Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

No I don't disagree, but also:-

due to the visibility of wikipedia articles, and the accessibility of information on the internet, wikipedia articles may create problems for companies and individuals that want to manage their image, if they have received any undesirable press. (This to me may be a strength of wikipedia- but obviously for the subjects themselves, it's often not a good thing.)

An example is Nelson's homeopathy - an employee made the article and it was quite pro-Nelsons, but because there was an article up it means problems they've had with providing anti-malaria homeopathy tablets are brought into the open again. I bet the bloke regrets it now. It's a two-edged sword.

I suppose how this relates to your point is that sometimes the things said about BLP's, companies etc, the subjects complain about them not because they are false, but because they are true but they don't want them more widely known. Would you disagree?

Nope. Knowledge is power; power corrupts. Wikipedia shows not surprisingly that being in control of a big knowledge-source tends to corrupt quickly. Look at Jimbo's escapades with biographizing women.

You also get a guy out there tossing breadcrums to the masses, as he did with Mzoli's meats. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/...,0,344107.story If you read the Wiki on Mzoli's now, you might get the idea that it's the central bastian of post-apartheid progress in a whole damn country. Wrong -- it's just Jimbo's flunkies, cleaning up after him, justifying, justifying. Get out the babywipes again.

I tend to agree with that statement, though I'm optimistic it can be solved with less drastic measures than some people have suggested throughout WR.

The main problem with the statement is that it's weak. It doesn't say anything that is both true and arresting.

More succinctly:

Knowledge-control is power. Power corrupts. Wikipedia: the free source of Jimmy Wales' corruption that anyone can contribute to.

If memory serves — don't ask who controls the servers — people usually attribute that Knowledge Is Power tag to Bacon, I forget which one, but it really goes back to Aristotle, and there the word for power was dynamis, which really means something more like potential than our modern sense of political power.

Cf. Inquiry Driven Systems, § 1.3.9.3. The Formative Tension

Jon

Well at least it's clear, universally comprehensible, and free of self-indulgent bullshit.

I think it's pretty obvious that I agree with that.

There are two kinds of problems that come to mind, depending on how much influence you think the Wikipedia way of doing things will come to have. No, Wikipedia is not really all that influential yet, as most people I know keep reminding me whenever I start to bore them with my fears about it.

On a clear day, I think I can see that democratic societies have already fought this war against anonymous authority and irresponsible influence and — even though there are setbacks from time to time — democratic societies will simply never go back to the ways things were before, not so long as they continue to be democratic societies.

On this assumption, the problem that Wikipedia presents is largely a problem of mis-education, namely, that a segment of the population is being habituated to modes of conduct that ill suit them for citizenship in democratic societies.

Jon

Oh, political power quotes, and all other quotes, are generally assumed to be from our Elizabethan beaurocrat, the aphoristic Francis. Not the gunpowder-making Roger of way earlier. There's six degrees of separation between the two Bacons, at least.

We assume desire and substantiation exist. Natually, knowledge/information alone, like software alone, is impotent. Nothing comes of instruction without mechanism, art without craft, information without implementation, DNA without the cell to be run by it. But even when you have the full potential of hardware plus will and knowledge, power itself is always in a sense mere potential, until you use it to do something.

Knowledge. Intelligence. Strength. Money/Capital. Courage. Industriousness. Fame, charisma, pulchritude, and so on. What are they good for? Nothing, by themselves. None of them is even so much as good or bad (though our genes oft tell us otherwise!) They are all, in an of themselves, merely amplifiers, social and otherwise. Instrumentalities.

-- The Baconator, with Cheese

There are some problems with lack of accountability, but they are less than the problems that would arise with any substantially increased degree of accountability. Lack of accountability has been crucial in creating the power that you refer to.

Hi Kato,

I broadly agree with the statement. My only argument in qualification would be that ‘traditional’ requirements of ‘standards of accountability’ are themselves subject to power relations (so therefore are subject to being applied inconsistently and oppressively, or being gerrymandered).

