User talk:Mandruss/Respect your elders

Feedback

I agree with the essay, but it’s pretty condescending at present. I also struggle to see in which situations it’d be linked to, as if linked to by an 'elder' it seems self-aggrandising and basically tells newbies to zip it which might hurt editor retention. Perhaps a quiet link in a relevant discussion by a previously uninvolved editor? Regardless I’m very interested to see how the essay develops, and think this is positive for the community Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Rather than the section on AI, you could have proverbs about old age? just some examples (the first African one was by Amadou Hampâté Bâ, you might have to search for the original source for these)

While the focus of this essay should be on newbies respecting elders, imo it should also say elders have a higher responsibility to give a good example etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for dissenting, but I'm not the biggest fan of the framing for this essay. On a broad scale, I agree that newer users should defer to more established ones, but the statement: "One might go so far as to say that the 1,000-edit editor has about five percent as much to contribute (1000⁄20000 = 0.05)..." is a laughable proposition once you're over a few thousand edits. This essay reeks of WP:HIGHSCORE and it is rather easy to rack up 'points' without much trouble. What's to stop someone from spending 2 days running Twinkle to get a 'high score'? After the WP:DCGAR fiasco, it was pretty well accepted that number of Good Articles was not a valid metric for seniority and authority, why is this any different? We are not equals... Is horrible phrasing, but hey, I too like to bite at times.

An Example (Sorry to pick on you Kowal2701):

Kowal2701 has ~17k edits and an average edit size of 140 bytes For comparison, I have ~6.8k edits at an average of 344 bytes. Does this mean my edits are worth 2.5 times as much as theirs or are their opinions 2 times as important as mine? I prefer neither, but this is just food for thought. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ll also note that I have a remarkably poor knowledge of policy for my edit count and regularly run into highly competent regulars (sometimes multiple FAs) with ~5000 edits (not to mention bot work damages the notion of edit count=experience) Kowal2701 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments to date. After sleeping on it, I can see a better way to express my ideas (I think). I'll rewrite the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about "condescending", but there is no way to avoid seeming paternalistic. It is paternalistic by its very nature. The line between paternalism and condescension, if there is one, is a very thin one. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it’s mainly the We are not equals stated without prior context. Maybe something like We are not all equals in terms of what we can contribute to a discussion, and, generally, users more experienced with Wikipedia's policies/best practices and processes tend to offer more reasoned, rounded, and constructive responses, the assessment of which may not be clear to newer editors. (but with more accurate words at the end) Kowal2701 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me rewrite and then we can start over. One of my plans is to eliminate edit count from the discussion entirely. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. You could say edit count and GA/FA articles can be indicators of experience, and therefore knowledge and understanding, but warn against them at the same time Kowal2701 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll just make the obvious point that there are exceptions to every rule. And I intend to introduce two hypothetical editors, editor Young and editor Old. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I started the rewrite, then lost my mojo before I finished it. This is actually better, since we can focus discussion on a smaller piece of the final product. Fire when ready. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It’s good, very focussed. Also not condescending at all. I think it needs a paragraph at the start that essentialises the essay but unsure of its contents. Maybe: People who devote a significant portion of their life to building and improving the encyclopaedia deserve respect. But there is also a practical reason to reason to defer to 'elders'.

I do still think the end should have a sentence on elders having responsibility to give a good example, but maybe that’d be better as a separate essay. Similar to WP:ADMINCONDUCT, there are highly experienced non-admins who newbies might look to Kowal2701 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

essentialises the essay The nutshell should essentialize the essay, but it's already occupied. Did you see that? Nutshells shouldn't be much longer than that.

I think it still needs to discuss the amount of discussion oxygen consumed by Young relative to others. That's where the mojo ran out. I can get it back within a few days. Or, you might say something to bring it back. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sorry meant introduction. Sounds good Kowal2701 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you think it needs to explain how Young can check Oldman's experience ("Edit count" link at the bottom of contribs)? Just because Oldman talks like he's old, that doesn't necessarily mean he is. He could be an imposter. Actually that happens a lot. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes but very carefully worded because of WP:HIGHSCORE, maybe Edit count, checked at [[Special:Contributions/Oldman]], can be indicative of experience Kowal2701 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That "Edit count" link is misleading and ought to be changed. But I wasn't planning to even mention edit count. Rather it would be something like, "This provides a lot of information about Oldman's editing history." After one is familiar with the page, they can get a pretty good feel without even looking at actual numbers. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Lots of changes. More feedback? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Well written, quite humorous. The cocktail party section is a little strange, as parents don’t really fit Wikipedia, but can’t think of anything better. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

parents don’t really fit Wikipedia - It's pretty clear that Youngs who don't show deference to Oldmans have not been taught respect for experience by their parents. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

