Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the title of this proposed view, or guideline, is a poor one. Whilst the aim is good, I don't think this (as stated) is properly a part of "WP:NOT". It's about editor conduct, not about content. WP:NOT is about what Wikipedia is from a content point of view.

The aim of the proposal is to emphasize that Wikipedia is a project and/or that Wikipedia has a purpose, and that therefore the work of Wikipedia as a project is not to be allowed to be disrupted without limit, by people who do not understand these things.

Wikipedia is not to be allowed to be endlessly abused?

As it stands, the title of this page is an incitement to flames and name-calling, no matter what is said to the contrary. Even so, this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact it's patently mis-targetted as a title as well.

FT2 (Talk) 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Even though I came up with the idea, I'm not sure either that we want it phrased as such. The ontogeny of the line might be telling. The original is from the 2000 US Presidential elections, when someone on The WELL (me, eventually) got into the habit of saying, "Voting is not therapy" to people who expressed their intent to vote for Ralph Nader because Al Gore didn't give them warm fuzzy feelings. (I'm oversimplifying, of course.) It certainly didn't change any minds -- either that or there weren't enough Well users in Florida. Anyway, it is a smart-ass comment that reflects a real issue. Wikipedia is about Wikipedia. People's personal issues don't get to trump our efforts to create a great encyclopedia. We don't care if your syndrome makes you mischievous; we don't care if your general sense of self-worth demands you fight what you perceive as oppression at every juncture; we don't care if you have issues with authority that could be best dealt with by a kindly and supportive pat on the head. We're not here to help you with your life or to entertain you until the meds kick in. Wikipedia is not therapy. But I think this isn't something we want to put in WP:NOT, because it doesn't really inform those who would actually need to be told it -- nobody's going to recognize these behaviours as their own. In its "voting is not therapy" incarnation, it was useful as a sneer, and it was meant as a sneer. The principle applies, but needs to be expressed in sneer-less fashion, rather like WP:DICK. Oh, wait. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] my thoughts

Well it really lacks any source or verification that wikipedia is not therapy. Some may argue that it is.

The "Getting back on the horse: If you have had trouble at Wikipedia in the past, for most users Wikipedia offers the chance to start over and try again; the only exceptions being users who have deliberately caused serious disruption." Actually wikipedia lets people make tons of accounts nonstop--not even a touring test. No verification required at all. If you're permabanned, change your ISP and you get back on. This prompted some questions I sent to Jimbo Wales, which nobody has answered. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=45930014 And for the proof that wikipedia can't keep anyone out, there's a vandalism article, see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels. DyslexicEditor 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I feel you

I really do sympathize with the author but with a little smile, too. It does read like a fellow venting a little anger and that's okay; I get similar feelings from time to time. A person wanders into the project, makes a few edits, starts a war or two and suddenly a big fraction of community energy gets devoted to "rehabilitating this editor". It might be better to look with a critical eye and simply invite the lost soul to leave. We don't really need more editors that badly.

The hard thought at the core of this essay is that we need to raise the bar to participation. Anon editors do more harm than good -- although there are still arguments in favor of permitting anon editing, we pay a high price for this principle. New editors sometimes turn out very well; other times they screw things up and fade; worst of all, some get locked into some sort of psychological battle with several editors and stink and stink. We're so committed to keeping the door jammed wide open that we sometimes sound like cultists. Once you're in, we'll talk you to death before letting you walk out again.

Maybe we need to stop talking so hard to troublesome newbies and just let them fade out; maybe we need to give the sticky ones a little push, too. Maybe we should wait until a user has a few hundred edits before deciding there's much value in working to keep him, once he gets into a bad rut.

That said, there's no way in the world to translate the fuzzy text on this page into policy. This should be considered an {{essay}}. John Reid 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A quote from that thread:
Maybe you need to re-examine the way you approach these bans and blocks, because when you accuse someone of being a troll or a vandal, erase their messages, and then you don't give them the chance to defend their character, chances are they will become a deviant, because they have nowhere left to speak, no one to speak to, and no way left to speak.
We may not be therapists but a lot of loose nuts seem to get stuck in our couch. You'd think Willy was fighting for his life. John Reid 00:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment!

I like this a lot, and I think it could even be a guideline if it were refined more. I do a lot of dispute resolution at Uncyclopedia and it seems like wikis attract a lot of people who are off their meds or having a hard time and it's left to the people who are trying to help things work smoothly to solve their problems. It's probably a lot of the same here, and it's nice to have something that says, "Hey, it's not personal, but we can't help you." Wikipedians are not therapists and shouldn't be responsible for dealing with goodbyes and suicide whatevers. --Keitei (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While I agree...

While I agree that the article is well written, I believe the subject matter is subjective, as a whole. I believe it's a great way for one to take their mind off the numbening of their working life, and as such can be seen as therapeudic.

All in all, though, I like the article. You state your comments well and you keep to the point.

Good work

--lincalinca 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)!!?!