I do believe it is fairly clear that many of those in power
at WP practise favouritism, at least to the extent that I
don't see how anyone could expect a WR member who
was banned from WP to be allowed the same courtesies
as a 'respected WP admin'.

The reasoning behind it, I suppose, is that 'favoured'
people are theoretically 'favoured' because they help
WP, and that by helping them, you are helping WP.
'Disfavoured' people, on the other hand, are theoretically
'disfavoured' because they hurt WP, and therefore they
have to be taught a lesson, so helping them would hurt
WP. (The positive favouritism makes some sense. The
disfavouritism I consider generally unethical.)

In cases where this results in 'disfavoured' peoples not
being allowed things that WP should do for everyone,
such as respect for their privacy, reputations, right to
vanish, etc., I do disapprove. Quite strongly.

But, accepting that favouritism does indeed exist, and
that isn't likely to change any time soon, isn't a bribe sort
of the same thing? If for example, Good Articles are
offered in exchange for the removal of defamation
against a disfavoured person, does that not ensure that
removing the defamation does indeed help WP, since
WP will then have more GAs? So, if WP already
practises favouritism, should they not, by the same logic,
also accept bribes of offers to help their 'encyclopaedia'?

Indeed, bribes are probably better than favouritism. Aside
from misidentification of who should be 'favoured', if a
disfavoured person needs something done, they are
basically screwed under the favouritism system. Bribery
is much more equal opportunity. Anyone can, in theory,
either write a few GAs or get a friend to write them. Thus,
anyone who wanted defamation about them removed badly
enough could, under a bribery system, get it removed, for a
price.

Therefore, bribery is superior to favouritism. Not to mention
most likely much cheaper than a lawsuit.

Nothing in this post discusses bribes of things other than
helping their 'encyclopaedia', or bribes to do things that
they shouldn't really be doing anyway.

I supposed it's better to practice favouritism than the much worse favoritism, but still thing is when there's an edit war, someone has to win or it will go on forever and usually whoever is administrator wins. When administrators fight, people higher up decided and sometimes it gets to Jimbo.

In theory, WP admins are more familiar with policy, and
that knowledge could be used either to obey policy
better than those who are less familiar (what most
would hope for), or else to game the system, whether
for their own gain or for what is 'right'.

Still, the whole adversarial setup is rather toxic. Not
to mention, what you say is often true even when it is
admin versus established non-admin.

(And there are other options, sometimes. Like a
compromise between the two or more positions. Not
that that happens very often.)

And there's the obvious problem that just being an
admin doesn't make someone 'right'.

But supposing the edit war was over defamation.
Shouldn't even an unfavoured person be able to get
defamatory statements removed?

Okay, so they really should just remove the defamation.
But I'd rather they say, 'Only if you give us X GAs' than
just, 'Go to hell.'

I wouldn't shed a tear for favoritism, but this bribery has its own pernicious consequences.

In the first place, it turns Wikipedia's google ranking into a weapon. They already extort labor from people in images. Lots of semi-celebrity BLPs have some gawd-awful images which seem to have been taken at book signings immediately before a sneeze. Editors pay no mind to complaints over unflattering pics, and instead insist that the only remedy is for BLP subjects to provide their own high resolution images with a free license. In this limited way, Wikipedia already attempts to conscript its subjects.

But if we move on into FA bribery, I think there are some serious problems. Yes, featured articles theoretically increase the utility of Wikipedia, but we should also consider the long-term repercussions. Say that we let Gary Weiss keep his glowing CV if he writes a FA about Jews in the Southwest. Yeah, nobody really cares about his article, so the world might seem better off, but open bribery undermines the confidence people have in articles generally, which deters future contributers. I think the exodus of editing is the projects greatest threat. Self-interested bribery writing encourages those who have an agenda, but everyone else would be disenchanted to find that third parties could exert ownership over articles by writing in other areas.

Of course, writers become disenchanted now when they discover that admins claim ownership anyway for no rhyme or reason.

If we want to radically re-imagine Wikipedia anyway, we might as well wish for something perfect.

And a pony. I would like a pony.

Supposing the person wanted the entire article simply
deleted? And WP said no, unless you can give us
content of greater or equal value to replace it with?