More of a wider cultural issue, I wouldn’t put it down to parents. As a metaphor it doesn’t really work as editors aren’t assigned “parents”, elder works better as it’s the parental imperative of the community Kowal2701 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of editors are teenagers, pushing away parental notions in favour of independence Kowal2701 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this better?[1] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Much better, concise and communicates the point well Kowal2701 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankth. I appreciate your inputs. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Also the Mother Nature section is sort just appeal to nature, but could briefly discuss the role of elder in tribal societies, and imply comparisons with Wikipedia. Source that may be helpful:

• The Human Elder in Nature, Culture, and Society (1997)

Kowal2701 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with appealing to nature, despite academics telling me I shouldn't. And this is not a Wikipedia article, so perhaps we could relax the academic rules here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:VPR#Change contribs "Edit count" link. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

For those who haven't yet seen the Godfather, I'd remove the mention of a certain character's death! I'd also remove the section under determining oldman's age. In my opinion, they are largely redundant and come across as condescending. BootsED (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@BootsED: The Godfather Part III#Plot: "Years later, an elderly Michael, sitting alone in the courtyard of Don Tommasino's villa, slumps over, falls to the ground, and dies." Wikipedia routinely does spoilers. Anyway, by the time they get around to watching the movie, they will have long forgotten what they read here, if they even bothered to waste neurons on that in the first place.

I'd also remove the section under determining oldman's age. In my opinion, they are largely redundant and come across as condescending. I don't understand. You're saying the "Determining Oldman's age" section is redundant and comes across as condescending? Redundant with what? How condescending? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been more specific. I meant the sections below that section. The Oldman's age section is fine. I just think the sections below that, such as the cocktail party section, are redundant and can come across as condescending in their tone based on how they are written. BootsED (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

condescending in their tone based on how they are written. Can you suggest different wording with the same meaning? Otherwise, gonna have to disagree and it's my essay. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

And of course, "Don't talk so much," which is essentially what I'm saying, is going to sound condescending. That's unavoidable if we want Young not to talk so much. I believe we do. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed the Mother Nature section. It didn't really apply, since the young wolf and lion aren't deferring to the experience of their elders. Rather, they are fearing the teeth and claws of their elders. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Respect the youth, too

I couldn't disagree with the tone and premise of this essay more. There is a correlation between experience and competence, but it's not a rule. Approaching discussions with the mindset that "Oldman is far more likely to be correct" is inevitable but not necessarily a good thing.

All editors are equal in value, even if they are not equal in privileges or standing. Privilege or standing does not make an editor's points more valid – we judge content, not contributor. Experienced editors do not deserve more respect than new editors simply because they have been around longer. Everyone who is here to build an encyclopedia deserves respect, from the famed cabal member to the IP who pops up on a talk page with an unexpectedly helpful suggestion. True, I respect some editors more because their insights have led me to reconsider my opinions, but sometimes editors I respect have gotten things badly wrong. Age doesn't equal wisdom. A recent example being PIA5's topic-banning of multiple highly experienced, well-read and policy literate editors for basic failures in upholding a constructive, collaborative attitude.

Like many, I use edit count and account age as a basic indicator of whether an editor is likely to know what they're talking about. But it's a crude and often misleading tool that should never be used to judge how good someone's suggestions or arguments are. A handy thing for new users to be aware of, at most. The police department analogy is covered by WP:CIR, and "[s]he should avoid commenting too often or too verbosely" is just a demeaning, unpleasant way of restating WP:BLUD. Personally, I have found the most disruptive bludgeoners are not the new editors – who either promptly change their ways after an explanation and warning or speed-run a block – but the strongly opinionated experienced editors, who can bludgeon a process in a less blatant and far more impactful manner.

