Last week, our own GlassBeadGame asserted :


RaymondArritt then went on to WP to raise this with others in a proposal:


The proposal is made here. See also the talk page for further discussion.

Yet Another Case From The BTDT-Files —

Seen it all before — I initiated several projects to address these problems in the most positive but realistic way I could come up with, and all I got for my efforts was a Lynching By The Usual Gang Of Canvas-Hooded Thugs for — get this — "Project Spam". All that work deleted outa site outa mind now.

When Will They Ever Learn ???

Jonny

I hope that he will take the lead on this -- he's a POV-pushing bully.

I think probably the best thing I could do is insist that Withdrawal is not sufficient and insist upon Disengagement.

Now you're talking my language, Bead.

Bold Words, you guise, but what if you call a Strike and nobody comes?

So far Bold Words is all you guise have been good for.

Yes, I'm obviously feeling sleighted here, and yes, I'm obviously trying to goad you — so what I'm saying is —

Are You Feelin' Goaded Yet, Punk?

Jonny

Well maybe a little. As I have noted before, due to software limitations words, bold or otherwise, and maybe an occassional fair use pic, is about all I'm good for. I have a "post' and "reply" button but not a "reform" or "dismantle" button. I'm still waiting for Somey's upgrade to address this limitation but as you know these things never come off on time.

Also let's keep in mind that the point of my original post was not to forge scientist into a union, but to criticize Wikipedian "scientists" for engaging in WP "processes" incompatable with the scientific method, like social network mongering and tag team editing mobs.

Well there was a "counter proposal" which flies in the face of Brother Bead's demands...

Sorry, I thought that you were a Participant-Observer in Wikipedia, where you would have an <Edit> button.

If you work up any, how you say, Ghostly World Historical Consciousness about Those Who Went (Mostly ↓) B4U, then you will know that Wikipediocrats are perfectly happy to have any number of Wise Guise walk away and quit interfering with their plans for World Domaination.

So I'm jes sayin' that all those buttons must be good for something besides sitting on.

Not that a sit-down strike wouldn't be a good start.

At least then you'd be occupying some space.

Jonny

Well, I do have access to that "Edit" button on Wikipedia. It never even occurred to me, even in my most deluded moments, that I could achieve anything meaningful with that button.

Not by your isolated, individual, lone∑ shard self, no.

Hence the name «Collective Action».

Goad, Goad, Goad …

Jonny

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course of action for a principled scientist would be to construct and publish an insightful system model of WP that 1) can be used to analyze and predict the observable dynamics of the site, and 2) can be solved for best practices to achieve some worthwhile goal (such as crafting an accurate and responsible encyclopedia).

Of course. But we've already discussed at some length elsewhere the manifold claims of duty for the scientist qua scientist, the scientist qua educator, and the scientist qua citizen, and the claims of the first do not exempt a person from the claims of the second and third.

Jon Awbrey

As a science educator, I have to confess that there appear to be some among us who are resistant to becoming educated in science. I'm still in the process of modeling such individuals, and solving for best practices when dealing with them.

See Meta-Thread On Inquiry.

Jon Awbrey

I'm thinking that a comic opera might be the only viable medium.

Unsurprisingly, there is a growing bicker-fest going down on the talk page.

WAS 4.250 (last seen defending the misuse of child photographs on a Wikia sex site and threatening to sue us for highlighting the now defunct monstrosity) writes:

What say you to this, Venerable Bead? Given that it was your manifesto in the first place, and Wikipedians merely jumped on your bandwagon?

It was my understanding that your statements weren't an encouragement for experts to band together and stop editing. They were a critique of the experts that were editing.

I like this quote by WAS:

I think WAS needs a psychological evaluation.

WAS is normally reasonably sound, (he was pro-giano in the durova battle for instance). He does say 'will be seen as disruption...and the disruptors as traitors,' he doesn't say who will see it in that way- it was probably actually having a go at the clique, if you think that WAS was pro giano, and how often giano was accused of being 'disruptive'.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177903955

for an example of WAS criticising/questioning the wiki leadership (just the first one that happened to be linked to on his userpage, without my having to search further.)

