The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was interested in what it was. I looked into it and learned a little more about it, and liked the idea. I also noticed that it was a very good source of what you could call "trival" knowledge, such as more than you may ever want to know about Lightsabers in Star Wars. But I never bothered with wanting to edit anything, simply because I knew I didn't know enough about any one topic to start an article, and what I did know already had articles created, with nothing I could add.
Eventually, I realized I could continue a hobby I enjoy, fixing errors in grammar, linking pages together where they could be, so I made myself an account (Under a different username) and began occasionally fixing errors I found in whatever I felt like looking up at the time.
At one point, I somehow came across Lir's story of being blocked and was instantly fascinated. I found this site and read through some of the current threads with increasing interest. It struck me that some people who casually/rarely edit/read Wikipedia would never even know it was going on.
After reading through a few threads, I gave some thought to the general appearance of abusive administrators, and what might be done to fix the problem. And it may come across as pessimistic, I think that to some degree, abusive behavior by those in power will always be a problem. Even if you removed the worst examples, there may be someone else who comes along who develops a pattern of misusing what they have available to them. I don't really get a feel of "Fix the issues" from Wikipedia, in reading through here. And to me there's no hope for a project that refuses to see its own flaws.
Full Version: My Take on Wikipedia
Welcome to the forum, Cobalt!
IMO, that's an increasingly frustrating barrier to entry for lots of people. It's one of the ways WP has become hide-bound and conservative, in my opinion - they're lapsing out of their growth phase and into their maintenance phase, which calls for a different kind of gamesmanship. Which is to say, the gamers have been gaining the advantage over the non-gamers. (There have been a few encouraging signs lately, though.) Ultimately, Wikipedia will be seen as a product of this particular decade, sort of the way mood rings were a product of the 70's, bad hair bands were a product of the 80's, and so on.
You're lucky - I had to find out about it the hard way!
Now, there's a point people often don't make. Wikipedia really doesn't force people to participate in deletion controversies, RfC's, discussions of ArbCom rulings... And the fact is, if what you're doing is mostly fixup work, and not focused on controversial articles and topic areas, you really could build up a pretty high edit count without having any ewxposure to the politics of the site whatsoever.
That's probably good, but every once in a while, a well-meaning editor will find himself on some "owned" article, and make a change the owner doesn't like, and then BAM!
Deja vu! That's exactly what I used to say. And I still do, to some extent... But I've become increasingly convinced in the last 2-3 months that there's a core of people over there amongst the "top dogs" who are, shall we say, not quite right. People who really ought to be eased out of those top-dog positions, or at the very least, kept on a much shorter leash than they are now... And more to the point, they're people whose replacements aren't likely to have similar... characteristics.
And no, I don't mean the gender-identity thing, though there are those who might assume so!
QUOTE(Cobalt @ Mon 9th October 2006, 8:05pm) 
...I never bothered with wanting to edit anything, simply because I knew I didn't know enough about any one topic to start an article, and what I did know already had articles created, with nothing I could add.
IMO, that's an increasingly frustrating barrier to entry for lots of people. It's one of the ways WP has become hide-bound and conservative, in my opinion - they're lapsing out of their growth phase and into their maintenance phase, which calls for a different kind of gamesmanship. Which is to say, the gamers have been gaining the advantage over the non-gamers. (There have been a few encouraging signs lately, though.) Ultimately, Wikipedia will be seen as a product of this particular decade, sort of the way mood rings were a product of the 70's, bad hair bands were a product of the 80's, and so on.
QUOTE
At one point, I somehow came across Lir's story of being blocked and was instantly fascinated.
You're lucky - I had to find out about it the hard way!
QUOTE
I found this site and read through some of the current threads with increasing interest. It struck me that some people who casually/rarely edit/read Wikipedia would never even know it was going on.
Now, there's a point people often don't make. Wikipedia really doesn't force people to participate in deletion controversies, RfC's, discussions of ArbCom rulings... And the fact is, if what you're doing is mostly fixup work, and not focused on controversial articles and topic areas, you really could build up a pretty high edit count without having any ewxposure to the politics of the site whatsoever.
That's probably good, but every once in a while, a well-meaning editor will find himself on some "owned" article, and make a change the owner doesn't like, and then BAM!
QUOTE
...it may come across as pessimistic, I think that to some degree, abusive behavior by those in power will always be a problem. Even if you removed the worst examples, there may be someone else who comes along who develops a pattern of misusing what they have available to them.