If I came across this essay as a new editor I'd be disheartened or offended. We nurture the enthusiasm, naivety and mistakes of new editors with patience and understanding because the excited, verbose outsiders who stay and learn about Wikipedia's culture and policies are vital to our project, and may have a thing or two they can already teach us. Jr8825 • Talk 04:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There could be more info directed at elders on how to treat youngers (not necessarily newbies, like 1000-5000 edits) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be outside the scope of this essay. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

If I came across this essay as a new editor I'd be disheartened or offended. This essay will never be seen unless it's directed at a specific new(er) user who has no concept of his own limits and therefore disrupts discussion to the detriment of the associated article. I do not intend to add it to any lists of essays.

A recent prime example was Anonymous8206, who commented way too much at Talk:Donald Trump before they were finally indeffed for WP:NOTHERE. They had no interest in learning, since they already knew everything they needed to know. Anonymous8206 was far from a one-off; we see similar editors on a fairly regular basis at that article; but it was after Anonymous8206 that I decided enough was enough and something more needed to be done. I haven't seen the need to link to the essay yet, but I know I will.

I'm sorry that admins are not more aggressive about ridding the project of these useless, potential-free parasites (mostly because the community won't let them be). It shouldn't require one to spend their limited volunteer time building a case for ANI (AE even worse), and it's a crap shoot even if they do so. Behavior enforcement is broken at en-wiki.

Another reason I didn't spend my time filing against Anonymous8206: NOTHERE was iffy at best because they obviously believed they were helping improve the article (by telling experienced editors they didn't know what they were talking about). They were not trolling in the correct sense of the word. The problem was chronic Dunning–Kruger effect and the absence of any humility to counter it, but en-wiki doesn't indef for that.

En-wiki also doesn't indef for chronic WP:CIR, naively believing that anybody can learn if given enough help, coaxing, and coddling. The cost-benefit equation doesn't work: Wikipedia doesn't need those users. I have never seen an Anonymous8206 turned into a productive editor; have you?

While other new editors may see the essay at that time, it's reasonable to assume that, if the shoe doesn't fit, they won't wear it. They will have no reason to be disheartened or offended; they will simply say to themselves, "That's not me." And they will be proud that it's not them.

If this explanation is insufficient, feel free to write your own essay. I never expected this to be uncontroversial. "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." That means it doesn't matter if I'm the only editor in the entire project who supports this essay. If you don't like it, don't link to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Related, I've had the following on my user page since August 2020:

Please do not bite the newcomers unless they are clearly wrong, unwilling to learn, and unresponsive to a gentler approach. In those cases, please bite with increasing force until they improve or leave. Always bite with basic human respect; the object is not to demean or humiliate although that is often the unfortunate effect.

I think this essay is a relatively gentle bite. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The guideline is "please don't bite the newcomers", not "please don't bite the newcomers unless you really have to". What you think of a "gentle bite" can be seen by a newcomer as much more condescending, and you can't predict if it will only be used in cases where you think biting is warranted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, well I disagree with taking the guideline as absolute. I follow it in ~95% of cases, deviating in only the most extreme outliers. Few things are so black-and-white. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You and others like you are free to be Wikipedia ambassadors of goodwill even when the encyclopedia suffers. Especially in contentious topics, the two goals are, quite regrettably, sometimes incompatible. In those situations, I and many, many others prefer to put the encyclopedia first. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I have written two essays in 11.5 years. The other one is WP:DISRESPECT. It's only "somewhat" related because it's not about newbies in particular. (To be accurate, that lived on my user page until a different editor saw it and created an essay from it. The attribution problem was addressed and resolved on the essay's talk page. Then I removed it from my user page to avoid duplication and redundancy.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• This essay likes to use real life metaphors to explain why Young should stop talking and start listening to Oldman, so I'd like to offer an example to support the other way around.

Young and Oldman work at an office, and Young's job requires the memorization of an uncountable number of ever-changing rules and procedures. Oldman has been there for 15 years, while Young has only been there for half a year. Oldman takes one look at the work Young is doing and declares "this is all wrong."

But Oldman came to this conclusion based on a faded memory of how they used to do things, while Young was recently trained on the most up to date information, and being less confident in their work, actually checks if they're doing things right. Oldman is stubborn, so they escalate the disagreement by bringing in Young's boss, and even their boss's boss. But time and time again, Young was right. Eventually, the bosses (admins) tire of this, and Oldman gets fired (blocked).

