Some Wikipedians questions the attack dog culture

[Ognistysztorm]

This is in secret section of Wikipediocracy where some Wikipedians questions the attack dog culture.

This appeared :offtopic: in that other thread, but I think this may be a worthy point of discussion.

I agree that the personal vindictiveness and doxlite approach explains WPians negative opinions of the site, but, sorry, I don't see an available alternative. When I first realized that I needed an internet-based release valve from the WPworld to discuss the goings-on, the options were scant and were alarming. Wikipedia Review was founded by an inveterate white supremacist and they had more than one flavor of whackjob running the place. This only reinforced the claims back at WP that "it's not us, it's them" for one but, for another, it had the effect of pushing aside a venue for meaningful discussion.

Nevertheless, because there were no alternatives, small pockets of legitimate critique and analysis couldn't help but show up there. Sometimes the commentary was problematic. Sometimes it was interspersed with cringe-worthy obsessiveness. But the internet culture swirling at that time that would make KiwiFarms weep; it was no wonder that the WR had its rough-and-tumble side.

This site is a bit more grown up, but it keeps the invective release valve for posterity. There is now also the additional Wikipedia Sucks overflow for which I think we should actually be glad sorta works. I have seen this dynamic go on for long enough to understand and now appreciate the model here that PvP and questionable "outing" violations are managed rather than kicked to the curb entirely. Yes, sometimes the :flaming-v:, I think, strays to far into the bigotry category with his criticisms and he is certainly not above the old-fashioned internet sleuth games. That is the price of admission whether you, I, or anyone else who is not in charge here likes it or not.

Prior to this, I posted in this same forum about an account that I think deserves extra scrutiny. I have no doubt that there are people who would put this and V's attack on SS in the same category. I, personally, would not, but then, of course I would say that and, otherwise, the law in its majestic equality.... In any case, the bigger problem as I see it is that identifying personality problems generally is not something that is possible to do on WP due to a culture that pretends that IRL identity is irrelevant. In spite of decades' worth of arguments that people have tried to make to me that this is a good way to do things, I have seen enough empirical evidence that such "seamy" stuff results in outcomes beneficial to Wikipedia or, at least, a commitment to better content shown to the naive readers typing in "Is the Earth Flat?" into their search bar.

This site has a different model of "civility" than does WP. It may tolerate a high amount of animus, but to dismiss it entirely and is to dismiss a history of success.