Meet Hemenchuia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemiauchenia
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4547
He is perhaps typical of the sort of person who edits Wikipedia. He's been doing it for a few years, and made a few thousand edits, so a n00b he is not.
Indeed, Hemenchuia feels himself qualified enough to talk about Wikipedia on the alleged Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy. His presence there as an apparently respected and regular commentator, someone whose thoughts were even found worthy of being used for one of their blogs, is perhaps one of the reasons people in positions of power and influence have stopped paying any attention to Wikipediocracy.
I've long suspected what Hemenchuia was, but never really considered him worthy of comment until he started casting himself as a knowledgeable critic, which he manifestly isn't. Then I started paying attention to what he says, which is useful, because he's one of those Wikipedia editors who over shares, and who, like most of their membership, apparently sees the Wikipediocracy forum as the social club that the Wikipedia experience can't provide them.
By simply reading what he posts at Wikipediocracy and the back office areas of Wikipedia, I know for example, one of the reasons he really loves Wikipedia, is that the website allows him to potter away making edits in his chosen topic of interest (dinosaurs) in splendid isolation. Apparently nobody bothers him, literally nobody.
A knowledgeable critic would have spotted what that says about Wikipedia, and said something about it at the time. Those days are long gone at Wikipediocracy. Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia where anyone can contribute, and so many eyes spot errors and otherwise improve articles in a collaborative way.
So if Hemenchuia is in all reality being given free reign in an important educational subject like that, the sort of area that children would be looking at to help them with their homework, they're not really consulting an encyclopedia, are they? Not even an encyclopedia whose price tag of zero dollars and zero cents should give you some idea of the likely quality.
What they're viewing, is Hemenchuia's personal dinosaur blog. Work he is undoubtedly very proud of and has spent much time producing, but his own work, its quality and indeed usefulness, self assessed and self certified. Perhaps wisely, even though he's at that stage where it would be the done thing if he was serious about being a Wikipedian, Hemenchuia is not minded to proactively put his work forward for peer review.
Not for him, is any desire to have his articles reviewed and hopefully marked as "Good" or even "Featured", even if these are just Wikipedia's own quality metrics. To be fair, that's become a rarity on Wikipedia all round, with barely 0.1% of their 6 million plus articles (and falling), having this quality mark. Almost like the Wikipedia editors know what they are (shit at writing an encyclopedia), so don't go looking for reminders.
Hemenchuia to be fair, claims no expertise in his field, and since he doesn't tell anyone who he is in real life, as is his right as a Wikipedian, he can hardly expect anyone to take him seriously as an authority. He is like any Wikipedia editor, his edits have to stand on their own.
I've had a look at what he considers hs best work, pages where he claims to have vastly improved the size and detail of a Wikipedia article in his splendid isolation, and it's pretty rubbish. It's certainly not remotely of a quality that would see him hired as an Editor at Britannica, or any academic publisher.
I'm deliberately not providing any examples here, since, well, if you can't find them yourself, and if you can't tell the difference between a Britannica article and the hobbyist efforts of some random, why are you even reading about this stuff? Be on your way.
So with this in mind, I was randomly checking what Hemenchuia was up to recently, so I could say mean things about him on the internet (and to be fair again, unlike most Wikipedia editors, he seems to take the view I should be entitled to do that), and I was surprised to see an extreme manifestation of what this perception of splendid isolation can often do to a Wikipedia editor like Hemenchuia.
Witness the bizarre events of this snapshot of a Wikipedia article talk page conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephanorhinus&oldid=1066331220
Quite unexpectedly for Hemenchuia it seems, his splendid isolation being the author and curator of a couple of Wikipedia pages on some obscure extinct rhino, was interrupted by an editor suggesting some of these pages could be consolidated into one page. This would be a standard editorial proposal at a serious encyclopedia. No point wasting the time of readers by expecting them to navigate around different articles that largely duplicate each other for no good reason. Especially if they are probably already bored out for their minds, since the only reason they are even reading these pages is to find interesting things to say about rhinos for a class project.
But man alive, did Hemenchuia not like that. He disliked it so much, he had an absolute meltdown. In a fit of pique, he said that if this was to happen, he would rip out all the work he had put into the pages.
While he apparently didn't know it at the time, he was in the process displaying a major misunderstanding of one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. You don't have any claim over any of the work you put into their "encyclopedia", save an almost meaningless entitlement to a copyright credit of zero economic value. As soon as you hit publish, you have donated that text to the collective.
It is not yours, it is Wikipedia's, to do with it what it sees fit. And the Wikipedia model is that that it is for the amorphous blob known as the "community" to decide such things, and where there is disagreement, it is resolved by consensus. Unsurprisingly, the consensus in that matter is going against Hemenchuia.
When these central tenets were pointed out to him by one of his fellow editors, in a creditably calm way given Hemenchuia was acting quite childishly and with a shocking level of ignorance for such an experienced Wikipedia editor, rather than soberly reflect, he doubled down.
In open defiance of the good advice he received, he actually carried through with his threat, and ripped out what he perceived as his personal contribution to one of the articles. This was unsurprisingly quickly undone, and even more creditably, the editor doing it remained calm, politely reminding Hemenchuia of his earlier advice.