If this sounds oddly specific, it's because I'm actually just complaining about my job. Don't put any of that in the essay. But the metaphor still applies; maybe Oldman has outdated knowledge, and they should consider talking less and listening to Young once in a while instead of having an arrogant "respect your elders" mentality.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but: "While there are the usual exceptions to the "rule", Oldman is far more likely to be correct." The italics emphasis is in the essay, not added here. That way, it's unlikely to be missed.. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The essay would benefit from having more than just half a sentence to acknowledge that maybe "Oldmen" shouldn't take the essay's core message to heart and arrogantly assume their tenure places them above less experienced editors. It would be better to clearly articulate that there can be downsides to age and upsides to youth; Oldman should make an effort to keep up with the times and remember that Young might have a better understanding of today's expectations. Acknowledging that exceptions exist, but not naming any and immediately reiterating the "oldman is probably right and young is probably wrong" message in the very same sentence, seems more like dismissing the exceptions than acknowledging them. But I suppose properly acknowledging that Oldman isn't always right would kind of undermine the central message of the whole essay and contradict the "Young shouldn't talk so much." thing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If I add such content to your satisfaction, will you switch to Oppose in the RM? If so, please give me a seed, some specific language to start from. I need your help since I don't even see the need for that within the scope of this particular essay. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding more nuance to the essay would make it a much better essay, but as I mentioned at the end there, such nuance would be out of place when the overarching message of the essay is incompatibile with that nuance. Making an effort to explain that Oldman isn't always right / Young should feel welcomed to speak and expect Oldman to listen would be a good thing to do, but if the entire rest of the essay is about how Oldman is almost certainly always right and Young should speak less and listen more, then that's still a problem. The issues with this essay are deep enough that it would need to be rewritten with a different intended meaning, preferably one that's not opposed to the very spirit of Wikipedia — an actual rewrite that's not just the same thing with less blunt language. But I don't think that's likely to happen, because judging by your responses to most of the negative feedback this essay is getting & how you mentioned you don't think it's even necessary to change it, I don't think you agree that there's anything wrong with it. And that's fine, it's your essay and yours alone. But that's why it's better suited to your userspace.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2025

Wikipedia:Respect your elders → User:Mandruss/Respect your elders – No matter how it is written, the core idea of this essay is that users of Wikipedia belong to two different categories, with a category of users who are likely to be right in discussions just because they are "older" (a highly controversial notion, no matter which metric we use to define "older"). And it's clearly condescending towards the "younger" users, an uncivil behavior according to Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding incivility.

According to Wikipedia:Essays#User essays, essays that openly contradict policy are tolerated, but only within userspace, not the Wikipedia namespace. Cambalachero (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Here is an early version. I received constructive feedback from two experienced editors, resulting in a complete rewrite. One of the two editors then commented, "Not condescending at all";[2] apparently its condescension is not "clear" enough for them. I admit it's controversial; I never expected otherwise. But no policy is being violated, and this request amounts to IJDLI. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - A reference to WP:CIVIL is rich in a community that contorted itself into a pretzel to find reason to forgive "Go fuck yourself" from a major contributor. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. This seems fine for a projectspace essay, and doesn't in my opinion contradict policy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:ESSAY, " Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (...) if they are found to be problematic." I personally don't agree with the contents of this essay - the "elderliness" of a user is irrelevant as long as WP:CIR and WP:CIVIL are being followed - but I wouldn't say it's problematic, so it can stay. 162 etc. (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose- While the earliest versions of this essay may have been in violation of WP:CIVIL, I fail to see how its current iteration is. I don't see the condescension, and I was the other editor criticizing this essay originally. Remember, WP:PERMA is allowed to be an essay despite it conflicting with general WP:GA and WP:AFD convention. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support—this is beyond minority, it goes against consensus and the spirit of Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose -- unless y'all are prepared to delete or send to user-space longstanding, widely-cited essays like WP:DTR, I see no logical basis why this essay is any different. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support – The issue isn't just that the essay is a minority viewpoint, but that it goes against the consensus of the community that there shouldn't be a "hierarchy" of editors based on seniority (and against WP:BITE). Especially in this case, the fact that it can be used as a tool against new users who wouldn't know that it is a minority viewpoint to begin with is what makes it especially problematic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a minority viewpoint that far superior experience should be respected. I respect experience far superior to my own; when I disagree with a far more experienced editor, I do so gently, without pressing the issue, and without perceiving some "hierarchy of editors". And I have 11.5 years experience. I know my limits, and that's all the essay asks. The essay focuses on newer editors because that's where the issue usually arises.