Okay, they shouldn't be charging for BLP opt-out, but
if it persuaded them to delete BLPs they wouldn't
otherwise delete, some subjects might find it worthwhile.



What if bribery were only accepted in exchange for the
removal of information from WP? As in, BLP opt-out,
oversight of personal information, right-to-vanish.
These are things they should be offering to everyone
anyway, but don't.

Anyway, I was under the impression that favouritism
was already on Weiss's side? So wouldn't bribery be
more likely to help WordBomb? (Not that WordBomb
would be interested in bribing anyone.)

An exodus of editing actually sounds great to me.

How does it help Wikipedia to have FAs or GAs that aren't much good? People can argue that most articles are written by Heaven knows who but the good articles are excellent - then they turn out not to be.

I actually have no idea. How does it help WP to
smear people, defame people, violate people's
privacy, and refuse to let people vanish?

Actually, you're exactly right. Weiss already got the benefits as if he had bribed people.

Since we're designing the a mildly better form of corruption on Wikipedia, we better give it a more PR-friendly name. "Multi-level editing"? "FA pushing"? "Some editors have more consensus than others"? I can't think of anything good.

Negotiation?

I would probably call it scapegoating & ostracism.

Bribing WP to remove defamation by offering
them GAs is scapegoating and ostracism?

No no no, not in that way. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

The way Arbcom treats people sometimes is scapegoating and ostracism. I can think of a few cases, including my own.

Right, so since no one will tell me a number of GAs
it costs to get anything done, how many is too
many to refuse?

Is 20 enough? 100? Could WP turn down 100
GAs?

Granted, 100 GAs would take a bloody long time
to write, but it's still probably more efficient than
talking people in to doing the right thing for its
own sake.

WP has a Reward board. If anyone wants to put a price on getting certain articles to GA status, I don't see anything stopping them.

An article about Jimbo's failed Openserving project came into being thanks to the Reward Board. Then, the Wikipediots read about it and noticed how disastrous Jimbo's efforts seemed in retrospect, so they dismantled the article.

The article has been rescued and expanded upon by Wikipedia Review, of course.

Jimbo or Gil are welcome to come to Wikipedia Review, register, and take ownership of "their" Directory listing, of course. They don't even have to pay me a bribe or treat me to a Московия massage.

Greg

Other than being banned, you mean....

Anyway, things I am interested in
bribing people for include the removal
of outing and defamation of myself
and those I care about, letting a friend
of mine vanish, and things of that sort.

The question is how to find someone
who will accept bribes, and how big
the bribes have to be....




Yes. Wikipedia Review is clearly morally superior to
WP, by far. Though that should go without
saying.

The thing is, you have people offering to do some of that for free, no bribes necessary at all, but you spurned them. Something about "not giving personal information about myself to anyone who thinks being 'off-topic' is worse than threats of physical violence" is how you put it... which would of course not include me, I never said any such thing nor do I believe it to be true.

Moulton suggests that it's not useful to advance spurious theories of mind when one is baffled by behaviours, so I'll just say that I completely don't follow your logic there.

So, whatever.

Nonetheless, one might note that Fear and Trust tend to be inversely related; when Fear is up, Trust is down, and vice versa.

Well, yes, Fear and Trust are rather opposites.

P.S. If Lar is trying to talk to me, he should note
that I actually enabled JavaScript just so I could
ignore him. If he has anything to say to me, he
should tell Somey.

Fear and trust, justice and mercy, truth and clarity. Dr. Bohr would have said they are conjugate variables; "complementary" like yin and yang, momentum and space, energy and time.

Werner H. Roe

I think what I have to say rather is to everyone else, and I think just quoting AB directly pretty much says it all, really, as it gives the impression of excessive paranoia. (I'm actually counting on her NOT seeing this, in fact... )

Why anyone would want to still help her is beyond me, but I still do... If only to get her to shut up about the matter.

Mimetic Obliviousness

Hey Lar, did you know that (with JavaScript enabled) you can set an option to ignore someone here?

I've heard rumours to that effect, yes. Haven't spotted where in the docs it says how to do it yet. I rather like the current state of affairs though... I get to see her contributions, but she doesn't get to see mine. Since I take her rather less seriously than she seems to take me, that seems a good place to be.