Hacker News Reader

> Today correcting a typo might trigger a full-time editor to defend his turf. Even asking questions about an uncited assertion on a talk page can be labeled as disruptive.

This doesn't align with my experience. From what I've seen, the consensus is that the majority of edits from an IP user are constructive, and they're not reverted simply because they're from an IP user. I've seen data about this[1], but for fun I looked at a page I've edited recently. Out of the last 50 edits, 13 were from IP users (26%), and only 4 of them were vandalism (30% of IP edits).

You are right that some people entrench into a "turf" and revert things for no reason. This is an old problem on Wikipedia. But this is pretty rare across the site from my experience. And I have seen people get warnings for this behavior. If someone was reverting simple typo fixes or discussions on a Talk page I would expect something to happen to that user, regardless if it was against an IP user or not.

That's not to say there are no advantages to having an account. Creating new pages, uploading files, and editing semi-protected pages require an account. Some articles require pretty strict criteria to edit, your account has to be at least 30 days old with 500 edits (which is more than I have). This list is around 7000 articles[2] which is more than I expected.

^1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_editors_are_human...

^2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Protected...

> Some articles require pretty strict criteria to edit

500 edits and a 30-day history are not "pretty strict" - it's the minimum evidence that you have a basic knowledge of the rules. Protected articles are articles that tend to attract wingnuts and agenda-pushers.

I keep on coming across editors with a history of (say) 50 minor edits, 100% of which have been quickly reverted for being nonsense or worse. It's a blessing that such editors can't alter high-profile sesitive articles.

From an outside perspective these things make Wikipedia editing look more like a game. It is similar to other online communities where points are earned. Profile pages full of merit badges and bureaucratic roles speak for themselves. Sign in to create a character. Level up to unlock achievements. Cast spells by citing rare editorial policy scrolls.

If players enjoy their game, that's fine. However it should be understandable when others don't want to invest in a Wikipedia lifetime achievement award. Malign incentives for paid editing scams occur where the online game overlaps with people's lives and businesses.

I agree with your complaint about merit badges; I think they signify nothing more than that you have allies among Wikipedia editors. Since editing Wikipedia should be non-partisan, advertising that you have allies suggests that you're a suspect editor.

But I've been editing WP since about 2004. I have no merit badges, and no admin privileges. I have no allies. I just want to improve the encyclopaedia.

There are some good editors on WP. I've even been lucky enough to encounter a few. In most cases you wouldn't know they are there, because they don't engage in high visibility problematic behavior.

Man, you can't even post a comment in the article without knowing how to edit a wiki yourself.

That's some mid level whataboutism.

> the Internet's arbiter of "truthiness" for too long.

That's funny how you use a word made popular by Stephen Colbert.

Wikipedia is fine. We are not "stuck" with wikipedia, there are alternatives. Wikipedia is a free source of information, with certain rules. It is good enough.

> highly politicized

You cannot reach perfect objectivity or neutrality. Wikipedia depends on sources. People who attack wikipedia often sound like they have an agenda.

> Even asking questions about an uncited assertion on a talk page can be labeled as disruptive.

From their perspective it's spam. And it seems to work, as in: they have a wikipedia and you can complain but elsewhere.