This guy has got a version of Bead's manifesto on his talk page.

No wonder Jonny Cache is "feeling sleighted". He's spent months carefully detailing these issues over countless posts. Meanwhile, Bead makes two comments and he's treated like the new Maharishi.

Having read The Tales of Beadle the Bard as a toddler in short puns,
I have the advantage of knowing how this tale will end in the long runs.

Jonny

So this cretin is so hot to defend naked children pics he drags a fully copyrighted Associated Press picture that was important to the ant-war movement? Does he understand the argument?. It is GFDL pic that can be commercially be exploited by people who get sexual gratification from the depictions of innocent children, either naked of attired in what can be reinterpreted and exploited as fetish sexual material (school/scout uniforms etc).

Yes, my point was that many Wikipedians crying "Science. Science, Science." don't know science at all. They utilize the tools of social networking influence and web 2.0 thuggery. Bans, blocks and WP wonkery are not the tools of science.

Was Not.

Well its a nice pithy statement. I do feel it contains a bit too much hope and not enough realism. I would rather spend my time writing publishable books, than wasting it on WP.

Judging by WP admins "couldn't give a toss" attitude so far about losing experts, and the often admin- concerted efforts to promote new age krankery or protect abusive wankery, it looks like any such strike will not make any real difference.

I imagine it would take a set of long term committed anti-crank editors to group together and deliberately write like cranks whilst posting signs that they are doing so in order to make any difference. Deliberately spoiling the vote, and writing like the pseudoscientists that they know oh so well might just get some people to notice that the experts are quite willing to demonstrate how bad things are on WP.

However, its also likely that any real experts would simply not have the energy.

Experts who have enough sense have already withdrawn from the project. I think thats pretty obvious.

Its not a matter of "your edits will be mercilessly edited". Its more a case of "any facts you state straight will be mercilessly distorted, and the cards are totally against you if you want to spend time correcting the distortion".

The moves WP has made to remove blatantly obvious pictorial pervfests on WP are disgracefully late, and pretty much just smoke. The fact is, the distortion is always in the text. The same is true with all vested interest articles on WP.

Attempt to correct the problem at enormous expense to yourself. WP is basically just there for killing your valuable time, unless you are some form of self-interested web marketeer, in which case its just there for propagating bullshit and killing facts.

I believe the only positive thing to do with WP is to flag and highlight the bullshit from afar.

Its an area to avoid, a minefield.

Thats not so people can navigate through the minefield. Its so people can avoid the minefield altogether.

If anyone can write a pithy statement containing the above, it might help. I'll be happy to give you full credit on intellectual property:)

Is any serious scientist going to participate in Wikipedia for more than an hour without noticing that something is wrong?

I often recall a couple of statements that impressed me at the time as striking very near the heart of the problem. These were addressed to me during my self-initiated Exit Interview on the Wikienlist in the Summer of 2006.



Jon Awbrey

I dunno man, any Scientist that hasn't been published on Usenet just isn't wikiworthy.

And Larry himself weighs in at one point.

[edit: update] And this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ray...oved_to_Talk.29

is also very funny if you read it carefully.

With that in mind, our own "Speaking out on behalf of principled scientists for over two weeks" does seem a little dismissive.

Perplexity


Noticing that "something is wrong" isn't the challenge.

Diagnosing the dysfunction and devising a functional and efficacious remedy are the unsolved problems.

All known remedial practices are ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst.

The best we can do at this time is to craft a narrative description of the dysfunction.

Perhaps with a little song and dance thrown in to keep the audience from fleeing the auditorium.

I'm not a scientist. Jonny is. I wasn't speaking for scientists. I have worked over the past year and 2,400 + posts to develop a critique of WP. When I initially showed up on WR my critique was limited to the distressing issues of governance that WMF presented. It had "god-king" for Christ's sake. It had a board of trustee that seemed weak by design. It simply didn't function like a responsible non-profit. This was something I was in a position to understand and comment upon.

