That last line said it all for me.

I'm a newcomer too, just an observer of wikipedia's politics.

Hi I thought I'd try to inject some comments from a semi-detached angle.

Hello

Just posting a reply to confirm that I can (just signed up)

Sorry if it's the wrong place.

Jim

Hi all!

Hmm...is there some sort of autoconfirmed mechanism that I'm missing here? Seeing as how I'm not allowed to view my own profile or anything...

Sort of. Post a few times, making salient, insightful points, and I'm sure things will sort themselves out. In any case, welcome!

Yes, I had the same problem but it magically cleared up after a few posts.

Okay, thanks. The Random article button seems to be is missing though...

Hello everyone. Been on and off WP for ages really. I keep kidding myself that it's just me being precious about endless bitching and all the politics.

But it's not, is it?

Stay safe wherever you are.

Greetings, Old Niner

There must be a 7 of 9 joke in here somewhere, but I'm late for a very important date, so I'll just throw it out to the group.

Jon

There aren't many of us 'single number' editors left; just me, 2 and 7 I think.

Thanks for the welcome Jon - enjoy 'the important date'!

I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself and in an exercise of full disclosure explain my rationale for joining this community. First of all, my name is Julie and I am studying the psychology of subcultures. What does that mean exactly? I study subcultures that exist within imagined communities found on the internet.

I have no association with Wikipedia or the foundation except that I find the WP subculture to be incredibly fascinating and I think that it can be a valuable tool to helping me better understand the dynamics of imagined communities.

One of the hardest things about observing subcultures is that I have to find a way to distinguish the signal from the noise and that’s very hard to do that when most of the noise is disguised as signal. The most effective, but also most difficult way to develop an ethnography is through a combination of observations and self-reporting techniques. The Wikipedia subculture is far too cloistered and insular to be able to accurately observe them and I think that we can pretty much all agree that most self-reporting exercises will be incredibly slanted. I have been reading the forums on Wikipedia Review for about three weeks and finally decided that the only way for me to get an honest view of the Wikipedia subculture is from people who have no vested interest in maintaining a public perception. In other words, I am going to another tribe to learn more about the tribe I really want to study.

Cultural anthropologists must be unbiased, but all that means in regards to this community is that I am not here to judge the Wikipedia subculture.

I will make a few promises to this community and I hope that you will accept them, even if you have no reason to do so. I will not reveal any information that I gather to anyone except for my advisor. If I think that my observations may be of any assistance to this community, I will hand them over to you all (the community as a whole) to use as you see fit. That all being said, I am an incredibly opinionated individual and will probably find myself in a situation where I want to post and just might do so with the understanding that those opinions won’t find their way into my observations. I hope that eventually, after I have earned your trust, you might feel comfortable in sharing some of your experiences with me so that I can better flesh out my ethnography.

If anyone who is part of the Wikipedia subculture wants to contact me, they can do so through this forum and I will be more than happy to incorporate their views as well.

So with that, thank you in advance for letting me tag along with you on what might just turn out to be a ride more wild than Mr. Toad's.

You'll probably want a new thread for your discussions. Good luck with your research.

One question, are you using the term Imagined communities the way the WP article describes the term?

Welcome, Julie —

I feel obliged to say that your "exercise of full disclosure" falls a bit short of the mark. I am willing, however, to call it a "scratch" and would certainly encourage you to try a truer start off the blocks.

Jon Awbrey

Yes and no. The definition from Wikipedia is accurate, but doesn't take into consideration social and cultural changes. Imagined communities is a term used in cultural anthropology to describe any community that isn't based on a physical reference group. Yes, there are opportunities to meet participants in an imagined community, but it isn't a regular thing or the normal way to interact with one another. In terms of Wikipedia, it means that most of the interactions happen without being face to face. This past summer I did some research on encapsulated marginals who are part of the online gaming subculture. All of their social interactions took place within the realms of imagined communities on the internet.



