Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: There is nothing wrong with occasionally doing other things than writing the encyclopedia, and the community spirit is a positive thing. |
Some people think that
Some of the rationales for keeping such pages is that, more than just an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a community. A community likes to
“ | Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. --
Jimbo Wales, 20 December 2006 |
” |
Overview
Consider:
- The community is dependent on the encyclopedia. This page wouldn't be here if Wikipedia wasn't. Alternatively, it would be here, but the site would likely be called "Wikiblog."
- The encyclopedia is dependent on the community. It is impossible to talk amongst themselves.
- Therefore, community and encyclopedia are inexorably intertwined on Wikipedia. Without the encyclopedia, the community would not exist, and without the community, the less accurate.
Practical reasons for community
Beneficial canvassing
Usually
Editing interests
Category-populating
Human reasons for community
Although subject interest categories and
A parallel: road rage
A similar phenomenon exists with road rage: people seem to be more likely to get angrily frustrated when stuck in traffic when compared to a being in a long line at the grocery store. Both environments are expected to always be plagued with the same problems (e.g., long waits, slow progress, annoying children), yet there's something qualitatively different about being in an environment where you see primarily tail lights (or, as most people call them, idiots) versus being in an environment where you are primarily face-to-face with another human being.
Casting light on the shadow
In order to humanize the otherwise shadowy and mysterious creatures that edit Wikipedia (i.e., you), it is necessary to bring them into human light. As a result, much of the purpose of some of the more subjectively "pointless" areas of Wikipedia actually play an invaluable role: they serve to remind us that the person on the other end of any passionate debate or
After all, we are the ones who must
Impervious to bullets
Ironically, the things that humanize us and make us more vulnerable to criticism have the end result of making it harder to actually hurt us. Simply observe many bathroom stalls, highway overpasses, and riots throughout the world and one will realize a rule of thumb to destruction: the less alive the target is, the easier it is to destroy it. Whether it be a remarkable feat of engineering (e.g., an overpass for a highway), a critical barrier for modesty (e.g., a bathroom wall), or the coolest and most visited encyclopedia on the internet (e.g., Wikipedia), all share a common plague:
A healthy addiction
Wikipedia is addictive. The fact you found this page and got this far into reading it is proof that we've hooked you. ;) But, how did this happen? Most people probably don't get addicted to their chemistry books in high school, and most chemists probably don't constantly revisit their freshman chemistry books on a regular basis, but here on Wikipedia, the opposite behavior is commonplace. People watchlist articles, constantly update them, and participate actively in things like writing
Our secret? Wikipedia is an extremely diverse, well-developed social group in which you can
So, despite being addicts, we're totally fine with it, because we know we're actually doing something good for the world.
Conclusions
Some argue that the encyclopedia should be more encyclopedic than community-oriented—that we should elect to keep interaction to a minimum in order to satisfy the prime objectives.[1] They argue that the community is minor and secondary to the ultimate goal of creating an encyclopedia. Whether or not that approach is correct is uncertain; however, we must be careful in restricting elements of the community excessively, because it is obvious that our encyclopedia's success is directly proportional to the level and frequency of involvement of those generating its content and maintaining the backend—the community.
We're technically an encyclopedia; but, we're an encyclopedia that exists because of and is maintained exclusively by the community. Because the community generates the majority of the encyclopedia's content, disagreements will occur, and it helps to keep conflicts productive using reminders that those involved are real people in real life.
See also
- m:The Wikipedia Community
- m:False community
- Wikipedia:Administration
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
- Wikipedia:IPs are human too
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia:Wikipedians
- Category:Wikipedia humor
- Wikipedia:Underwear rule
Notes
- ^ Star Trek Into Darkness - Violating the Prime Directive (2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI3snWDWuo