  There is precious little biting in the essay; it would be biting to say "Know your place" or "Don't talk so much" without explaining the very good practical reasons for doing so. (Besides, "Know your limits", the essay's true message, is very different from "Know your place", and Supporters are mistaken to read the latter between the lines.) By providing the reasoning, the essay implies that the reader is capable of understanding it and taking it to heart—and that's actually a show of respect, not biting.

  I am more than willing to entertain suggestions for improvement on this page (no guarantees), and I have already done so as stated above. See my user talk page for the barnstar recently received from one of the two experienced editors who provided initial feedback, an editor who was "once a fierce critic" in their own words. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a minority viewpoint that far superior experience should be respected. Since even many of the Oppose voters pointed out that they didn't agree with it/that it was a minority viewpoint, I don't think your assessment is especially accurate. Telling users that a higher edit count means that one is more likely to be correct is not ideal – I've often corrected editors with a much longer tenure/higher edit count, and in turn been corrected by users with much less experience than myself. I'm genuinely afraid that this being in project space means it will be used as a shield by experienced editors to not listen to criticism from (relative) newcomers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Telling users that a higher edit count means that one is more likely to be correct is not ideal The essay makes no mention of edit count. None. As I see it, a lot of the opposition/support-of-move results from misunderstandings and misrepresentations like this. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I mean... an entire section of the essay is just a step-by-step tutorial on how to find someone's editing stats.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as a general philosophical issue. First of all, it's fine and healthy for essays, including controversial essays, to be in Wikipedia space. However, it is not fine for... what's a good term... something like "Essays antithetical to core policies yet masquerading as rules / policy prescriptions." The essay tag isn't enough. This is the kind of essay perfect for userspace and problematic in Wiki-space - it's fine as a minority view, but this is absolutely NOT the "rule" on Wikipedia, where a 1-day old account can be right and a 20-year old account can be wrong and the 20-year old account should not be able to swing around a link like "please see Wikipedia:Respect your elders" without mentioning that this is an essay with very little consensus for it and major consensus against. There are already too many policy prescriptions in Wikipedia space, we don't need faux ones in the mix too to make it even harder to figure out what's useful and what isn't. (And hell, there are plenty of user space essays with lots of cred that are frequently cited - WP:THREE, WP:YWAB, etc. So it's not like user space means it's unusable. YWAB is a good example - it'd be a terrible idea for Wikipedia space, as it's not policy, but some people really connect with it, so stick it in user space.) SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  We need to be realistic about how essays, especially those advising new editors on how to behave, are perceived by new editors. You’re totally right that this will get used like “also, see WP:ELDERS”, and new editors will think that it’s a policy or majority viewpoint. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe shortcuts could be changed to WP:ELDERS (essay) for example? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  That quite defeats the purpose of a shortcut, and is no gentler than userfying the essay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I meant in general for essays Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as author, per my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per 'nothing wrong with it'. Except a few things. Needs humor, this topic can be presented with some humor to offset any resentment by 'young' editors. I've added a bit along with some explanatory language. It should certainly add more to say that the elders can be dumbasses in some areas, that they aren't always right, and that experiences should give them more experience but sometimes the opposite is true. Can't deny the expertise and knowledge of some of the Sheldon Coopers around here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Babysitters are expensive" and "...reflecting on fond memories of his innocent and carefree youth" are (attempts at) humor. Too much humor can be distracting, but I accept your changes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll stop. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think the elders can be dumbasses in some areas [...] is adequately covered by "While there are the usual exceptions to the 'rule'", italicized for emphasis. Any more would be outside the scope of this essay in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Mandruss, 'Urgent Issue 918' is less confusing than 'Issue 918' which sounds like an actual unexplained thing. Adding 'Urgent', especially with such a large random number, gives notice that it is a fictional device and not an actual major Issue that only long-time editors would be aware of. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: Do you really believe that a reader is going to think this essay is specific to one real-world issue? I give them more credit. It's an obvious rhetorical device. It's also obvious that it's not specific to Article A, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support As Zanahary put it, this is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. There truly is no scenario where it would be appropriate or acceptable for an "older" editor to invoke this essay in an argument with a newer editor. I'll add that there are plenty of editors whose accounts are half as old as mine who nevertheless have a much better understanding of policy than I do, and even more editors who've been around since before I knew the alphabet who nevertheless have a poor understanding of policies and procedures. Any use of this essay would be problematic. Let's not have it in Wikispace with its own shortcut.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mean to go on and on, but your comment made me think—if an older editor expressed this essay's idea, without linking to it, in a dispute with a newer editor, they may face sanctions. Because it's very patently inappropriate and BITEy, and misrepresents how Wikipedia works. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Then string me up, since I have already done so. And I'm not the only one. And we didn't do so with nearly as much reasoning or explanation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely. The mindset that this essay is expressing (especially in its earlier revisions with phrasing like "We are not equal.") is incompatibile with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. This essay is talking about WP:EDITCOUNTITIS as a good thing.