I'm confused as to what you are getting at and invite you to actually come out and state what you are accusing me of either in a PM or through these forums.

Agree with Jon. "Julie" is Poetlister, until I see or hear otherwise.

Sounds promising, though, once proof of identity that resolves somewhere other than London is established.

Sounds like you'll fit right in!

Well, there was this time when I was dating this really rich girl, and then one night I mentioned the word "abortion," and next thing ya know, she won't return my phone calls... But I'm guessing that's not the sort of experience you had in mind.

But that isn't really saying much, is it? I mean, if it were wilder than Space Mountain, or maybe the Millenium Force at Cedar Point or the The Steel Dragon at Nagashima Spa Land... that would be something.

Well, around here everybody is Poetlister, at least until they pass the "oily finger-pull" initiation test.

Western half of the USA for the first two posts, actually... I hope Julie will forgive me for narrowing things down just slightly, but you can never be too careful with those Londoners!

You'll definitely want to start a new thread, then. Most of us actually are interacting with each other face to face, as we'll all being held prisoner in the back room of a bowling alley in Cleveland, OH. Luckily the facility has pretty good wireless internet, and a fully-stocked Coke machine...

Never mind him. Also, if anyone asks you to "send pics," try to just ignore that too.

I actually sent PM's to both posters in which I hope to have clarified things, so you revealing the western US isn't too much info at all.

In a PM with another forum member, I tried to explain exactly what I am hoping to achieve. In cultural anthropology, anthropologists create an ethnography through various ways. Hands down, the most effective way (ok, so I am biased here) is through participant observations. The anthropologist joins a society and eventually becomes enough of a participant that they are no longer observers and their presence no longer changes the behavior. The example I used was Dian Fossey and her gorillas. Not that I am equating myself with Dian Fossey or WR with gorillas, but it's an analogy that is usually effective.

I have to admit that there is a little tiny bit of me that is slightly hurt that what I posted wasn't taken at face value, but then the logical side says, 'if you were in their boat, you'd do the same thing, Jules - suck it up and turn it into opportunity to establish trust.'

I'm still doing a lot of reading here, but once I decide the first topic of my ethnography I'll do as was suggested earlier and start a new thread

I participated in an academic study of WP editors once. The researcher, a graduate student working on his dissertation, provided his name, the name of his institution (University of Michigan) and the name of his adviser. His project, although a relatively non-intrusive survey was vetted prior to proceeding by a committee concerned with the rights of human subjects. I was provided a written advisement of these facts and my written permission was obtained prior to my participation. I think things like these are what Jon is referring to when he says your full disclosure falls a little short.

I'll still probably be accused of "spying" on you by a certain person over at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but hey, in for a penny, in for a pound...


That's actually something I've been saying for a couple of years now - we've been seeing a lot of data (and related conclusions) about Wikipedia coming from statisticians, and quite a few of them appear to agree with what we've been observing, but IMO the only proper way to study a system like WP is to gather as much anecdotal and experience-derived evidence as possible and try to extrapolate as best you can. Statistics are too malleable in an environment where you never know who anybody is (or how many accounts they're using) or why they do it. Creating proper control groups and base points is next to impossible.

Welcome, Julie. It might do well to remember that you can study the social structures of higher mammals by living among them, but no one has yet proven that Wikipedia editors -- and especially disillusioned ex-Wikipedia editors -- are in fact higher mammals. In any case, good luck.



Perhaps another way of expressing what GBG is saying is: "Has this been approved by your Human Subjects Committee?" We have a member here who at one time involuntarily enrolled us all in his study of affective communication, to the unhappiness of, I think, all involved.

I'll say it again, yous admins ought to start a "Newcomers" forums. You need to help exiting newcomers into the post-Wiki experience.

Julie,

strange to blow your own cover with your first post ... do you think that means we won't shoot at you too? Any good anthropologist would come bearing gifts in the first place. I'd say the best thing to do is make a sockpuppet account now, and start editing again as an anonymous.