But the unique thing about WR is that it is dynamic and varied. Exposure to other posters have helped me develop a deeper and more thorough going critique. Daniel helped bring to the forefront the issues of BLP victimization and Sec 230 Immunity. Various other posters demonstrated the distorted processes and broken consensus. Jonny detailed the level of disrespect that experts endure. The scandals of Essjay, Slim Virgin, Jayjg Durova, and Doran, often facilitated by the extraordinary detective work of Wordbomb and Daniel showed an inability to make needed changes. After a year of this interaction my critique has developed to one that views Wikipedia as broken beyond all hope of internal reform. I believe that WMF is not operated in a responsible fashion, furthermore I believe that the "community" is equally as incapable of bringing the needed reform. I believe that any hope of reform, or dismantling Wikipedia in their absence of reforms, must come from the outside.

This external approach is why I support Muslims in petitioning WMF for editorial restraint in removing offensive material. It is why I encourage child advocacy groups to take an interest pedophile related editing and seek compliance with COPPA child protection provisions. That is why I view litigation as a valuable tool in BLP reform and seek repeal or overturn of Sec 230 immunity. It is why I seek outside, independent and credible dispute resolution in place of ArbCom and community processes to address BLP issues.

It was in this context that I made the statement about principled scientists. The point was not to "organize" the "scientists" of Wikipedia. Instead it was a criticism of those who edit science topics on Wikipedia while engaging in the same manipulation and dysfunction demonstrated in other areas of editing. By "Principled scientist" I was invoking an outside standard of responsible editing. If anyone needs clarification on exactly what level of disrespect Wikipedia subjects scientist with real expertise, credentials and principles they need only review the extensive posting of Jonny Cash on WR.

GBD, I was noting the current tag line for the site rather than your specific posts (but the clarification is interesting and useful).

I knew that. But oddly I seem to have been "Speaking out on behalf of principled scientists for over two weeks" myself.

I think it's supposed to be funny.

It doesn't sound as funny if you say "two years".

Jonny

The boycott chatter has taken a predictably dark turn. Bead's original statement has become un-recognizable. It is now this


As someone who is broadly in support of the current crusade spearheaded by Richard Dawkins to promote Reason in public life, I feel deeply disheartened by this attitude. It is a complete mistake and will fail miserably.

Seth Finkelstein should figure out a way to write a seminal story in El Reg on the issue of expert withdrawal.

If it was a seminal piece, wouldn't it be on premature expert withdrawal?

Joculatory remarks should be left to Jonny. That's his bailiwick.

That wasn't jocular (from Latin jocus, jesting), that was ejaculatory (from Latin ejaculatus, ultimately from jacere to throw). And it didn't contain any mathematical symbols, so Jonny wouldn't be interested.

I'll have an inscrutable comeback, right after I take time out for a pregnant pause.

I think we've found a virgin field for a new type of silly remark.

I'm not fond of this brand of elitism either, particularly since I have found that some of the people who are really gung-ho about this tend to have pretty lousy criteria for labeling someone a pseudoscience proponent. If I thought it might just stay at letting the POV warriors self-destruct, that wouldn't be too bad, but I lay odds such a list would quickly develop into secret coordination for driving off opponents or getting them banned.

This isn't about improving the encyclopedia, it's about "winning."

Enemies Lists aren't normally a part of the scientific method, are they?

I must say, I can't remember Einstein's "Treatise on Enemies of Relativity, Who Must Be Eliminated". But apparently that's the proper way to do things, so maybe the journal it was published in is now a WP:BADJOURNAL.

How many more times. Einstein was a Jewish Nobel Prizewinner and a Jewish Foreign Associate of the Royal Society, hence is not notable.

An enemy (or adversary) is an antagonist whose backstory one has not yet gleaned.