  To your point about how this disdain for newcomers can lead to sanctions, I have to mention that the mentality expressed by the author when they wrote "I'm sorry that admins are not more aggressive about ridding the project of these useless, potential-free parasites" is exactly the type of mindset that resulted in the first ever successful admin recall.

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Lol. Why on earth are you objecting to its earlier revisions??

  What I have said on this page is irrelevant to this discussion. This is similar to how we can say things on article talk pages that we can't put in articles. For example, I don't attempt (much) to conceal my extreme disdain for Donald Trump on the ATP, while being among the best at preventing that from affecting my editing of the article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The mindset and attitude towards new users this essay is endorsing is the same between its earlier revisions and the current revision, the only difference was the earlier version lacked any subtlety. The essay still endorses the idea that "we are not equals", just less bluntly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't dispute that. Do you claim that all cops are equals, or that such equality exists in any domain where experience is important? Why should Wikipedia be different from the rest of the world in that regard? Make this make sense, please. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles #2: there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. We're an open encyclopedia, not a hierarchical police force. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I suspect Jimbo would make exception for the very few users this essay will be directed at: those suffering from Dunning–Kruger effect with no humility to counter it. I wonder if there is any way to ask him? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the cop analogy — what if a new cop correctly identifies misbehavior from tenured cops? The prescribed behavior of this essay is that new users should just shut up and defer to older users. I would certainly hope that my police department doesn't have that mentality. This essay places seniority above substance. This essay's only conceivable use is as a tool to shut down discussion by giving a justification for editors to essentially say "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm older than you. Know your place." If this essay acknowledges that seniority is completely irrelevant to whether someone is right or wrong, and all that matters is, well, whether someone is actually right or wrong, regardless of seniority, then this essay serves absolutely no purpose.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The prescribed behavior of this essay is that new users should just shut up and defer to older users. More counter-productive, hyperbolic misrepresentation. This is where I back away and let things take their course, since further discussion is pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  To quote you verbatim: And of course, "Don't talk so much," which is essentially what I'm saying, is going to sound condescending. That's unavoidable if we want Young not to talk so much. I believe we do. I don't think it's a "misrepresentation" to say you're asking the "young" to just shut up.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  What I have said on this page is irrelevant to this discussion. This is similar to how we can say things on article talk pages that we can't put in articles. Unlike things like NPOV, our policies about civility extend to the whole project. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  There is no incivility in this essay. You can't wave policy shortcuts around like trump cards. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please tell me how calling editors useless, potential-free parasites is not incivility. Again, civility also applies to this talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The essay does not say that. This is a discussion about the essay. Bye, I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The survival of this essay, may well depend on whether or not its creator, practices what they preach. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  He does so, but that has nothing to do with the survival of this essay in Wikipedia space. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is to move to userspace, not deletion. "Survival" is guaranteed either way Cambalachero (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Survival on main space, to be exact. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Support, but it's fine to keep if marked as humorous. Wisdom from elders is usually pertaining to someone's personal experiences of a subject. This is somewhat beneficial when discussing a change that is not based on any guidelines or policies, which I can't think of any examples, but if someone who has had a similar discussion before brings up a past discussion and their experiences from it, that's a good example of this being in use.

However, there are, of course, faults with it. Namely that people may assume that, since they've experienced this before, their opinion matters more. No one's opinion matters more, which this article seems to heavily imply. Most people, in real life, respect elders, and their opinions more, since they've lived through things before. But we have guidelines and policies to refer to, which matter more than what an old editor has to say.

The main issue is this essay's reliance on edit count for determining age. Edit counts nor account age are reliable for determining how much experience someone has on Wikipedia. It is very easy to farm thousands of edits without trekking into discussions of anything. I have nearly 2,500 edits and I've had an account for 13 years, but there are people with less edits and younger accounts than me who likely have more experience than me in discussions, but according to this article, I'm the elder, despite me not having many experiences myself.

