I arrived here at WR because I saw Wikipedia as a dysfunctional community that had control of what (perhaps?) a majority of internet folk think is knowledge or information. I've never gotten to the point where I thought WP was all bad or all good, but it has always made me nervous for a variety of reasons.

Thanks to this site, I have gotten such a glimpse of the inside of Wikipedia that I wonder if any sane person would ever take it seriously, or what major damage it could contribute in the long run. It is, very simply, a lot of people from all over the world fucking around on the internet. The MMORPG is the most apt description, but really it is just an internet fad that is at its peak, in terms of member size. Whose fault is it that the unwashed masses take it for something more?

The apathy I'm experiencing right now has its root in the absurdness that is mounting in my head concerning WP: Durova's complex investigations, Jayjg's oversighting to hide, well...something, fanatical devotion to "the project" that is only explained in vague terms, allegations of "stalking", the idea that exposing a "real life" bias of a person behind an IP address is somehow different than exposing a real life bias of a person behind a username (and this only applies to certain people, "outing" for some is ok) Those are just the more recent examples, the list goes on, as you know.

It is absurd on every level. I have an idea of what Jimbo is doing and why he is doing it, but god damn if I'll ever understand what "Wikipedians" are doing and why they are doing it. What are they doing? What are we doing?

Have you ever known a guy that took a lot of LSD (or perhaps any drug) during his life, and at some point he kind of gets that permanent spacey look all the time? That is an analogy of how I view the rabid Wikipedia editors. They started editing maybe out of boredom, a desire to impress, or some kind of vague obligation, but now something has consumed them and the entire "project" (which I'm not sure ever actually existed) is lost. I want to shake them and wake them up, but short of pulling the plug on the servers I don't think anything ever will. I worry that spacey look may consume me, and others here, on the flip side of the coin. I feel like I get so deep into looking at WP, that I forget to step back and realize: Holy shit, this is a bunch of fucking nonsense.

Some very good points Bobby - but what you're forgetting (and many of us including I do) is that at least 50% (75%?) of the content on Wikipedia is good to very good.

If you're looking for info on a fish or a tree, or the demographics of Manitoba, Wiki is a great resource.

It's the many subjects that have partisan supporters and detractors, including Admins and cabals, where Wiki fails miserably.

WP isn't a problem in and of itself. It IS just a bunch of people fuckin' arojnd on the web who decided to write an "encyclopedia". The end result is pretty much what you would expect in any collabortaive online undertaking, with power struggles, role-playing, and lots of other things like that.

The real problem withWP is the image that they're trying to present and the fact that, up until the recent past (ie pre-ESSJAY scandal), the media didn't question the validity of this image.

The typical WP partyline is that "we're collecting the complete sum of all human knowledge" and "we're going to make it available for FREE to the poor children in Africa so that they can better themselves".

The fact is, given the demographics on WP, the people who undertaking this work on English WP are mainly white, male, college-educated (or wil be college educated when they're old enough), North American-Western Europeans with a Judeo-Christian background. This implies bias and this bias is visable in almost all of the articles, in subtle and not so subtle ways. So, "the sum of all human knowledge" becomes "what a buncha white guys think".

Then we have the probolem of "Original research", selection of sources and information and "consensus". Layging aside the obvious COI power pushing that Wikiscanner pointed out so clearly, the process of "consensus" judgements about "orignal reserach" and selection validates the initial position and officilizes it, saying "our position is more valid than yours because we thik alike".

The idea that this image of "what we ALL think and have decided is important" is going to be exported to third and fourth World countries as "the sum of all human knowledge" is not only preposterious, it's one of the single most offensive concepts that I can imagine.

And they're using this pitch to get people to give them money. They get grants from foundations to "empower women and children" and then use it to present articles on "Child Modeling (erotic)", "List of child molesters", "List of rape victims" and the beat goes on.

This is, to me, the single most important bit of information that needs to be gotten out about WP. If it is perceived as what it is : ie "Jimbo's big ole bag o' trivia : role-playing game", then I have no problems with it existing.

But foundation money should not be funding this. Make all the admins PAY to get their fix.

Floflo was taking about a big funding drive starting this Fall. So, this kind of "imgaine a World where all knowledge is FREE!!!" rhetoric is only going to get worse.....I'd like to see more of this kind of thing addressed here and elsewhere....

