User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator
Add topic
Wikipedia is run by a group of longtime editors who effectively assert ownership over the project by abusing the consensus policy to prevent any change to other policies, guidelines, and norms that are in need of reform. Even when the policies are not being abused, consensus-building here is effectively cat-herding. Since this effectively requires editors who wish to edit to be subjected to rules that are not functional and that they have no ability to change, there does not appear to be much of a reason to continue to participate in this project.
Also, many longtime editors also feel no need to cite policies or guidelines in edit summaries when they revert your contributions or contest them on talk pages—despite supposed community norms for determining consensus through discussions and editing and the recommended practices of other supplemental project pages to do so—while other longtime editors abuse the non-bureaucracy policy to take a broader interpretation of policies than what the letter of the policies suggest the larger principles of the policies actually are—despite the fifth pillar of the project and the editing policy's requirement to preserve content unless it truly cannot be fixed—which both strongly suggest that your contributions are not valued just because some longtime editors don't like them. All of the criticisms that could be made of Wikipedia's self-governance processes and talk page discussions remain just as true in 2026 as they were 15 to 20 years earlier.
The only solution to Wikipedia's internal problems would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to put the project's self-governance procedures into a kind of receivership, but they're never going to do so. Besides, research on digital divides has shown that greater equality of internet access has not reduced knowledge divides, so continuing to participate in a project to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge must not be a worthwhile use of time (if it ever was). I've also concluded that while Wikipedia could have an on-net positive impact on society and the public sphere (the latter of which was the main possibility of the project that kept me participating), its dysfunctional norms will prevent it from ever doing so (much like the rest of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 as well). Moreover, considering that Wikipedia is being used to build large language models, I don't know why I should continue to contribute to a project whose product is being used to develop a technology that has the potential to puts millions of people permanently out of work and cause various other problems for society that will probably never be redressed.
Come back!
[edit]Your contributions are missed. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- +1 Astropulse (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Alexandraaaacs1989: It's kind of you to say that you miss my contributions, but if I had to guess, most editors in the community probably don't and I don't know that Wikipedia readers necessarily do either. While there is some work here that I would have liked to continue, I don't generally feel that my input in community decision-making is generally welcome either. I've been planning to expand on the rationale for my retirement in a user essay but got bogged down doing research for it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- This essay talks about the issues you're describing. I've experienced the hostility you're dealing with from some of the old guard editors. Those who are kind are better, but regardless most speak with a subtext of authority because they've been around longer and know the consensus will go their way if anyone decides to challenge them. Many act with passive aggressiveness (or violations of WP:5P4, like making WP:ASPERSIONS) that go completely unpunished, while those who oppose them are denounced for much smaller infractions. It sucks, but things being awful is a part of life and I think we have an obligation, if we're interested in the betterment of the human species, to try to improve the things around us despite how unfortunate the systems are that we inherited. I think your edits were achieving exactly this, despite how you had a hostile experience. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's nice to hear a former administrator express many concerns that I share about Wikipedia's broken culture. However, even though I agree with many of the observations made about the Wikipedia editing community in that essay, I would characterize and analyze the issues differently, and I believe there are other issues with Wikipedia self-governance, dispute resolution, and community decision-making that the former administrator does not discuss. (I also want to be clear that I'm not being glib or flippant when I said that "It's nice to hear…"; I am decidedly sympathetic with that administrator's negative personal experiences here.) More importantly, I do sincerely believe these issues are probably beyond reform and I have no desire to return as long as the community's norms remain the same. But, like I said before, I intend to expand on all of this in my own user essay. However, since it's been six months since you left your initial comment, and I'm probably not going to get a chance to finish writing my essay for a few months at least, I wanted to give you a considerate reply since you were disappointed by my retirement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Appreciate the reply :) Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's nice to hear a former administrator express many concerns that I share about Wikipedia's broken culture. However, even though I agree with many of the observations made about the Wikipedia editing community in that essay, I would characterize and analyze the issues differently, and I believe there are other issues with Wikipedia self-governance, dispute resolution, and community decision-making that the former administrator does not discuss. (I also want to be clear that I'm not being glib or flippant when I said that "It's nice to hear…"; I am decidedly sympathetic with that administrator's negative personal experiences here.) More importantly, I do sincerely believe these issues are probably beyond reform and I have no desire to return as long as the community's norms remain the same. But, like I said before, I intend to expand on all of this in my own user essay. However, since it's been six months since you left your initial comment, and I'm probably not going to get a chance to finish writing my essay for a few months at least, I wanted to give you a considerate reply since you were disappointed by my retirement. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- This essay talks about the issues you're describing. I've experienced the hostility you're dealing with from some of the old guard editors. Those who are kind are better, but regardless most speak with a subtext of authority because they've been around longer and know the consensus will go their way if anyone decides to challenge them. Many act with passive aggressiveness (or violations of WP:5P4, like making WP:ASPERSIONS) that go completely unpunished, while those who oppose them are denounced for much smaller infractions. It sucks, but things being awful is a part of life and I think we have an obligation, if we're interested in the betterment of the human species, to try to improve the things around us despite how unfortunate the systems are that we inherited. I think your edits were achieving exactly this, despite how you had a hostile experience. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Seconded, you have done good work here and hopefully, sometime soon or eventually, you'll be back. Every improvement, even if we have to cut our way through the brush, builds this societal tool. You are good at that building process. Your AI concerns are principled, and it is so nice that Wikipedia has decided not to let editors use AI to write articles (I wish that would expand to talk pages and other AI loopholes). Aside from the summaries you get on search engines I've never used AI, don't even know how to operate ChatGP or whatever it's called, and the only time I see it aside from those search engine blurbs is when a friend keeps sending screen shots of AI descriptions of things (at least once AI made a funny but extremely inaccurate mistake, the exact opposite of what it should have said). I do watch AI created video, amazing that it can do but also it's in the very beginning stage (like the Chloe vs History vids but way too many errors in history while, on the other hand, he has a way of teaching history when he gets it right). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Invitation to WPID
[edit]I've started User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, a group of editors working to recover fair decision-making, genuine neutrality, transparent governance, and public accountability on Wikipedia—all through established on-wiki processes (RfCs, Village Pump, noticeboards, talk pages). We now have twenty members and counting, including several deeply experienced editors. If these goals interest you, have a look at the project page and consider signing up. We could use your help. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)