I do think Wikipedia has serious problems in its claims to be producing ‘knowledge’, and wields inordinate power in various ways (some of which are only just becoming more evident, and others which may not even be evident as yet.)

The claims to NPOV and SPOV are often hilariously ironic- they are most often made without any careful consideration of the problems of claims to ‘objectivity’ or 'neutrality' and how these might be addressed. My background is in feminist research epistemology and methodology - I‘m most certainly NOT‘ anti-science‘ - and feminists are among those that HAVE produced literature on the problem of claims to objectivity being different from actually achieving objectivity, and not necessarily as a ‘strong programme‘ participant (though there is a lot of that about, as in all areas of social science), but within empiricist commitments to the possibility of scientific and other objectivity .

Often at Wikipedia there is an unpleasant distortion of the ‘SPOV’ whereby appeals to authority are often paraded in place of careful, sober logical evaluation of claims made in science. I think this is a major problem on Wikipedia, possibly related to the personal philosophies of key personnel there. The resort to the ad hominem and operation of power status (POV- pushing admins a major problem) in place of reasoned, logical discussion is endemic there, even on ‘science‘ subjects.

I don’t necessarily think this is unique to Wikipedia- but its so-called global ‘status’ as a source of ‘knowledge’ makes for grave concerns in this area, yes.

How to address them- don’t know. I’ve obviously had my fingers burned and my representation placed under sustained attack, with real world effects, for example. Obviously there are many stories with similarities to my own. Somewhere like WR gets labelled on WP as an ‘attack site’ or a “BADSITE” as a way of trivialising and pathologising any concerns that might be brought up - which would be laughable, but we don’t know how much that sort of WP lexicon or way of thinking is going to be taken up in the real world- another potentially big problem.

So yes, it’s a fair statement to make.

Angela,

The problems that you mention have a lot to do, once again, with the intellectual horizon of the average wikipediot admin/editor. Somehow or other, through lack of education, general awareness, or worldly experience, the group in question has missed the whole dialogue on knowledge that has been taking place on the cultural scene for about as long as, well, as I've been paying attention, at least.

This has numerous consequences.

Jon

I believe I've said before that Wikipedia is more an information aggregator than always an encyclopedia. If a company or government has bad press (or good press) it is not an inherently bad thing for it be centralized, for people to get all the known facts in one central place. BLPs are a mess, but for articles on civic or private organizations, commercial or otherwise, this practice actually serves the community's interests. By community, I mean the world.

Groups and businesses have no business controlling their "image" beyond the means that the local United States government, where Wikipedia is hosted, allows them. They have in this country, thanks to Freedom of Speech, thankfully little control over such things. Wikipedia is a great service in this regard.


A relevant court case as well, for how this could relate to BLPs (separate and distinct from any Section 230 discussions, before someone brings that up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

Yet another example of wikiwishful thinking in the extreme.

A general rule of critical systems thinking is this:

• Any abuse that can occur, does occur.

Wikipedia is deliberately designed to permit the maximum possible abuse.

Most respectable publishers in the real world earn that respect by being vastly most honest than Wikipedia. They say, This is who we are and this is our point of view. Wikipedia is a platform for people who cannot or will not be that honest.

Jon

And I and any sane person has to reject any argument that basically slags the idea of user-created content via the Internet. The Internet, and its tradition of letting "anyone" compile a page like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

Is a fine tradition. Before the Internet, the mass media and print media/"reputable" publishers controlled any and all information flow. You can thanks to the internet enable private oversight of groups, with independent websites that can be a clearinghouse of information on corporations, governments, and groups. In any general sense, such things are good things. This argument you've presented is basically that only reputable experts should be doing such things: nonsense. As long as it's legally allowed, it's fine and a great service. Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually. Can a private website that does the same thing be fixed by anyone, even if it's legal? No.

