of the project. Editor attrition is inevitable, if for no other reason than death. Everyone must be replaced for the project to continue. If new, good faith editors are welcomed with walls and harsh treatment the project will eventually die. We must be better than that. This project was founded on the absolutely absurd idea that anyone can edit. Despite heavy criticism, Wikipedia has succeeded in creating by far the most powerful and comprehensive encyclopedia the world has ever seen. Nothing is even remotely close. If we walk away from the principle of "anyone can edit" we might as well close up shop.
3. This isn't a fight. There's no score. It doesn't matter if you 'win' or 'lose' an argument. There's no such thing. The only thing that matters in the context of your work on Wikipedia is whether or not the project is improved. If you are having a hard time accepting that your voice was not heard or is in a minority, don't express your frustration on Wikipedia. Take a deep breath, go for a walk, take in a movie, have a drink. None of our opinions ultimately matter. Five years from now, no one will remember what you say. What matters is the project.
4. The most powerful, and the most underutilized method of ending a disagreement on the project is disengagement. Walk away. If two people are having an argument, and one person walks away, there's no argument anymore. That is, unless the remaining person starts arguing with themselves. Some people have powerful reasons for not being able to walk away. If that is the case, then learn the power of listening and understanding. You do not have to be right or wrong, and being either is insignificant compared to listening to the other party and gaining an understanding of their concerns. Refusing to listen and insisting on being right is guaranteed to fail. The drive to be right is guaranteed to fail its primary purpose. Build on listening.
5. You don't have all the answers, and never will. The project is too large for one person to understand all facets of its operation. It's ok. If you think you can improve something, be bold and do it. If someone reverts what you do, engage in discussion.
6. Vandalism is inevitable. No matter how many bots, how many tools, and how many editors work to combat vandalism, it will always happen. There will always be a new crop of bad faith editors who try to disrupt the project. Over time, we continue to develop better processes for handling vandalism. You may sometimes come across vandalism that is quite old (example; see 'glamour', which wasn't removed until seven years later [1]). This may seem alarming, but it isn't. It's part of the natural process of creating this great work. Just fix it and move on. Warning vandals is important for several reasons. Some vandals stop after knowing someone is watching. Warning them with escalating warnings eventually leads to a level 4 warning, which if violated can then be reported and they will likely be blocked. Without escalating warnings, some vandals are never blocked.
7. Members of ArbCom, Bureaucrats, and Administrators are just as likely to commit an error as any experienced editor. There are third rails for their behavior, and they are expected to abide by those additional restrictions. See WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ARBCOND. Nevertheless, remember they are as human as you are.
8. Wikipedia is a free content project. It is critical to understand gratis versus libre. Anything that takes away from the libre mission of the project is a hindrance to the project. If you are not here for the libre mission, you are in the wrong place. Wikia might be more to your liking.
9. One of the least enforced but most critical policies on the project is our need to remain civil at all times, no matter the provocation. If something you might say would be unacceptable at a large meeting of professionals in a conference room, then it is unacceptable here. Insults very often are an insight into the person making them, not on the target of the aspersions. Insults will never yield positive outcomes. Incivility reduces productivity, engagement, and idea generation.
10. Consensus is critical to cooperative editing. Without it, people are simply shouting at each other. Consensus doesn't mean you agree. Sometimes the consensus feels very wrong. That's ok. Disagreement, however, is not a permission slip to edit against consensus.