I just watched the DVD of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and it's amazing how many parallels to Wikipedia politics I can find. There, the Ministry of Magic, in a state of denial over the return of Lord Voldemort, continually blames everything that ever goes wrong on "escaped murderer" (actually an innocent person unfairly convicted) Sirius Black, similarly to how the WikiClique blames things on banned users. Also, they heap vilification on Harry Potter for trying to spread the word of the Dark Lord's return, calling him a liar (similarly to how critics on Wikipedia are termed trolls), and attacking him for spreading harmful ideas (like the "memes" JzG always rails against). They attempt to mount a kangaroo-court trial (ArbCom case) to get Potter banned, and almost succeed, except that long-time trusted member Dumbledore intervenes and gets enough support for his side to prevent the banning, which in turn leads the clique to decide that Dumbledore himself must be discredited, vilified, and undermined over the course of the succeeding school year. A sycophantic lackey, Dolores Umbridge, acts in a sickeningly sweet manner while administering unfair punishments, suppressing criticism, and generally making things difficult for anybody who thinks differently from her. (In an earlier posting here, I compared admin ElinorD to her.) Of course, at the end of the movie things blow up into a big battle which leads even the ignorant leader of the Ministry to admit that the critics were actually right after all.

More to the point, the Harry Potter series reveals the idiocy of the hard-line Rules-and-Punishment Regime vis-a-vis the Creativity and Functional Solution Paradigm championed by Harry and his friends, with the help of Dumbledore.

So, who or what does Lord Voldemort himself represent? Surely not Larry Sanger...?

Also, if J.K. Rowling reads Wikipedia Review and gets ideas from here, I think it's high time she gave each and every one of us $10,000.00, which for her would be chump change. (Better yet, pro-rate based on post-count! The lurkers would get nothing, and I'd be set for life! )

Didn't we decide that she got the name Runcorn from here?

Ah Mr. Tobias, I always like your comparisons, they are usually very good (Although I recommend you read the book if you already haven't, they are infinitely better than the movies).

And I suppose I should tell you, I've used a few names and ideas in my writings that I picked up here. Maybe one day you'll all get your checks!

What would Blissyu2 say?

Yeah I noticed the parallels, too.

He'd sell his share to Durova for a handful of WikiBeans.

I know some here probably aren't big video game fans (especially MMORPGs like WP), but one game that emulates WP to me is a game called "BioShock."

Ironically, WP considers BioShock a "[Ayn] Randian Dystopia." The story is that in 1946, a businessman named Andrew Ryan creates an underwater city called Rapture in which every man is free and can reap the benefits from "the sweat of his brow." Unfortunately, Ryan exerts a heavy hand on Rapture and keeps out "impurities" such as products from the outside world. A gangster named Fontaine creates a black market and he and Ryan fight a civil war to take Rapture. Ryan grows insane and begins enslaving and mutating his own people into soldiers (despite his wish to create a world of free will and free thought). Basically, he believes that in order to preserve his and Rapture's values, sacrifices must be made or, in other words, he must destroy his world in order to save it. As the player, you come into Rapture just as the civil war is abating. You must stop Ryan and Fontaine from completing destroying Rapture and save the world.. yadda yadda.

Sorry for the almost promotional spiel but the parallels between Wikipedia and BioShock are staggering.





Update: Oh, and Half Life 2 is another good one.

The dysfunctional dystopian community of Wikipedia has adopted a cultlike regulatory structure modeled after Hammurabi and Machiavelli.

To this day, many people still believe in the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation, notwithstanding thousands of years of accumulated evidence and hundreds of years of scientific and philosophical analysis revealing the bankruptcy of that flawed regulatory architecture.

Similar criticisms of Hammurabi's Original Logic Error can also be found in the theological literature as well as in the writings of many modern novelists from Dostoevsky to Rowling.

Wikipedia will fail as a community because it has adopted an unenlightened and mathematically unsound architecture for self-regulation.

WP isn't a good comparison to Bioshock, because Ryan, Fontaine, pretty much everyone involved is insane or evil. Also, you're Ryan's son.

WP is a much better comparison to Bioshock's predecessor, System Shock.

