Wikipedia: The Wikipedia Community

Difference (from prior major revision) (author diff)

Removed: 11,14d10

* open. We try to make it as easy as possible for newcomers to join in and try to encourage them to stick around
* tolerant. We, most of us, do our best to tolerate differences of opinion and personal style. But sometimes [Wikipedians leave]? (or just lose interest) for many different reasons.
* flat. Most of us want there to be as little hierarchy as possible, because we want there to be as much freedom as possible to improve articles. Hence, with regard to the sparse leadership, the basic rule is to trust people with power, and to take polite, effective action only if they abuse it; and with regard to the plentiful participants, the basic rule is to let them police themselves, and to take punitive action only when serious abuse occurs.
* transparent. Everything that goes on here is publicly accessible. Sometimes members resolve sticky issues by e-mail, though.

Removed: 17,18d12

* self-reliant. We organize things when the need is perceived by anyone. Because there is no hierarchy among members, and because everyone has quite a bit of editorial power, things can get straightened up pretty quickly.
* self-analytical. Sometimes, perhaps too much, we analyze what's going on on Wikipedia and try to think of ways to improve it.

Removed: 20,21d13

* large. The Wikipedia community is already not small. But at current rates of growth, it will become very large. Thinking about this and dedicating efforts to this end may help speed the process while making it less painful. [Wikipedia commentary/How to cope with growth]?
* united Wikipedians are united in the goal to produce a complete encyclopedia from scratch, which is free and will remain so forever. There are a number of points on which there is broad community consensus, which has been largely built up by experience and habit, as well as by proposal and acceptance. Our being united behind this consensus is what makes this community work. See also diverse.

Removed: 24,32d15

How does the Wikipedia community solve its problems? The problems occur in two places--with articles and with meta-commentary, the former being much more important than the latter.

When confusion, bias, and mistakes appear in the entries, they're corrected by editing. When necessary (which usually means simply: when polite), some justification of the edits on talk pages given. And then it is hoped that the discussion will exemplify good Wikipetiquette.

Direct editing does not simply mean deleting (in fact, it rarely means that). It means improving the quality of the signal by reducing the noise; there's some information to communicate, and it should be communicated as accurately and completely as possible. We trust that we are all trying to communicate what we believe to be accurate information; in the editing we try to make it also seem accurate to us. Often that means that new information must be added--context, history, etc.

When confusion, bias, and mistakes appear in the commentary and discussions, they can't simply be edited away (except by the author), which often leads to miscommunication. In the past, we have tried to keep commentary polite and helpful, just as with commentary on talk pages. Fortunately, the Wikipedia can be a great tool, because one of the the most important criteria for good communication is common language; and the Wikipedia entries provide a concrete source of common language.

Hurt feelings are a special case of a problem that arise on Wikipedia; they aren't directly observable, and can only be observed when people express them in some avenue open to them, usually on Wikipedia commentary pages, but potentially also in the Wikipedia-L or in private communication. Often, it is best to describe the source of hurt feelings as miscommunication. So it is important to emphasize the personal connection, to apologize and offer trust and understanding. It is also important to try to come to some understanding of what the cause of the hurt feelings is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia project, and the project is made up of people. So why don't we, Wikipedians, try to describe ourselves abstractly? Here's an attempt. Inevitably everyone will have a different view of what we are, exactly. But there are perhaps a few attributes on which at least many of us agree.

One thing that should be recognized is that we are not a community in the "real world" sense; we are not bound together by anything more than electronic interactions. While electronic communities mirror much of physical communities, they are different.

In particular, the Wikipedia community is almost exclusively defined by what exists on [Wikipedia.com], and to a lesser extent on [Wikipedia-L]. And the bulk of that is the entries themselves, and that is what is most important; only part is of the related commentary and discussion, the /Talk? pages, etc. In understanding the Wikipedia community, it helps to understand the two parts: entries and commentary, the Pedia and the Meta, the meat and the sauce.

Editing is encouraged.

The Wikipedia community is:

diverse. There are all kinds of people here: philosophers, history buffs, scientists, artists, religious people, generalists, specialists. Moreover there is communication between all those kinds of people; there are attempts to understand each other, despite differences in language or culture. Also, there are as many approaches and interests as there are people. But see united.
knowledgeable. See brilliant prose
personal. This may seem strange: after all, the goal is to create entries which are as objective and without personal bias as possible. But the openness of Wikipedia allows total self-expression within those bounds (and even without it in the personal pages); Wikipedians define themselves within the context of the project through their interests and goals. This brings both benefits and complications--Wikipedia takes advantage of personal qualities like trust, insight, imagination, idiosyncracy and empathy which bureaucratic institutions cannot; but it cannot do so without also having some of the downsides, including confusion, bias, mistakes, and hurt feelings. A healthy community doesn't eliminate the problems, but it understands how to deal with them.
fragile. The success of the community depends on a large part on the presence of good wikipedians. Scare those elements away and the project will lose much of its appeal.
unique. Are there other communities out there that combine the above attributes? Wikipedia has a unique mission, which shapes the community uniquely: it is a wiki (and hence very open), open content (and hence free), and an encyclopedia project. There is nothing like this in the world.

A list of Wikipedians

See also Wikipedia, welcome, newcomers, editing policy, Wikipetiquette, and Wikipedia/Our Replies to Our Critics for reflections about the community.

Wikipedian personal essays on the nature of Wikipedia and its community: