Y'know {{stub}}

I'll use this page dynamic fashion to collect a sample of the scattered thoughts that I've expressed on the topic of vandalism over the past many moons.

When it comes to the concept of Vandalism, like so many of the concepts that divert us here, there is the way that Normal People conceive it (NP:Vandalism) and then — in a galaxy far, far away — there is the way that WikiPediots are bent to conceive it (WP:Vandalism).

Indeed, as a general rule with regard to the Wikipediot constrewal of any term X, henceforth WP:X, it reasonable to ask whether a flagrantly inconsistent self-contradiction like WP:X is really so much a genuine conception in the proper sense of the word as it is an abortive self-contraception of productive thought.

Personally, I endeavour to avoid committing acts of NP:Vandalism anywhere, including on the pages of Wikipedia, but the meaning of WP:Vandalism has now been e-flatulated to the point where it is devoid of any practical meaning at all, except of course as synonym for Baby Admin Say Yucky Poo (WP:BASYP).

My current m.o. is not to do anything that degrades the quality of information in the body of articles that would deceive unsuspecting bystanders with regard to significant matters of fact about the real world.

This Rule Of Thumb (ROT) is flexible enough to allow the loyal oppostion of flagrant farce, poignant parody, and salubrious satire, since all such brands of e-street theatre are deliberately designed to be so notorious as such that they must be suspected as such by even the most innocent of intelligent bystanders. It does however prohibit the more subtler forms of information quality degradation in regard to matters of serious real-life consequence to innocent persons.

That's just how I see it today …

Jonny

But, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.

I think Jonny is being thoughtful and respectful of the innocent NP who might casually use WP. Cruft is not subject to any protection out of concern for NP:Vandalism. Some articles simply do not raise to the level of dignity that would entitle them to protection. So have at them is you feel so inclined.

Well, it is getting toward "Hallo, Weenie !!!" Day …

I can't recall ever omeletting any of my Principals' or Teachers' houses, but I do think that I considered T.P.ing their front-yard trees — all in the spirit of the season, of course — to constitute an acceptable style of critical review vis-a-vis their mid-term performances. And — just to be fair — it was a far, far milder Critique Of Boors' Reaon than the brands of corporal punishment that they themselves were wont to "Administer", say, if you were in Football or Track and lost your eligibility for the term by getting a "D" or an "F" in some other course.

So Reciprocity Rules For A' That —

Jonny

While there isn't much difference between authority figures beating people with sticks and certain WP administrators, I think we're going a bit off topic here. But I'll leave that to others discretion as to what to do about this as this side trip is a bit interesting.

Corporal punishment has a mixed legacy, but if it doesn't work, then it is abuse. If it leaves marks (physical or psychological), its abuse.

AB: What you describe happened to you was definitely abuse. No excuse for it.

As for what WPediots define as "vandalism", one should look at the content of a person's arguments and not the person himself. If its a good argument, no sense deleting the edits because they were done by a "banned" user. The "encyclopedia" should come before the community's pettiness.

Still, I look forward to what Jonny and others have observed.


Note: I moved the off topic posts to the Lounge under the "Corporal Punishment" thread. Discussion is still public. Nothing inappropriate just wanted to keep on topic. GBG

Back to Greg's proverbial omelette, from which the riptides of free association led me hatch my nostalgic anecdote, but one that I thought worth dredging up to illustrate the theme of Proportionate Response.

Folks who acquaint themselves with the diversity of views expressed in this Forum will know what a broad spectrum of opinion is actually represented here with regard to just about everything under the ∑, Wikipedia included.

Some people feel that Wikipedia is small stuff, not to be sweated, some think it nothing more than an oddly inefficient, but strangely enjoyable way of writing an encyclopedia, others express a dimension of negative views that assign Wikipedia a place in their regard that ranges anywhere from the e-hole of the Earth to the dimmest ditch of the Inferno.

So crafting a proportionate response to Wikipedia's present condition is a judgment call that an individual has to make. Still, nothing about the individuality of the final choice means that it does not help to reason it out in a group of critically reflective reasoners.

Jonny

So many stories, so little time …

Flashing forward to the run of frames in front of us, let's see what we can do to take the wikipaddle away from them, and build a little fire to warm our ♥s instead of our ⊥s.

Mmmm, marshmallows !!!

Jonny

Well, the 'wikipaddle' would seem to be the high Google ranks they
use to drag people's names and pseudonyms through the dirt.

There are some reputation defence companies, which I also note
can be rather too expensive for the common wo/man, which try to
write positive material about a person to push the negative material
down in Google ranking.

So, taking the wikipaddle away would seem to mean starting a
biography encyclopaedia where the policy is Lovey-Dovey Point
of View, and only positive things are written about people, and
somehow getting the positive biographies on that encyclopaedia
to outrank the negative biographies on WP.

Outranking WP? Impossible. Totally insane.

I feel the need to do something insane....

