Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Please do not bite the newcomers page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 14 days

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Unprofessional and unencylopedic

Why is a joke about a tiger biting a soccer ball in this article? This just seems very idiotic and pointless.--CheeseInTea (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea[reply]

I've noticed that pages about Wikipeida and its functioning usually allow more informality and occasional humor. There's probably better out there than this tiger, but the replacement might also be something with at least some levity to it. B k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. In fact, it seems funny to me, because this page is indeed supposed to be humorous. Berpihakdibalutkenetralan (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We vs you

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia (only about 250 edits, with the first edit in 2005), and I've noticed a common pattern in comments to me from editors who have made thousands of edits, of the form "We don't do what you are doing now." There's a joke I've heard a few times: "Wikipedia is a community of editors, and everybody else is an uninvited guest," and the use of we/you bolsters that perception. As much as it is advised against, there are page owners who maintain their authority partly by use of the we/you dichotomy.

I realize that "we" in English grammar can include or exclude the person being spoken to, but context often makes it clear that the experienced editor is using the exclusionary form. Even if not, it's very easy to read/misinterpret it as such unless the inclusionary form is somehow made explicit.

So, I propose adding an etiquette rule to this page such as:

An editor is a member of the Wikipedia community from their first edit, and there is no "we" versus "you".

or

Avoid "othering" editors by distinguishing between "we, the editors" and "you, the newbie".

Is this something others have often observed? Is it worth adding; is it already covered elsewhere? B k (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having heard this myself, I'm in agreement. It gives a sense that you are being allowed into their space, and you must do things their way. Rather, a discussion of "Here's how we have done things in other places, here's why, with that in mind, we should do the same on this article you've made." Not it's possible to use the terms "we" and "you" in a sentence without making someone feel excluded. El Dubs (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can relate to that. If you come as a new editor and you don't do things exactly as the "we" want then they just ban you. Dbainsford (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the Wikipedia community has considered whether new editors even care about the community? They may care a great deal about creating missing articles, but may not give a fig for the community of Wikipedians, who are usually referred to outside THE COMMUNTIY as "Those ignorant prigs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Pwnt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to distance myself somewhat from King of Pwnt's speculation, though I understand where they're coming from; new editors dip their toes in the water for many different reasons (and in many ways; some edit for quite a while before they register an account), but yes, some do come here with a very specific goal in mind, including making an article on a non-notable topic and paid promotion.

B k has a valid point; it's easy to come off as a know-it-all insider when referring to our voluminous policies and guidelines, and one reason for our templated notices is that the wording has been refined to be as clear and polite as possible. The fact is, though, this is a unique project (with 20 years of accumulated practice). The way we do things is hard to predict or even understand from the outside (such as the role of consensus and how we define it). There are even significant differences between the different-language Wikipedias (in things as fundamental as who can create new articles and the process for examining them). It's hard to not say "we do it this way" when our guidelines are fundamentally what the community has evolved. But while I share the concern, I don't think further accretion of guidelines is the best solution. The message of this essay is to remember that we were all new once, and treat new editors like human beings and remembering that it's good to have new editors. I advocate keeping the essay as simple as possible to keep the focus on that fundamental message. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point (I posted the above a year ago), I agree with you, @Yngvadottir, there _is_ a "we" versus "them", people who edit Wikipedia are not necessarily Editors, and to say otherwise is a polite fiction. Note that the very page we're discussing is written entirely in a we/they format.

In ostensibly flat hierarchies, an unwritten informal hierarchy invariably emerges, often based on social ties invisible to outsiders; this is more-or-less a law of nature. As desperately as everybody tries to deny it, WP is heavily run by page owners ("VIP"s), and in consensus discussions they get priority over everybody else, partly for those social reasons that moderators give them deference and they can call on associates to win debates over a lone newcomer. A year ago, I wrote in a manner that denied these realities of loose holocrocacies, but I'm accepting of those realities now.

[Which is not to deny that Wikipedia is an incredible achievement of humanity that for the most part works. But on the narrow topic we're discussing, flat hierarchies are all but impossible.] B k (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there is actually a hierarchy among non-admin Wikipedia editors

Some existing non-admin users treat new or IP users as "inferior" to them. 42.116.53.21 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is this rewrite ready to replace the current page?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Background: This page was created in 2003, and the guideline header was added in 2005.

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing.

Do not accept the rewrite as guideline; this page does not need to be rewritten.
Do not accept the rewrite as guideline; the rewrite needs more work to replace the current text.
Accept the rewrite as guideline, but add the template {{under discussion}}
Accept the rewrite as guideline, and do not add the template {{under discussion}}

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging idea lab participants @Chaotic Enby @Folly Mox @Aaron Liu Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3, definitely an improvement on the current guideline! And we can move to option 4 once the VP discussion concludes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 The source for newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content is from 2006 and is 18 years old now. Additionally, that study only looked at content in two articles. Please find a more current and comprehensive study to support this point, or remove this point from the page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this issue is too severe for the rewrite to become a guideline, or do you think there are other problem points? I don't disagree with you: I'd imagine this detail could be removed with discussion after it's been made into a guideline. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fixed first, since it is a key part of the lede. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2; I agree with RudolfRed that the study is far from ideal and should be removed before any other substantial changes are made. ― novov (t c) 08:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I think the old lead is much more concise than the new one, but I think the rest of the rewrite looks good. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around. The guideline's lead is 152 words; the proposal's is only 114. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Too much material has been lost. While the extant guideline page has blathery cruft in it, this calls for a point-by-point concision edit, not loss of a whole bunch of entire points/principles. If one of those should be excised entirely, each such change would be a major guideline change that should be subject to pro/con discussion about that change. PS: RudolfRed's skepticism about a statistically invalid pseudo-study from ages ago is sensible, but it's already part of the extant guideline, so whether to remove it or not really has nothing to do with the current proposal. That is, if the proposed version is poorer in comparison to the "live" version (and I think it is in some ways) it will not be because part of it in the long-accepted live version wasn't changed/removed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]