Any argument that boils down to "Less power to the people" is representative of repressive mindsets that only traditional methods of getting information, controlling information, and distributing information are valid. A world where anyone can get a message out is a good thing. Anything that breaks the control of governments, religions, corporations, or groups over information about themselves is a good thing.

Does that mean that in some cases "experts" or "traditional" authorities may get disempowered, marginalized, or be brought down to the level of talking heads or data points for the casual observer, instead of the word of information God? Sure. This is also not a bad thing, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

A great example is when Burma recently cracked down on the news media over their abusive treatment of protesters, and camera phone and citizen journalism told the entire world via the Internet. Wikileaks, and their potential to safely expose corporate or government malfeasance, is another great example. The arguments in thread aren't Wikipedia specific at all, but over whether the idea of anyone being able to compile and distribute information that some would like to see decentralized and scattered, or unavailable, is a good thing.

No one here is saying any automatically bad things about User Created Content (UCC).

But I and any sane person sees the problem with Unidentified User Created Content (UUCC).

Jon

What are your thoughts on Wikileaks, and anonymously created websites in general? Should a person compiling all available information, say on the Scientologists (who with their Fair Play policy WILL hurt your career and livelihood for speaking out against them)? What about a person compiling information on a website about China, Burma, or the Saudi government? Should they be identifying themselves also, even though it could get them killed?

Don't let this beautiful fantasy about a wikipeeple's revolution get in the way of seeing the economic and political realities.

BTDT …

Jon

And you haven't answered my questions in any way, and have only supplied an answer that I'm ignorant. Why are you afraid to answer point by point? You have no defense, is the problem. Here, try again. I'd like to see responses from others, as well, to this:

I have answered all of these questions, time and again, for the last 2008–2005 = 3 years, but people who are ever blowing the kinds of bubbles you are constantly blowing have never shown the least bit of cognizance of the obvious. The fact is that people who haven't been living in some kind of bubble-world since infancy will know enough to answer these questions for themselves, and the rest of you have got your brains so full of bubbles that you can't seem to hear the pinprick coming.

Jon

The pinprick where the general Internet will be no longer anonymous? Never happen, at least not in the United States. Any attempt to restrict the Internet to do this will be met with literal information warfare. Force anonymity by law? The proxies and TORs of the world will take over for distribution of "restricted" information, with technology in place already. Laws passed to bar carriers from accepting traffic from "restricted" sources, such as proxies and TORs? New technology will be trivially created to circumvent that. This entire scenario is a stock staple of much futurist-type fiction and literature, and that fiction generally comes to pass historically.

If it ends up where a "web site" such as one circulating news that is not from accredited sources is restricted comes to pass, in a world where something like http://www.indymedia.org or a private website detailing wrongdoing by a group, government or organization is pushed underground by changing laws, because they want to post their information anonymously, and free of any possible reprisal, human ingenuity and simple binary technological advances will push right past any childish attempts to restrict them. For every law or counter-technological solution, those who want things to be "out" are always ten steps ahead.

File sharing networks compromised? They invented WASTE and shared the idea behind it--now anyone can make an utterly secure file sharing network, and they're up and running, and all but impregnable. Want to go bigger? Create a darknet. If they try to shut down such things it will lead to anonymously hosted entities like Freenet basically living on darknets, or with compromised nodes like botnets, and over encryption to boot. Given that in 1st and 2nd world countries traffic speeds and costs are both rising and dropping exponentially, it will be in 10-20 years trivial from a speed perspective to run an entire operation like this off of compromised nodes on a botnet, over encryption, piggy-backing on the existing network infrastructures (IPV6, by then, I'd hope) already in place. To most high-level, even government inspection, it will be white noise and unstoppable.

Trust me, from a technological standpoint, there is no bubble waiting to burst. Maybe if we run out of oil, and petroleum and plastic products, and all nations are reduced to 3rd world status. But you know what? I know how to run a mimeograph machine, and so do many, many others, and the message will STILL get out.