Wikipedia is better than a random google search, or other searchengine search.

But the information is infinitely unreliable.

It could have been a force unmatched on the internet. But bad management and poor administration has relegated it to more of a media joke.

This has only just started.

I agree with your whole post. Making celebrities out of Wikipedians and obsessing about their activities is almost as ridiculous as being a Wikipedian.

But like that other guy said, it's still the best place to get quick info about a fish or a tree. I don't think it will be much longer.

I've noticed that there are fewer and fewer edits in my watchlist lately, despite my watchlist growing. I don't think that this is a good thing for Wikipedia. This makes me think that all their stats about more edits and a bigger community are cooked. What's happening on an article level is that a lot of people are just not bothering anymore.

What's really interesting to me is that there is a demand for quick info out there. It's currently being met in practically the most half-assed way imaginable, but still something is better than nothing. When this fad is over we'll all look back and laugh.

Wikipedia was a good idea in theory that failed in practice.

Why? — Because the theory that thought it was a good idea ignored too many practical realities, common, ordinary facts of life that might have occurred to anyone who took the time to generate that all important second thought, or who had any experience with common, ordinary, real life in the first place.

Wikipedia might have survived longer if Wikipediots had stuck to writing, y'know, an encyclopedia, but they didn't.

Why? — BORING !!!

No, it was far more fun to write the kind of junior high school newspaper that was apparently the last thing they read much of — sorry 'bout the dangling preposition, Teach, but y'know, Fuck Off, 'Cause This Is Our Fuckin' Rag !!!

NE Waaaaay — the rest is hystery …

So try to imagine a Big City Newspaper — which is what these Wikipediots put on their Phloppy Phedoras and Pretended to be Not-Exactly-Publishing — that institutes an Open Door Policy. By that they meant letting corporations and governments and political action committees and people with ancient grudges and anyone else with more than ½ a whit of real-or-deluded self-interest walk into their archive and press room and edit in-or-out whatever they hell they might please.

Now, Really, What Could Go Wrong ???

And It Did …

Jonny

I think I'll summarise this by saying that I basically agree with everything that everyone else said.

Bobby Bombasitc - yes, it is an addiction. Wikipedia's core base of users (not the majority, a small proportion, but the core group that keeps them going) are all addicted. They would edit 4+ hours every single day, maybe sometimes edit for 20 hours in a row. And they fiddle. The addiction is the fiddling. Its the turning red links in to regular links. Its the creation of stubs. The adding of categories. The fixing up of spelling errors. The finding of errors. The quoting. The linking. The massive over-use of Google. The being right. And of course the massive power trip of abusing newbies, critics, and anyone who you think might be a dreaded "sock puppet". It can be described as a game. If you don't play the game, and take it genuinely, it can be a very hard road. But it is also very difficult to become accepted, and this becomes the thing that attracts people. It's almost like how Eric Cartman on a South Park episode closed his park, and this attracted people to it. It really does work. Them being so nasty to newbies actually makes people want to prove themselves. It becomes attractive because of that.

FNORD23 - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that most of the articles on Wikipedia are between good and very good. If you do a random article test on Wikipedia, you usually find that the majority are stubs, or have no references at all, or are otherwise completely inaccurate. The majority of articles that we notice, that have many editors, are indeed between good and very good. If your sample only included articles with at least 100 edits, from at least 10 different editors, indeed the vast majority would be relatively good articles. But you'd also find that a proportion of these would be controlled articles, which are inaccurate.

The fieryangel - I love what you said about it being "what a buncha white guys think", because that is pretty accurate. Indeed, you could even say "what a buncha white middle class American nerdy guys aged 15-25 think" because that's the general demographic. But at the same time, Wikipedia is mentioned in the media, it is used by schools, by reporters, in court rooms, and so forth. There is that feeling that it is meaningful. Using the MMORPG analogy, it is a bit like getting to level 60 in a game of World of Warcraft and being able to sell equipment for real money. You're there, you've achieved something. Once you're accepted in Wikipedia, there's a chance that you might be really mentioned in real news. Your friends and family might know about you. There is a big carrot there. They can pretend that they are doing it for African children, but they're really doing it for themselves, to get recognition. And I think that everyone agrees with your statement that if Wikipedia only claimed to be "Encycloblog" or "Jimbo's Big Bag o Trivia" or even "Everything3" then things would be fine. The danger is that it is taken far too serously.

