Wikipedia is not a convalescent center/fr

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Langues : English · العربية · dansk · Deutsch · English · español · français · italiano · 한국어 · русский · српски / srpski · українська · 中文
Crystal wordprocessing.png This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikimedians but may not have wide support. This is not policy on Meta, but it may be a policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.
Nutshell.png
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia n'est pas un centre de convalescence pour des personnes en manque de communication.
D'ailleurs, si confier à votre réadaptation dans les mains des non-professionnels ?

Le but de Wikipedia est d'accumuler la connaissance entière de la civilisation humaine. Pour atteindre ce but, Wikipedia essaye d'attirer autant d'éditeurs que possible avec l'espoir que chacun d'eux apportera des contributions utiles. C'est pourquoi c'est une encyclopédie libre ouverte pour chacun. En raison de la participation de tant d'éditeurs, Wikipedia est également une communauté sociale complexe qui attire des gens en recherche d'objectifs autres.

Wikipedia est également très addictif. À cet égard, deux questions se posent souvent : Pourquoi les gens travaillent-ils à Wikipedia ? Bien que les réponses à ces questions ne soient pas franches et dépendent fortement de l'individu, quelques cas extrêmes sont décrits en termes défavorables : abus et vandalisme - les types de comportements qui sont perturbants tous les deux pour le travail encyclopédique et la communauté sociale

Pourquoi les gens deviennent-ils des deviants et des vandales ? Dans certains cas ceci se produit parce que le but principal d'un auteur est de gagner l'attention des autres. Un tel éditeur ne peut pas obtenir assez d'attention dans la vie reelle, ainsi il se tourne vers Wikipedia pour avoir une vie sociale. Peut-etre, participant a un le RPG en ligne serait plus approprié, mais il se produit de sorte qu'une telle personne trouve Wikipedia plus attrayant. Bien, ceci prouve de nouveau que Wikipedia attire un très large public.

Définitivement, yes.

  • Est-ce qu'on a toujours besoin de supposer la bonne foi d'un éditeur?

Définitivement, non.

When someone is just trying to attract attention no matter whether he produces good or bad impression on people, he quickly realizes that in virtually any social environment the most effective and easy way to accomplish this goal is to make destructive actions rather than positive and useful ones. When it comes to the Wikipedia environment, the editor notices that nominating popular articles for deletion, participating in discussions in an uncivilized way to turn them into quarrels, and other actions of that kind, including even vandalism, easily attract as much attention if not more as good and fair work on articles and support of other people working on them. Some of those editors are smart enough to realize, however, that they also need to do some work on articles, so that they would not be considered pure disruptors by the community and thus would not be simply blocked. They usually switch between those two kinds of activity very often and quickly, and the community continues to assume good faith of them, "because they do make useful contributions".

However, such editors hinder the development of the project, drawing away other editors and wasting their time that would otherwise be spent on useful work on articles. Therefore, their contribution is as disruptive as the contribution of ordinary vandals, and may even be more harmful, because it continues for long time, whereas obvious vandals are blocked quickly.

Wikipedia is not a convalescent center for people with the lack of communication. If an editor spoils the project more than improves it, it might be considered wise and useful to restrict his work on the project to those areas where he can do positive work, and isolate him from other areas. That may include, for example, prohibition to edit pages in the Wikipedia: namespace for a particular editor, or using some kind of mentoring procedure that would narrow down the amount of people drawn away by editor's actions.

It should also be noted that the lack of communication and subnormal socialization are medical problems that require assistance from qualified health professionals. Trying to resolve these problems just by participating in an online project may not help, and may even make the situation worse, because other members of the project are usually not health professionals. Remember that Wikipedia does not give medical advice.

If, at the rare moments when you are able to look at yourself from outside, you notice that currently the primary goal of your activity in Wikipedia is communication and attracting attention, and all other reasons are far less important or even don't turn you on anymore, you probably should:

  • Try to compensate your lack of communication somewhere else, for example, in IRC.
  • Seek help from qualified health professionals.

Spin out your nerves and manage to make decisive actions.

Voir aussi (anglais)[edit]