Root, I think Jonny is saying that the pinprick is coming to pop the bubbles of "anonymous authority". I'll bet Jonny sees a future where you can print up whatever you want on the Internet, or on paper flyers on telephone poles, or shouted from rooftops... about whatever China, Scientology, Myanmar, Saudi topic you want.

But if you're going to do it anonymously, don't expect anyone to pay serious attention to its credibility.

Jon, sorry if I failed to interpret your meaning properly.

But that's one point I disagree on as well. Wikipedia has it's issues, that's true, and I'm NOT disputing that. But if we took an independent website that was an authority on something--let's say the House of Saud, Exxon Mobile, or Halliburton. If the information is sound, and accurate, shouldn't that be entirely then the reader's discretion alone to determine it's weight and value... if the author of HouseofSaud-watch.com, ExxonMobile-watch.com, or Halliburton-watch.com is anonymous? On the Wikipedia front, Jimbo had dismissed WikiTruth as a hoax, that they fictionalized content, etc., until WikiTruth simply posted them I think hovering admin tools over Jimmy's own user page, wasn't it, and by demonstrating they had access to Deleted and Oversighted revisions. They're still anonymous, and an authority.

My whole point is that the MESSAGE is what matters and has value--not the author. An author or expert is just a name, or face, and not important. A Dickens novel is a Dickens novel in quality, regardless if he published it under the name Charles Dickens or Pierre Dumont; a Twain tale is a Twain tale in quality where he published in his name, or under the non de plume of "Farty McStinks Alot". A solid analysis on finance by Greenspan is a solid analysis of finance, regardless of whether it's written in his name, or if he publishes to http://treasury-dude.blogspot.com.

A message worth reading or publishing is one that stands on it's value independent of it's author's name.

Yes, thanx, near enuff, I was getting liteheaded there just trying to take in all that N2O.

Jon

It's mainly a disinfotainment site.

Wikitruth "an authority"?

Listen Rootology, anonymity is only acceptable as an authority in adult society in the most extreme circumstances, and with certain caveats. Almost none of which apply to Wikipedia. But unaccountability is a lot more than just whether someone is known or not. The identities of the WMF are known, but they remain largely unaccountable for the content they publish. The whole process lacks any checks or balances, nor recourse for the abused victims. The culture is deliberately designed to avoid accountability in all its forms from top to bottom.

But no more than the rest of the Internet. Getting unaccountable publishing ability on the Internet is absolutely trivial, even outside of Wikipedia.

1. TOR
2. Gmail
3. Blogspot
4. Untraceable blog

So what is the definition of being accountable online? Is it posting responsible material? Or is it for someone you write about (be it a person, organization, corporation, or government) to be able to track down the real identity of a given author? If it's to force accountability by tracking it down to the ultimate author, my point is that ultimately this is a loser's game. It's FAR easier to track down in most cases a real name of even the most elusive Wikipedia author today, if they do something that warrants something that merits getting United States law enforcement involved. Make a username from your home Charter or AOL account, under an anonymous name, and post a threat to the President. The WMF will be made to give up your IP very fast, and Charter or AOL will give you up very fast. Post anything that merits legal discovery of your IP, and you're tagged. WMF leads to your ISP leads to your billing records leads to you.

However, that's the caveat. It's GOT to be something legally actionable in the jurisdiction involved. And then, just like with any website--not specific to Wikipedia--you have to get past the WMF lawyers and your ISP's lawyers. If it's a borderline case not involving a clear cut legal violation or a court order, good luck. But that's the way it should be for any anonymous speech if you are clever enough to cover your tracks. In any event, are we holding people accountable for hurting others, breaking the law (defamation) or now simply for using Wikipedia? Why no outcry for Livejournal users, or Blogspot users?