Basically, the way it works (tm) is to start by criticizing Julie so we will think you are someone else. Then have "Julie" defend herself but be a real twat. We will all take sides with your sockpuppet account, then you have "Julie" leave the project in a hissy fit, so we think it is all over, but you continue to edit on with your sockpuppet account. We will know none the better. Except the admins, who will use it to blackmail you later.

If you are going to play anthropologist, you are going to have to strip off, dress up, paint your face and join in some of the tribal rituals. Puppet wars being one.

So, I'd start by framing the relationship between WR and WP in the mode of ritual warfare. WP, being the far larger and dominant tribe, busy enough with its own internecine warfare. WR, being the more evolved, sagacious and intelligent tribe (ha!), occupying the moral high ground.

Don't worry what your professors think or say, relax, have some fun with it. If you are an undergrad just doing an essay, it really does not matter. If you are over 18 (21 in some states), posting an attractive picture of yourself online WILL help (it does not really matter if it is you or not). This being the Wiki tribe, someone has probably already started to stalk you, and will find out now anyway. It is really only a matter of time ...

Try by starting to edit on some Pee-dia topics relating to Israel-Palestine, Japan-Korea, any obscure East Europe ex-Soviet state ... or removing some of the hard core pornography. I suppose if you really want to do this properly, you ought to move onto the couch of one of the protagonists for a few weeks and observe them in their home environment. Any chance of going undercover as an intern at the Foundation offices like the PETA girls do to animal abusers?

So ... what exactly do you make of the prurient interests of the dominant gorillas in other tribe anyway?

... I forgot the closing </irony> tag.

But you realize that there is a good deal of truth to what I wrote, as per 'the other place'.

That experience should serve you well. Wikipedia also has an online gaming subculture.

If you are looking for a primer, I would suggest the WR Blog (link at upper right corner).

Julie, it would seem that Jon and I have demonstrated the first lesson -- serious people who've had their time massively wasted by pseudonymous frauds are hesitant to welcome the intentions of yet another "first name only" newcomer, until proven to be sincere.

I think we're on the right path now (via e-mail and PM), but your introduction to this Great Ape will have to wait until I'm done with The Animal Kingdom (and several other Disney properties).

Gregory Kohs

Hi I just joined.

I noticed the bias on Wikipedia a while ago when I moved off of low profile archaeology pages. In most cases I have found it more of an annoyance than a serious problem. One of the claims I have read about was a Lava Lamp which I couldn't care less about and many fringe subjects most of which are bad but even the legitimate mysteries are being censored or misrepresented.

However the thing that made me take Wikipedia censorship and internal bickering serious was the way they handled violence prevention. I saw what they had on the School Shooting page about solutions and it was primarily about gun control. I thought there should be much more about preventing the bullying and child abuse that preceded the problem. This led me to do some work to find sources to back it up. I wound up creating the Preventing School violence page and wound arguing over every little detail.

This led me to think there is a serious problem about a very important subject and I thought wikipedia could do a lot to set a better example for the Mass Media if they got over their internal bickering.

I wound up taking my work off Wikipedia where it would be read by a much smaller audience and I also created a page to help reform Wikipedia since I believe it could be a very important project to provide free education material for the public if it is done right.

For more about this if your interested see the following pages about preventing violence

http://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm

and Wikipedia censorship

http://zakherys.tripod.com/wikipedia_censorship.htm

BTW I’m using the same Username and they will figure it out so don’t worry about it.

Good day

Checking in; just here to have a look around this 'moral high ground'

pablo

You were misinformed.

They tend to grow lower down, and it's the wrong season, anyway.

You might try here and there.

Happy Hunting!

Jon

Just make sure you're not a spy. If you are, you belong on Wikipedia, not this site.