Disillusioned Lackey - You are right that Wikipedia is far superior to a random Google search, which in turn is superior to searching the web without a search engine, which in turn is superior to using a paper encyclopedia, which in turn is superior to using your local library to look through books, which in turn is superior to asking your uncle what he thinks. You can learn a lot from using Wikipedia, and it is easy to find information. This is a great plus. I use Wikipedia all of the time to find information, especially on obscure topics. If you do a Google search, you have to wade through a lot of crappy pages before you get to the good ones. Not so with Wikipedia - its already been researched for you. For lazy people who don't want to do proper research, its fantastic. It has a great deal of use.

Emperor and Jdrand agreed with other posters so I don't need to respond to them separately.

Jonny Cache - You are right that they are there trying to write fun topics. Indeed, some of Wikipedia's best and most useful articles are the ones on South Park, The Simpsons, Spongebob Squarepants and other things that are described as "cruft". They are comprehensive, imminently useful to anyone with an interest in the topic. They are far superior to their articles on controversial topics, which are usually owned by one group or another, are biased to all hell, often miss out huge chunks of relevant data, and are full to the brim with massive inaccuracies. I also think that their articles about any sex-related issue are very useful, because quite frankly its difficult to find that stuff without being hit with lots of nasty images, spam, and viruses. If they were trying to actually write an encyclopedia, I doubt that many of them would do it.

I'll also add my own comments:

Most people first find Wikipedia through a google search, use it to find some information on a topic, use it a few times, then get annoyed one time because they find one Wikipedia article which is either a stub, or has an inaccuracy, or includes a red link. So they fiddle. They probably don't really know about the topic, since they were actually using Google because they didn't really know about it. But they at least know "this". They might be removing vandalism, they might be correcting a spelling mistake.

After a while, they find themselves fiddling a bit more, or they might do a search on a topic that they do know about and be disappointed to find that there isn't an article on it, so they create it. Hence one of the first "real" exposures that many people have to Wikipedia is with the nasty AFDs. They get abused to all hell, scared off, told that they are vandalising, spamming, get abused and scared off, and that's if they don't retaliate by doing something that ends up with them getting banned.

But then that first experience leads people to think that really those accusations are false, and you want to prove that they are false, by showing to them that you are better than that, showing to them that you can be good, you can contribute, and so forth. So you do what they ask, just to try to get approval from them, to get acceptance, to be welcomed.

Wikipedia is using the tried and true "difficult game" scenario. They make it so hard to play the game, with complex rules, complex structure, and making it incredibly difficult to be accepted that people really try. In MMORPG terms, they only save your character after you get to level 2, but it will take you 5 or 6 hours of playing just to figure out how to get your first bit of experience, and several logins before you can get to level 2.

Wikipedia also has an easy structure if you take the time to learn the game. The same as how "difficult games" have hidden secret ways to quickly get to level 2, so does Wikipedia. They have newbie quests, which if you search on the internet, you can find out. You can get all of the best equipment. Occasionally some higher level user might get you some good equipment and tell you. Alternatively you can find it out for yourself. Some people get lucky and even find out how to get to level 2 quickly on their first effort. Others research it all first before even going in to the game. Others eventually get there.

Once you are at level 2, it doesn't get much easier, although you can make some level of progress. At some point it gets really difficult, really hard to progress, and you either find yourself dying, quitting, or else making an extra big effort to move further.

A few select people get to the end of the game, and then they become famous. They can even sell off their fame, in terms of gold and valuable items, to newbies for real money. Or they can just sit there and be famous and brag to their friends and family, show off to everyone in the game.

Wait on, was I talking about World of Warcraft or Wikipedia? Both.

Oddly the type of editing done by the most heavily addicted editors is clearly the most boring.

Writing honest, intelligent articles can be rewarding and satisfying. It is an activity that requires talent, skills and an internal locus of control. This type of editor is self directed and motivated by the desire to create. If the activity becomes boring or unsatisfying they will simply quit. They tend, I believe, to be moderate in terms of edit counts. Significant activity is directed to research and thoughtful writing. They interact with other editors in a mature goal-oriented manner.