Deja vu! That's exactly what I used to say. And I still do, to some extent... But I've become increasingly convinced in the last 2-3 months that there's a core of people over there amongst the "top dogs" who are, shall we say, not quite right. People who really ought to be eased out of those top-dog positions, or at the very least, kept on a much shorter leash than they are now... And more to the point, they're people whose replacements aren't likely to have similar... characteristics.
And no, I don't mean the gender-identity thing, though there are those who might assume so!
QUOTE(Cobalt @ Mon 9th October 2006, 9:05pm)
The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was interested in what it was. I looked into it and learned a little more about it, and liked the idea. I also noticed that it was a very good source of what you could call "trival" knowledge, such as more than you may ever want to know about Lightsabers in Star Wars. But I never bothered with wanting to edit anything, simply because I knew I didn't know enough about any one topic to start an article, and what I did know already had articles created, with nothing I could add.
Eventually, I realized I could continue a hobby I enjoy, fixing errors in grammar, linking pages together where they could be, so I made myself an account (Under a different username) and began occasionally fixing errors I found in whatever I felt like looking up at the time.
At one point, I somehow came across Lir's story of being blocked and was instantly fascinated. I found this site and read through some of the current threads with increasing interest. It struck me that some people who casually/rarely edit/read Wikipedia would never even know it was going on.
After reading through a few threads, I gave some thought to the general appearance of abusive administrators, and what might be done to fix the problem. And it may come across as pessimistic, I think that to some degree, abusive behavior by those in power will always be a problem. Even if you removed the worst examples, there may be someone else who comes along who develops a pattern of misusing what they have available to them. I don't really get a feel of "Fix the issues" from Wikipedia, in reading through here. And to me there's no hope for a project that refuses to see its own flaws.
Cobalt & All --
What we have here is MOB rule:
- There is mass of beings (mob_1) and mass of bits (mob_2), and a software system that allows mob_1 to interact with each other in the medium of mob_2.
- Each mob has its various and sundry submobs that we, the members of mob_1, come to know under various names.
- For instance, the mass of bits (mob_2) splits into submasses of bits that we know as (2.1) the state of WP articles, (2.2) the state of WP discussions, (2.3) the state of WP policies and projects, (2.4) the state of the WP IRC, and so on.
- For another thing, the mass of beings (mob_1) splits into submasses of beings that act in different ways on the different parts of mob_2.
And tomorrow ...
Jonny
/
Yeah, what he said!
Actually, Kelly Martin once wrote something on the WP mailing list bemoaning the state of mob rule at Wikipedia, though of course her solution was probably a little different than ours would be:
"Ochlocracy," of course, being a fancy term for mob rule. ("Dystopia" being a fancy term for a once-promising shit-hole.) My immediate response to that was to think she was just using big words to squelch criticism of what she was saying, and that in fact she was wrong - i.e., Wikipedia is far more of an oligarchy than an ochlocracy, at least in my opinion. But what does everyone else think, really? Presumably there are elements of both "o-systems," and maybe the question of which generally prevails is sort of moot...
So maybe the question should be this: In terms of Wikipedia, which is the better or worse tendency? Or for that matter, the current tendency? Oligarchy, or mob rule?
Actually, Kelly Martin once wrote something on the WP mailing list bemoaning the state of mob rule at Wikipedia, though of course her solution was probably a little different than ours would be:
QUOTE
I support cabalism. I think it would do better than our current system, which is basically a ochlocratic dystopia.
"Ochlocracy," of course, being a fancy term for mob rule. ("Dystopia" being a fancy term for a once-promising shit-hole.) My immediate response to that was to think she was just using big words to squelch criticism of what she was saying, and that in fact she was wrong - i.e., Wikipedia is far more of an oligarchy than an ochlocracy, at least in my opinion. But what does everyone else think, really? Presumably there are elements of both "o-systems," and maybe the question of which generally prevails is sort of moot...
So maybe the question should be this: In terms of Wikipedia, which is the better or worse tendency? Or for that matter, the current tendency? Oligarchy, or mob rule?
/
Thanks for the welcome!
You know, they might actually be better off if they drop the facade of being about the people and admit that the people "in charge" are in charge and there isn't much you as a mere editor can do about it. But the improvement would only come if you remove those who shouldn't be "over" any group of people, such as abusive admins.
Perhaps if they went ahead and operated like most compaines do, have different groups devoted to different things, like, admin A gathers volunteers (we'll assume they'd let that happen) and their job is to fact check. Admin B clears vandalism as their primary goal. Meanwhile all of these users could still edit as they please, but give the ones willing a focus and perhaps the system would run smoother.
Of course, that could still have problems, but it sounds more efficient and effective in my head. In application, maybe not so much. But change can't always hurt.