Actually, WP is a great comparison to Portal, in which you are a "test subject" being forced to conduct social experiments (involving a gun that lets you make portals in space), for the promise of cake. However, the cake is a lie, and in fact when you are presented with the cake your are incinerated by the homicidal AI that controls the test facility. You break through the system though, and the AI begins to unravel and go insane as you find ways to elude it and escape with the truth.

I've always felt that most Wikipedians are only just a few edits away from insanity. I'm probably one of them.

I'm going to have to look around for the story on System Shock.

I point to Half-Life 2 as its social hierarchy is similar to WP's. In the game, normal humans are enslaved, some humans called Civil Protection Units (CPU) work as brutal police, Overwatch are transhumanist soldiers totally loyal to the alien Combine and Earth's dictator, Dr. Breen. Regular editors are the enslaved, pro-Cabal editors (like Moe Epsilon) are CPU, Overwatch are Cabalist enforcers withing the Cabal, and the Combine are the Cabal with Jimbo as Dr. Breen. Yes, I am a nerd and note these things.

Dystopias are real tragedies. Everyone is trying to fight for what they believe are the core values and principles of the state, group, project, etc. Sometimes it's just a difference of opinion. Sometimes it's the dark intentions of a dystopia's members. Sometimes the goals of the group or society are so vague or divergent that all you will have is civil war. To get back to those values, factions and individuals end up destroying their society instead of committing to deep introspection of individuals and the group as well as looking for solutions that many can agree to. Radical but necessary changes can be done if a good many agree to it. Diplomacy can take time, but the rewards can be bountiful for all.

I can't help but though in regards to WP picture Arthur and Mordred racing towards each other and then killing each other. No victory for anyone.

I'm sorry but Wikipedia reminds me strongly of "Animal Farm" with Jimbo Wales as "Napoleon" and Larry Sanger as "Snowball".

If we're really going to compare WP to a game, then the game needs to be some obscene Pokemon mod in which Pikachu is being ass-raped by a furry, while whoever the kid that is the star is, gets caught up in a web of intrigue, backstabbing, and lies, over rights to maintain the pokemon league.

"Grand Theft Wiki?" Oh, and you're thinking of Ash Ketchum as the "star kid."

I agree with many here whole-heartedly that WP is a form of MMORPG.

Even still, I think it's fairly safe to say that Wikipedia is and of itself a unique dystopia. I do believe one day many books and games will be based on WP.

"Aw man, did you read that new Cormac McCarthy post-apocalyptic book?"
"Yeah! I heard it was based on his observations of Wikipedia!"

JohnA: I agree that "Animal Farm" does fit. So does "Lord of the Flies." Poor Piggy and Simon. Banned by JzG... and "banned means banned!"

"Banned Means Banned!" ColScott! I have the name for your Wikipedia movie!

I'd name the movie, "You've Got An RfC!"

Thanks for telling me that I'm pro-cabal when I full-on despise any cabals whether they are on IRC or by e-mail or formed on Wikipedia.

With that kind of response, you'll never become a Cabal member! Your WP days may even be numbered!

I'll admit I don't see anything to suggest that you are a part of the Cabal, but rather you enforce their rules. You put templates upon many who stood up to the Cabal and for many here that's just not very nice.

I will apologize for saying that you are a part of the Cabal, but you still enforce their will everytime you place the block template on their userpage. And, yes, I did admonish an administrator for not putting that template up when he blocked an editor but that callous admin ignored me. No one listens to the little insignificant WP editors like myself...

Regardless of our stand on things, Happy New Year, Moe!

The Joy

Hm. What then is the excuse for your being so mean?

I'll believe that when you undo what you did to my user page.

One day, I'm going to have to go through the forum's archives and find out about the whole Taxwoman/Runcorn/Newport/Poetlister incident.

Runcorn! Harry Potter! We're back at the original topic again!

Moe, is it really that many? You mean to say "more than 10,000" or "more than 20,000"?

Is there some diff you can point to that lists all indefinitely blocked users of Wikipedia? Somehow I doubt it's even more than 2,000, but it would give me great joy to know that the numbers are higher than that. (Radically disproving the tagline, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".)

Greg

moved

Greg, I moved your question about "How many indef blocked users" back to this thread. It does not need to be the tar pit. Sorry I over-shot.