That's one good way to extend the analogy — "There is a world elsewhere" — and it can do the ♥ good to do something there.

By the way, the common cry of curs in that Cabal does not have quite the unbreakable deadlock on your name as you may think, a thing you might discover out Centiare way.

But, much like Coriolanus, there are forces whose effects will frequently drag us back to the fray, and if not to a similar doom then we'll have to work out an alternate ending for ourselves, as Bill now leaves us at the Gates of an uncertain future.

Jonny

Centiare looks nice. Not quite what I had in mind, but I like
it.

Do you think 'twould be a good idea to start a new
encyclopaedia-ish project aimed at correcting WP's ethical
mistakes? Or are the drugs getting to my head?

Of course it's a good idea, and I've already jumped for — lemme see, (1) DMOZ, (2) Nupedia, (3) Wikinfo, (4) GetWiki, (5) Digital Universe, (6) Textop, (7) Citizendium, (8) OpenCycle — 8 other general encyclopedic projects, not counting 3 or 4 special-purpose wikis and the Centiare Directory.

The way I see it, whatever others may think, only Centiare and the special-purpose wikis still look viable to me.

Analyzing experiments that lead to unexpected consequences or unintended results is one of the ways that we grow in knowledge, that is, if we have the stomach for doing the post mortem, and don't keep trying to prop up the corpse of macabre comedy, like that infamous teenage gross-out flick, Wikend At Jimbo's.

Jonny

Yes, but see, I have a fever and I'm on painkillers (because, you see,
the doctors haven't been of much help, and I really can't afford to keep
wasting money on them, so I figured I'd just take the painkillers to keep
the suffering down), so if I did say something crazy, I wouldn't be
surprised.

Anyway, I'm not sure some project where anyone with a Port 80 willing
to meet whatever conditions (which might include not living in China)
can just contribute is such a great idea. I mean, a wikis and other forms
of free-for-all software are great in terms of collaboration, but you don't
really want the problem of the uncertainty of what it will look like at any
given moment, where it takes little effort to add a defamatory statement,
so it's not really so great for the published product. So, perhaps it would
be better to have some sort of backstage contributions area, where
anyone with an account can add things, but only let people with accounts
see it. Then trusted people could read over the contributions from an
ethical perspective (no defamatory statements? good!) and transfer the
material over to wherever the published product is. Of course, anything
defamatory would still need to be removed from the contributions area,
since anyone with an account could see it, but it wouldn't do so much
damage there in the meantime.

The GFDL probably isn't such a great idea either. I mean, if you do
accidentally publish something defamatory, you really want to be able to
just take it down and not worry about other websites having copied the
defamatory statement with your permission.

That's exactly how it should work, starting with BLPs and current events. However, WP's irresponsibility isn't confined to libelous statements, though that's obviously the most critical problem - what's missing is the understanding that, first, knowingly or negligently misinforming the public about *anything* is unethical, and more broadly that anything that appears in the encylopedia is the project's collective and institutional responsibility.

The biggest wikicrimes should be attacks on living people and misinformation, subjective "incivility" and vaguely defined "disruption" far down the list. As it is, adding misinformation isn't even a rules violation so long as it's done with the superficial pretense of good faith. The willfull misrepresentation of a source should be grounds for a immediate permaban.

I appreciate the nod toward Centiare. As its co-developer, I feel that it has three long-term advantages over Wikipedia, at least as an information directory, if not an encyclopedia:

1. It welcomes commercial interests, and even allows editors to place their own advertising on Directory pages they create. There is no need for NPOV on these Directory pages. Thus, Centiare doesn't combat paid editing, it embraces it. If you incentivize editors, they tend to stop contributing garbage.

2. The site has Semantic Mediawiki installed. So, those pie-in-the-sky "dream searches" you've probably imagined are very real and possible. What do I mean by this? Suppose on Wikipedia you wanted to find people who have died of cancer. Then you decide you want to focus just on lung cancer. Then you just want to see women who have died of lung cancer. Then you decide what you're really searching for are women who died of lung cancer in Belgium. Do you think Wikipedia could accommodate those possibilities with mere Categories? Bah! Category:Women who died of lung cancer in Belgium... wouldn't last 10 minutes on Wikipedia. But with Semantic Attributes as installed on Centiare, you can just as easily search for women who died of lung cancer in Belgium, as you would search for men who died of gunshot wound in Mexico. All it takes is someone (or some bot) who has the primary data to load it into Centiare. The best example I can give are that we have over 20,000 corporations logged in, complete with basic Sarbanes-Oxley incorporation data. All available for multi-dimensional search.

3. Google loves semantic tagging, so Centiare gets PageRank well beyond its size and traffic reputation.

Wikia doesn't provide any of these three benefits. Wikipedia sure as hell never will.

If you want to turn Centiare into an encyclopedia, that's a possibility, too. But, viewing it as an information directory, I think, is the more productive way to go.

Greg

Pretty Cool, AB —

On The Road —

Again —

Gotta Dash —

Jonny