Sounds like Escape from New York...without the prison part.
You know, they might actually be better off if they drop the facade of being about the people and admit that the people "in charge" are in charge and there isn't much you as a mere editor can do about it. But the improvement would only come if you remove those who shouldn't be "over" any group of people, such as abusive admins.
Perhaps if they went ahead and operated like most compaines do, have different groups devoted to different things, like, admin A gathers volunteers (we'll assume they'd let that happen) and their job is to fact check. Admin B clears vandalism as their primary goal. Meanwhile all of these users could still edit as they please, but give the ones willing a focus and perhaps the system would run smoother.
Of course, that could still have problems, but it sounds more efficient and effective in my head. In application, maybe not so much. But change can't always hurt.
QUOTE(Joey)
As for who currently presides, it might be like a large, corrupt city -- oligarchs rule city hall while gangs rule the streets.
Sounds like Escape from New York...without the prison part.
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 9th October 2006, 11:36pm)
Yeah, what he said!
Actually, Kelly Martin once wrote something on the WP mailing list bemoaning the state of mob rule at Wikipedia, though of course her solution was probably a little different than ours would be:
QUOTE
I support cabalism. I think it would do better than our current system, which is basically an ochlocratic dystopia.
I suspect she would prefer a Cochlearchy -- To Hear Is To Obey.
Then the world would be ruled by Cochlear Implant Agents -- you do the acronym.
Oh wait ... maybe it already is ...
Jonny
/
QUOTE
That's a marvelous idea -- it's almost as if I though of it myself.
Well if I'm restating what someone's said before (and I'll assume I have already) I apologize.
QUOTE(Joey)
A compartmentalized access structure would make the software viable for secure inhouse collaboration in thousands of companies, non-profit groups and other social organizations. ...
For whatever reason, nobody has ported Wikimedia software to facilitate more precise control over administrative duties. Meanwhile, groups around the world are deprived benefit of a software that is really no more than a slightly improved by vastly more user-friendly system of markup all because Wales and Co. have fooled the public into thinking the slightly different mark-up and file-managment system somehow embodies an ideology.
For whatever reason, nobody has ported Wikimedia software to facilitate more precise control over administrative duties. Meanwhile, groups around the world are deprived benefit of a software that is really no more than a slightly improved by vastly more user-friendly system of markup all because Wales and Co. have fooled the public into thinking the slightly different mark-up and file-managment system somehow embodies an ideology.
Strange decision to me, because I'd imagine it'd sell fairly well if it was a commercial peice of software...because for some reason its often hard to see what's right in front of you.
But as simplified as it is, I have no patience, or desire, to learn to use it effectively, more or less because its not going to be useful anywhere the software isn't. Kind of like driving stick, its good to know, but not nescessary.
/
QUOTE(Cobalt @ Mon 9th October 2006, 11:07pm)
Perhaps if they went ahead and operated like most compaines do, have different groups devoted to different things, like, admin A gathers volunteers (we'll assume they'd let that happen) and their job is to fact check. Admin B clears vandalism as their primary goal. Meanwhile all of these users could still edit as they please, but give the ones willing a focus and perhaps the system would run smoother.
Actually, they've been discussing that sort of thing in the recent "Parker Peters" squabble on WikiEN-L:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ber/055019.html
And, as you might expect, most of the current admins are opposing the idea of "junior-level" admins, saying "it's all a matter of trust" and "if you can trust someone with any admin tools at all, you can trust them with all of them, so why hamper their efforts by only providing a subset of the tools," et cetera.
To their credit, they're at least allowing the discussion to continue in a forum that can be read by the public. There was even this quote, from one "Ray Saintonge":
QUOTE
Yes we are huge. This is complicated by the fact that there is no model for this kind of organization. There is no reliable body of laws to guide all our practices. There are no comparable multi-national non-profits with such a grass roots base. Profit oriented multinationals have different priorities, and easily available material resources for implementing their goals. It boggles the mind, and frankly, I am humble enough to say that I don't know what the fuck we should be doing.
He's probably wrong about there being no model for the organization - there are plenty of models, they're just not using them - though to some extent those models might rely somewhat on everyone not being anonymous. But at least there's some refreshing honesty in that last sentence!
QUOTE(Joey @ Tue 10th October 2006, 1:35am)
Actually, your idea for compartmentalization of tasks is somewhat different. I called attention to the similarities because -- not to devalue your idea -- it seems such an obvious approach I'm astounded it's not recommended more often. By all means, state, restate, state again, then restate again till some fool gets a clue.