This is honestly starting to feel like a backlash against ANY attempts to enjoy totally anonymous speech, free of repercussion. The Internet has made that happen, yes. So is this a fight against internet culture, or Wikipedia? And if you (never happen, as I've detailed at length above) did somehow legally quash online anonymity, would it be better if it was forced utterly underground, in simple technological means that would make it impossible to track authors, rather than the hard it is now?



Ironically, Wikitruth is an authority on internal Wikipedia process, from the time they were active, since they had access to hidden internal materials (deletions, oversights) and were willing to broadcast them. It's not much, but it certainly counts.

I think that this thread went off topic somewhere about the time that Rootology weighed in with his Unaccountable Liteness Of Being Rootologous, so maybe that tangent could be split off to some interphase dimension or something?

Jon

Kato asked:



And I replied. No one has successfully refuted my statements, and have only dismissed them out of hand. I guess I hit a raw nerve by pointing out that Wikipedia's model is the model of the Internet's current culture, and by explaining how you CAN'T stop anonymous speech due to technical limitations. I don't believe my basically nuking the "We hate WP" lovefest this one time with facts deserves burying. The question as posed in this thread was completely wrong, and an attack on the unlimited and unrestricted free speech power that makes the Internet the valuable communications tool it is. If you have a problem with the points I raised, prove them wrong with a good argument or facts. It shouldn't be hard, right?

You have the Internet confused with Usenet.

Are you saying that the Wikipedia model doesn't present serious problems?

Jon

No, I'm not, and what does Usenet have to do with anything? Usenet was just one facet of the wider Internet, and you could be just as utterly anonymous there as anywhere if you knew what you were doing back then.



I never said that, no. I also never said that the lack of accountability wasn't a problem; my point was that it can't be stopped, and singling out Wikipedia as the root of Internet evil in this thread and it's questioning was misguided as I demonstrated. Unaccountable and utterly anonymous speech has perfect valid ethical and social uses, and it is at times required for the safety and betterment of mankind. My other point was that it's technologically impossible long-term to actually stop unaccountable and anonymous communications. It simply can't be done.

Pure Helium …

You obviously have no clue how much easier it is for some org with money to burn to manipulate a faucet like Wikipedia than it is for them to manipulate the mainstream media.

Jon

Which isn't what Kato asked, and this is deflection. So the big fault with Wikipedia boils down to 1) It's popular; 2) It's open. 3) It's centralized (?)

How many marks can a conman con if conman can con marks into buying the idea that they can't be conned?

A lot.

Jon

And we have enforced derailment. YOU WIN AT THE INTARNEBS JON. Sigh.

Accountability has nothing to do with anonymity. The board members of WikiMedia Foundation are all known people, and yet they remain utterly unaccountable for the monstrosity that is Wikipedia. If you can't understand that concept, then any answer you give to Kato's initial question is meaningless.

Unaccountable is not what they are. Who HAS tried to hold them accountable under legal processes that are binding in the United States yet, beside Barbara Bauer, which is still underway? IF that case (or a similar one) is tossed on Section 230 grounds and the verdict holds through all appeals processes, then yes, they're unaccountable. Until then, they may be accountable.


And accountability IS generally tied to anonymity. If I used my upthread example and made a blog entirely via untraceable proxies, who exactly would I be accountable to?

Accountability means much more than legal liability, in fact I would think that if the only motivation for doing something was minimum legal compliance, then you have pretty good evidence of a failure of accountability. I expect to see words like ethics, morals, honesty, truth when people talk about accountability, not "You can't sue, so I must be doing it right."

The main issue on accountability is that Wikipedia has declared a unilateral independence from the norms of the world. People involved like to pretend that they are in some novel world where there are no references that can apply and no responsibility outside of Wikipedia. The moral framework of how we would establish suitable rules would not be that established by some excitable teenagers Who Think they Know Best. (It feels like the hell of living in a Carpenters' album - bless the beasts and the children, with a bit of George Benson thrown in, or perhaps it is Catholicism - the sinfulness of carnal knowledge has corrupted the over 18s, they must be ignored?