But the the most cultish Wikipedians are of three types:

• Vandal Patrolers: The typical edits consist of reverts and posting warnings that a monkey with an impaired attention span could do.
  
• POV Pushers (Team America or Slim/Jayjg types) typical editing consists of small incremental POV inserts, or opposition to same, followed by extended participation in highly contentious and convoluted processes.
  
• Admins: Editing consists of rule enforcement, warnings, punishments, participation in wonkish processes and discussions, and of course endless sockpuppet witch hunts.

So what sustains this boring behavior? I believe these editors have an external locus of control. They are looking for approval and validations from others. They actually do not believe themselves to be capable of contributing on a meaningful level and look to collective or "godking" to get things done. External locus of control is also characteristic of adolescent's, with an increasing internal locus as people age toward middle age. These editors are highly engaged in the social networking aspects of WP. For all their pretense about being directed toward "writing an encyclopedia" they in fact do little writing and might as well be playing WoW.

I would hazard a guess that WR contributors have a significantly higher level of internal locus of control score than either WP or the general population.

The thing is, Ludi, you can't just keep to the admittedly bore-ing, calm, deep, doldrumesque, and humdrumesque end of the pool.

I know, I tried.

F'rinstance, here.

Try to figure out why Iago and Lady Mac found it necessary to tag team up, vandalize away many months of many other editors' work, and then wikipadlock the page with yet another one of their bare-assed lying templates on it, and then, maybe, just maybe, you begin to get an inkling of why some Milquetoast Friendly Ghost like me would be where they made me today.

Jonny

Yeah what's with that? I never looked but I doubt they had any interest in Pragmatism, American Philosophy, CSP or any related manner. Yet they worked you over like you were a Muslim LaRouche supporter/POV pusher writing articles on Death to Israel by V-2 Rockets. They drove a productive, informed and talented editor out chased by villager carrying torches. Then they burned down the windmill. Then drove a stake through his heart...You get the picture.

Was it the banal pettiness of little editors who blew the whistle on you? I have had modest scale success writing little articles unnoticed, walled off in my garden. I don't understand why they couldn't let you write about what you know better than they.

What is bewildering about WP is that the people that are working away, researching articles, writing great stuff are overwhelmed by no-mark Sidaways, Cydes and so on. Swamped by people who contribute next to nothing in terms of content, merely engaging in childish power games. I remember one of the best editors on WP, and most civil & generous, going to the ANI over some minor issue - for the only time in their career - and being told by Kelly Martin that they were "trying to own the article" which they had brought to featured status. Recall the undignified Tonythemarine episode. A great editor told that he was an "idiot" by know-nothing Sidaway.

Acres of bullshit flies around the site - under orders from SV and a 1000 other fools who do nothing but revert and block - whilst almost nobody turns up to peer review other people's articles. Almost none of these timewasters help new writers raise the standards of their articles.

My words appeared on the main page more than a couple of times, and I was quick to help young writers on their work at all times. But I remained subservient to a regime of people whom I'm not ashamed to say were vastly inferior editors - and people. I was still expected to duke it on a regular basis with the clueless and the corrupt. Or else expect the work to deteriorate at their hands.

And the readers, mostly the young and impressionable, are left with an inferior product, bloated with dangerously unreliable piffle, sitting at the top of their google searches. It doesn't work. Tear the site down.

Picture !? Hell, I got the T-shirt !!!


Because somewhere, somehow, when you least expect it — you will piss somebody off. But that's the easy part to understand, because you can hardly avoid doing that all the time. But one day it will be somebody who knows the Real Game — ntbcw the Screen Game — far, far better than you.

That's the thing that the Superphicial Media Lotus Eaters have yet to grasp. And who can blame them, when so many people who've actually been through the wiki-wringer have had their brains too well wiki-washed to see the Big Picture.

Or the Big Stinkin' T-Shirt, as the case may be …

Jonny

Great. It's bad enough that thanks to Wikitruth my image of a Wikipedian is this, but now you have me imagining him in a fedora too.

The nice thing about a rugrat in dad's old hat is that it pretty much covers his whole snotty face.

Not that I'd have them take that personally.

Jonny

A-fucking-men.