Although I think people are going overboard in giving Julie the third degree -- let's not act like Wikipedia, boys and girls, give her a chance to participate before speculating about her intentions -- nonetheless, Daniel makes an interesting point about anthropology. An acquaintance of my studied anthropology at Harvard back in the 60s, and went to Mexico as part of the Harvard Chiapas Project, which pretty much designed and created the Zapatista movement. The British are famous for sending anthropologists/spooks into colonial possessions to profile indigenous populations with an eye to manipulating them, or using anthropologists/spooks to profile and manipulate subcultures within the U.S. (see Gregory Bateson (T-H-L-K-D).)

The Wikipedia Review — unlike Wikipedia — is a non-fiction site.

Unlike Wikipedia we don't have to buy the premiss of every storyline.

Sure, we put on the occasional put-on, but all our parodies — unlike Wikipedia — are clearly marked.

"Julie" brought this on by affecting an intention of "full disclosure" — and then tossing out one red herring after another when we asked for the bare minimum that might be expected of that.

If "she" really had a serious academic purpose in the first place, she would recognize a sailed ship by now and go ask for an incomplete — post haste.

But no, she continues to play it out, which proves that the game is all that matters.

And of course there are those of you who will continue to play along — but I'm guessing mostly because the parody has now become well-marked enough to qualify as repertoire for Da Revue.

Jon Awbrey

I've been reading the Review for ages but never bothered to sign up. I singed up because I like to edit on wikipedia, and I just can't stand the power tripping cabal who are wrecking it! On here I find out who is who and whats what. At least here you can get to see who are the real jokers, and yes they do read the Review! The good, the bad and the down right ugly on the hall of fame/infamous http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=57

A bit late of me for this thread, but I feel I should mention a few reasons I signed up here.

- deletion of most fair use images on Wikipedia, reducing its utility enormously
- extreme hostility towards new editors
- mawkish, corrupt antics by those in positions of power
- entertainment value of some WR members
- asymptotic curve of WP dissolution, and a need to discuss the aftermath of its deterioration

Hello

Hello. Are you a musical chord?

I am, but there's really no such thing as a minor 4th.

A lot of content on WP is like that.

A lot of your song parodies are like that!

Well, yeah, but they're just silly song parodies. It's not like they're BLPs about real people, with real reputations to be soiled and stigmatized.

Bugger Off …

Jon

I am sorry but even I refuse to to parodies of Wings' songs (You'd think that people would have had enough of dirty Wikipedia porn ... But I look around me and I see it isn't so ... Some people wanna fill the world with dirty Wikipedia porn ... And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know, 'cause here I upload again ... I love Wikipedia ...).

So, instead, welcome to The Damned.

Is he really editing the Wikipedia?

I got a feeling inside of me
It's kind of strange like a stormy sea
I don't know why I don't know why
I guess these things have got to be

We gotta editor we hooked him good
Guess we knew that we always would
We all stop to mess him around
We got a brand new editor in town

See them edit edit articles that belong us
We will revert them then we start to fuss
If we can't make them run away
Then we will banned then for another day

We gotta editor we hooked him good
Guess we knew that we always would
We all stop to mess him around
We got a brand new editor in town

You never thought this could happen to you
Why is it so strange even when your edits are true?
You don't deserve to edit our work is great
You'd better leave it'll soon be too late

I got a feeling inside of me
It's kind of strange like a stormy sea
I don't know why we have to edit war
May be cos we still too young to drink and fight in a bar

We gotta editor we hooked him good
Guess we knew that we always would
We all stop to mess him around
We got a brand new editor in town

Hello. It might be less confusing to call yourself Lower 4th. (For American's, that's 8th grade.)

Minor4th, I see you are working on the Law Project on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate your comment on this.

Are you confused?





I will take a look and let you know what I think.


Why is it combining my two posts into one?

Not me, but then I'm a genius, and modest with it.

it does that if you post twice to the same thread within a few minutes. It's a feature, not a bug.

If only you knew.

Do tell.

I'll drop a hint.

I don't really know where to post this -- I am still getting familiar with the navigation here.

Has anyone posted anything here about the correspondence between the FBI and WMF over the use of the FBI seal on Wiki?

Long thread here.