This essay also encourages people to only listen to elders, instead of everyone. While there may be people inexperienced, unless their opinion relies on stuff that violates policies or guidelines, their opinion still matters just as much. An elder should not come in and say "nah" and that be listened to over someone deemed "young". And, most importantly, there is no "practical reason" to defer to an elder, like this essay's introduction encourages. Their opinions should still be heard, but not only theirs should be listened to. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 21:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others is not something we should enshrine in WP space. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support – I explained why I disagree with this essay above. I hope we choose not to permit an essay that is incompatible with the fourth pillar in the community space. Jr8825 • Talk 01:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:CIVIL contains one occurrence of "condescen", to wit:

  Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages.

  The policy gives illustrative examples for a reason: to prevent us from defining "condescension" in whatever way serves our immediate purpose. This essay contains nothing resembling that kind of language, and any cites of CIVIL (or WP:5P4, which is about civility and begins with a link to CIVIL) are simply "original research" misinterpretations (or deliberate misrepresentations) of both its letter and its spirit. There is no place for that in this discussion.
  I trust that any unstricken such references will be discounted by the closer. Competent closers look deeper than merely counting wikilinks to pillars and policies. Just as WP:CRYBLP is a thing, so are CRYNPOV, CRYNOR, CRYCIVIL, or any other CRY[insert policy shortcut]. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's a stretch to say that WP:CIVIL offering an example of what condescension is means that anything that doesn't fit that example automatically is not condescension. Our Wikipedia entry for Condescension describes it as "an attitude of patronizing superiority or contempt." I think many support !voters, myself included, feel that condescension permeates throughout the entire essay; the core ideas of the essay are themselves patronizing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sir or madam, you are free to cite a Wikipedia article to support your position when the policy doesn't. That's what I meant by "original research". Again, I trust the closer won't buy it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:No original research is about writing articles, and does not apply here. The example of condescension is merely a courtesy. As for "what does the policy mean specifically when they say 'condescension'?", that's just lawyer's talk, and usually it's not seen favorably. Condescension means condescension and that's it, it's the same meaning as in the real world. Even if someone argues that "an attitude of patronizing superiority or contempt" does not mean "condescension" and brings some books on linguistics to prove such a point, that wouldn't mean that such an attitude would not still be at odds with the WP:CIVIL policy. Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I put "original research" in quotemarks so it would be clear I wasn't actually citing WP:NOR but presenting a useful metaphor to convey a concept. Apparently not clear enough for you. Condescension means condescension and that's it - I categorically reject that. Words used in policies often have meanings specific to Wikipedia, and those meanings are spelled out in the policies. See "notability". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support. This essay as written is contradictory to WP:BITE -- meaning it "overtly contradict[s] consensus" -- and shouldn't be in WP space per WP:POLICIES. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I invite all editors to read what they cite. BITE's nutshell: "Don’t be hostile toward fellow editors..." Now kindly point out some hostility in this essay. No reading between lines, please. If you say, "It violates BITE because I say it does," then we have no basis for discussion and this becomes a democratic vote. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Well, WP:BITE does say Perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Before concluding they are simply "wrong", it is sometimes better to observe for a while and, if necessary, ask the newcomer what they are trying to achieve. This essay's central message that "Young" is almost certainly wrong isn't compatible with that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Surrender. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  When there are many editors involved, regardless of who is correct, drastic changes tend to be much more likely to be opposed than incremental changes. Whenever possible in contentious pages or policy pages, such as about Zionism, editors' pronouns, IAR meaning, I carefully seek a substantive change that appears acceptable and could be defended as consistent with the status quo and use that defense in the edit summary, and it has prevented opposition more often than not. I suggest that to deal with editors such as Anonymous8206, you could carefully point to WP:CLUE or WP:IDHT, they have often been used to address similar problems that you tried to address, especially the latter at ANI, and the nuances therein have enjoyed broad consensus. I hope that helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Respect vs deference

The working definition of respect contained: respect being about "a healthy deference to experience" sets up a false dichotomy between respect and deference. Deference is one of several options an editor has after listening with humility. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave: This essay has nothing to do with editors who listen with humility. I think it makes that abundantly clear; but feel free to suggest changes that would make it even more clear. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's not intended for editors who listen with humility, but it is imploring those linked editors to listen with humility. The outcome of that can be deference, but not necessarily, and respectful disagreement can be just as desirable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)