So let's not confuse the issue. If WMF want really anonymity of users, then they should stand in that user's place and take responsibility - be accountable in their stead. Presumably, someone is saying that the anonymous voice is so important, it stands above all others' rights. If they don't believe that, why allow such a platform?

I think the 'democratization of knowledge/power to the people' argument does not apply to wikipedia. There are clear power structures in place that prevent people 'getting messages out'. My own example is at the Simon Wessely page - if you look at the archived talk page (it's long though ) you will get the idea. Here it was impossible to 'get a message out' because of the way the page is constantly being 'protected' by openly POV administrators (JzG and JFW) who used the Wikipedia system to get what they wanted.

Whatever people's views on this subject, it is I think a good example of adverse real-world effects of the 'powers' of Wikipedia. JFW and JzG actively wanted to portray ME/CFS sufferers (an already beleagured and abused group of ill people) in a certain, highly negative way (as is already happening in the real world), using unsafe evidence to do so (and also repressing sources that present legitmised criticism of the subject's work). The power they have at Wikipedia enabled this, especially as their actions were ultimately endorsed by Jim Wales himself. It might not matter if it was on a one -man- rant type of blog - but this outfit claims to be an encyclopaedia, and comes up high on google searches, is promoted in the news etc.

Throughout 2007, anyone looking up the subject would have been led to believe that he has been 'personally harassed' by an irrational ME/CFS community (including myself, a known and academic critic of the subject's WORK), a claim that is completely unsubstantiated (and in my case at least, completely false). The fact that this claim is also being promoted in other media (leaflets, a couple of books) is also a very big problem (one I've been documenting and challenging in the real world), but here, on WR, we are talking about Wikipedia as a domain of public knowledge production, which claims authority in this field, and is promoted by other powerful media.

Of course, there are legions of examples where people are prevented from 'getting the message out' by the structure and power relations at Wikipedia. This happens regardless of whether the 'message' is correct or not.

There is also the problem of 'systemic bias' and the particular personal ideologies of key people at Wikipedia (with all the associated problems) trumping other ways of looking at the world etc. etc. a big old subject that one.

Wikipedia is not a good example of 'democratisation of knowledge' - even though I've seen this claimed one way or another many times. It is just NOT the encyclopaedia 'anyone can edit'. A personal blog is probably a better example of that!

Yes, I've given up talking to Rootology, as he's got that Populist Φantasia (PΦ) piped into both ears so loud that he can't hear anything I'm saying over the sound of his own WikiPod™. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that it's a carefully packaged and virally marketed PΦ that he's bought. But that's what happens to people when they lose the ability to Consider The Source.

Jon

I thought the University of Minnesota disproved this fanciful notion of Wikipedia's ever-improving quality?

Heresy!!!
How Dare You Blaspheme The Anonymous Hand Of The Markup Place!!!

Jon

It can't actually be an exponential, since the probability of an article being erratic has to saturate at a value no greater than 1.0.

So a more plausible model would be a logistic curve like this one:

If you apply some basic systems thinking principles to Wikipedia's problems, you need to identify "what is the purpose of Wikipedia". In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are. Assuming the demands is for "highly accurate and readable articles on a comprehensive range of topics", then the purpose of Wikipedia ought to be to produce these.

Work that adds value to Wikipedia from the customer's perspective: Adding accurate content. Checking content for accuracy. Writing excellent prose. Improving prose. Uploading/creating worthy, free images. There are possibly others.

Work that does not add value (ie, work that does not directly improve the customer experience - "waste work") - Vandalism. Reverting vandalism. Blocking users. Anything on pages beginning with a Wikipedia:, a Talk: or a User:.