He yet again chose to ignore this advice, and did what many a Wikipedia editor often does when they can't get their way, and performed the infamous "diva quit". He declared, with as much drama as he could muster, that he was done with Wikipedia. He was leaving. For good! And it was their fault. He was essentially claiming this other editor, this "jerk", had bullied him off the project. A serious claim.
In the midst of this departure, he also tried to have one of the other articles fully deleted on the grounds he perceived it as entirely his own work, and again, contrary to advice to had been given. That too, was unsurprisingly, reversed.
Hemenchuia perhaps doesn't realise how lucky he is that those other editors observing this farce, didn't take that accusation of bullying personally, and instead did what Wikipedia behavioural policy advises, and just withdrew, leaving the baby to his bottle.
That's surprisingly rare for the Wikipedia community, which often seems like it exists only to foster and sustain conflict, and perhaps reflects what was going on here, wherein someone who thought he was an experienced and senior Wikipedia editor, came across people who actually are senior and experienced editors, and ended up with egg all over his face. Quite embarrassing, I would guess. Although like most Wikipedia editors, Hemenchuia appears quite shameless.
Whether it was an empty threat or he just calmed down, it turns out Hemenchuia didn't leave Wikipedia. Not for long anyway. It perhaps scared him to realise, as he lurked in the following days, that even when he made this dramatic statement, nobody came to his talk page to beg him to stay, having silently appreciated all his good works. He perhaps was reminded of the downsides of splendid isolation, namely, if you're upset and are looking for comfort and support, well, you're on your own buddy. If you quit, then buh bye!
This is why Wikipedia works best when it is a genuine community, and why it's pretty laughable to consider editors like Jess Wade, who seem to quite deliberately avoid any kind of interaction at all with their fellow editors, even those seeking to thank them, as if they are role models to children.
Hemenchuia needed support here. He needed someone to come to him to advise him to calm down, realise what he was saying was stupid, and sort his life out. He needed a parent, or an older sibling at the very least.
At most, what he found was a polite and mature citizen who cared not a jot for his tantrum, interacted with him only as much as the law demands, and stayed calm even as Hemenchuia spat in his face like a drunken lout. Quite remarkable, given nobody on Wikipedia is being paid to endure that kind of abuse.
Hemenchuia wisely didn't reach out to his friends at Wikipediocracy, at least not publicly. And after just three days, he seems to have calmed down, and returned to Wikipedia like nothing had happened. He didn't, for example, issue any apologies, even though he has much to apologise for, both in terms of the Wikipedia policies he broke, and the fact he alone, was the only jerk in this entire incident.
Hemenchuia has much to be thankful for here in truth. He had arguably already done things that would have gotten an inexperienced editor a warning or even blocked for disruptive conduct or personal attacks. He perhaps at least showed experience in heeding the advice he had been given, and avoided taking things so far it would have forced a swift and stern reaction, preferring instead to flounce.
But as far as I can see, this epic strop resulted in no blot on his copybook. If you weren't there and don't have the time to trawl through his thousands of edits, you'd never even know it would have happened. And given the way Wikipedia is currently going, it might not even be unearthed even if Hemenchuia applied to be a Wikipedia Administrator, the advanced rights holders tasked with formally warning and blocking misbehaving users.
If this is where it had ended, maybe I'd not have even cared enough to write about it. But a mere five days after this tantrum, imagine my surprise when I noted Hemenchuia making a very bold proposal at one of Wikipedia's central noticeboards....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1065905347
Here he is asking why Wikipedia considers Brittanica to have a "strong reputation for accuracy and reliability". It's too laughable for words, but suffice to say he makes many logical and rhetorical errors. But also unsurprisingly, he finds support among Wikipedia editors for the idea that somehow they're better at writing an encyclopedia than Brittanica, and he actually gets the changes he wanted, done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#Britannica:_a_%22strong_reputation_for_fact-checking_and_accuracy%22?
I am sure if you have any sense, you, like me, want to live in a world where it is possible to register on the Wikipediocracy forum, and put these things to Hemenchuia. To ask him the simple question - why should the writing of an Internet encyclopedia be entrusted to someone who on one day can be having a massive temper tantrum based on a chronic misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia policies, and yet five days later, seems to think themselves capable and qualified to pass judgment on the reliability of Brittanica?
Hemenchuia demonstrably isn't even an expert in Wikipedia, and certainly no exemplar, and not for the first time (as his Wikipediocracy blog showed), he's quite incapable of either being aware of much less following basic Wikipedia policies. The indication from such things is that this happens when he is personally involved and his emotions are high. It suggests it comes from a lack of maturity.
The logical question therefore, is simply, to ask, Hemenchuia, are you a child? Either literally, or in terms of mental capacity.
But sadly, we do not live in this world. Wikipediocracy is just as much of a closed community that exists primarily to protect the feelings of its membership, as Wikipedia often seems to be.
Ho hum.
I am sure there are ways these things will sort themselves out in the end. I fear there may be a lot of tears before bedtime on the way.
HTD.
I am as ever, amused to see I am having to write this piece, at the very time the subject of whether or not a 16 year old is mature enough to make serious decisions on and for the good of Wikipedia (such as identifying and blocking those who are breaking the rules), is currently a topic of debate on Wikipediocracy. Sadly, they are not talking about Hemenchuia, but this is at least one topic on that forum he seems content to steer clear of.