Reverting vandalism is wasted effort? Always. Rather, change the system so vandalism cannot take occur in the first place. Change the system so those who wish to vandalise are not able to. 95% of the poor performance of any process - including Wikipedia - are caused by the system constraints, not the people working within the system. Shouting at people to work harder does not make a business better. Making the system they work within as streamlined and efficient as possible, eliminating waste work at the source,

The flagged revisions concept is a promising step, as blatant vandalism will not be publicly visible; this will reduce vandalism (no visibility makes it less interesting to vandalise), which will reduce all that vandal "fighting". Sneaky vandalism (deliberately changing dates, numbers, etc) is harder to counteract.

The more I see, the more I am increasingly in favour of locking articles once they have reached some good standard - an attitude of "this article is good enough - stop your inept meddling and go and edit a poor article that you are actually capable of improving" would not hurt.

Neil, have you read my Board Candidacy response to this question? It would seem we're on the same wavelength.

Neil,

You are buying the premiss that the Actual Goals of WP:CONTROL are the Espoused Goals of WP:CONTROL. That's perfectly normal — I think that most folks of good will buy that sort of line the first 2 or 3 times around.

What you fail to grasp about WP:VANDALISM is that WP:CONTROL is WP:SYMBIOTIC with WP:VANDALISM. The continuous presence and constant threat of WP:VANDALISM is necessary to distract from the unearned authority of WP:CONTROL and to justify the absolutism of WP:POWER.

Really, there's not a damn thing new about any of this. You should've learned about it from watching StarTrek reruns, even if you did miss the First War Of Quagmire.

Jon

That's one analysis, yes but another (from cost accounting) is that there is direct and indirect cost. (or direct labor and burden, or direct labor and overhead) An automaker produces one thing of value, cars. But the ancillary functions that are done have to be done too, or pretty soon cars stop coming out the assembly line exit door. (because machines break down, engineering didn't fix bugs, steel doesn't get ordered correctly, so doesn't get delivered, suppliers didn't get paid and sheriffs come to foreclose things, whatever)

Now when you're looking to improve the cost per car, focusing on places to cut ancillary functions is often very fruitful. (Improve the ordering process! Reduce the downtime to do maintenance on machines! Tell suppliers they need to cut their prices or else!... etc) But if you cut without careful study, you may cut too much. (Activity based costing sometimes helps in this regard, to identify what activities are key and which are not)

Some would argue that this is, for example, Chrysler's problem right now... while Daimler ran them there was a drive to cut cost... the design department survived cutting better than engineering, so right now they are producing cars that look sweet but have dated mechanicals and get relatively poor mileage. (where is the hybrid Durango that was promised 5(??) years ago? It never got the proper engineering, but there was funding to restyle it a few times and make a knockoff Chrysler version)

Forgive me from drawing parallels from an industry that is near and dear to all true Michiganders

Thus I would argue that what happens on Talk: pages can be very important to the ultimate quality (and thus desirability) of an article. Or... it can be very detrimental. It varies. But you can't cut Talk pages entirely, I don't think. You CAN improve the processes though.

I don't think anyone has ever done time and motion studies, activity based costing, or anything of the like with respect to Wikipedia... not exactly.

You're comparing Fear of Vandalism to Fear of Terrorism

(draw the Jimbo = Bush etc parallels for yourself)

So, if vandalism didn't exist because it couldn't exist, we wouldn't need admins (who would lose their control and their power). I can appreciate a certain mindset of admin would not want that day to ever come.

It's why I'm a big fan of systems thinking, as it takes the setting of priorities away from "management" and towards "what do our customers want" - you have to have buy-in at a senior level, though. I'm not optimistic that will happen for Wikipedia.

It will plod along, and I'm happy to play my part as it's something to do and I do believe the concept is good, albeit applied sketchily. For Wikipedia to take that leap to "truly valuable resource", there needs to be fundamental change in how it functions. I am actually going to vote Kohs on the Board elections, as he has given the best responses to the questions of all the candidates. Plus I could use $10,000.