Yeah, strange how some can see something obvious and others will never even contemplate the idea.
Any form of grouping or compartmentalization, to me, would easily solve a lot of issues.
QUOTE
This is complicated by the fact that there is no model for this kind of organization. There is no reliable body of laws to guide all our practices.
On the off chance this guy's reading, here's an idea that I just worked out:
At the top you have the people truly in charge, owners, what have you, and they could make the decisions that are of the most importance.
Below that, a group there to specifically monitor the people who run the groups below, and edit at will.
Below them, groups that are specialized in what their focus is, lead by multiple administrators as to keep power from being abused. There would basically be promotions within the group, as the specialized editors become more proficient at what they do.
And then the folks like me who go in and fix simple errors in grammar, link pages together, simple stuff.
Suppose one of the groups on that second rung becomes unruly, the third rung steps in, finds replacements, and so on.
The third level could also settle debates between groups if somehow two of their goals conflict.
Its all a matter of keeping everything in check, and controlling potential damage.
Not that this would nescessarily work with the people who are already there and in charge, but, an example of what another project of the same goal could use as a "corporate" structure, so to speak.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 10th October 2006, 6:45am)
And, as you might expect, most of the current admins are opposing the idea of "junior-level" admins, saying "it's all a matter of trust" and "if you can trust someone with any admin tools at all, you can trust them with all of them, so why hamper their efforts by only providing a subset of the tools," et cetera.
That is of course clear nonsense. Already only a limited number of admins are bureaucrats, only a limited number have Checkuser rights, only a limited number have Oversight rights and it's not a hierarchy, so some have one set of powers and some have another.
For example, rollback powers (the ability to revert the last edit with one click) are fairly harmless, and could be given to lots of people. Ability to see deleted articles is no big deal either. The ability to block someone permanently, on the other hand, is a big deal. Why should these three very different powers be given to all admins?
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 10th October 2006, 1:45am)
To their credit, they're at least allowing the discussion to continue in a forum that can be read by the public. There was even this quote, from one "Ray Saintonge":
QUOTE
Yes we are huge. This is complicated by the fact that there is no model for this kind of organization. There is no reliable body of laws to guide all our practices. There are no comparable multi-national non-profits with such a grass roots base. Profit oriented multinationals have different priorities, and easily available material resources for implementing their goals. It boggles the mind, and frankly, I am humble enough to say that I don't know what the fuck we should be doing.
He's probably wrong about there being no model for the organization -- there are plenty of models, they're just not using them -- though to some extent those models might rely somewhat on everyone not being anonymous. But at least there's some refreshing honesty in that last sentence!
This is rank mystification out of the mouths of the mystified. This whole business -- and I do mean business -- is "Yet Another Large Legacy Corporate Owned Media Empire" (YALLCOME). Wikimedusa and WalesPorkbelly, Incorpulent, stand on a par (size doesn't matter logically speaking) with Disney Enterprises, the Fox Network, The National Enquirer, Conrad Black, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, that whole gang. The fact that they have hypnotized masses of unpaid internet addicts into supplying a steady stream of raw pulp for them to print their preveiling editorial opinion on may seem novel to the historically challenged, but it is not really anything new in concept, either. I am not a lawyer, much less a corporate one, but my untutored horse sense tells me that people who conduct themselves in the manner to which the Wikimedia Foundation would like to become accustomed do not run non-profits, at least, not for long, and the facade of all that usually comes crashing down the very first time that duly appointed governmental commissions begin to poke at its props with any sort of real interest. Again, I have no inside information, this is just my scent of the airs put on -- and I do mean put on.
Jonny
Recent discussions of semiotic models called to mind this old post, where I tried to form a conceptual framework for thinking about software systems that mediate the interaction between a Mass Of Beings (MOB 1) and a Mass Of Bits (MOB 2).
Jon Awbrey
The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was interested in what it was. I looked into it and learned a little more about it, and liked the idea. I also noticed that it was a very good source of what you could call "trival" knowledge, such as more than you may ever want to know about Lightsabers in Star Wars. But I never bothered with wanting to edit anything, simply because I knew I didn't know enough about any one topic to start an article, and what I did know already had articles created, with nothing I could add.
Eventually, I realized I could continue a hobby I enjoy, fixing errors in grammar, linking pages together where they could be, so I made myself an account (Under a different username) and began occasionally fixing errors I found in whatever I felt like looking up at the time.
At one point, I somehow came across Lir's story of being blocked and was instantly fascinated. I found this site and read through some of the current threads with increasing interest. It struck me that some people who casually/rarely edit/read Wikipedia would never even know it was going on.
After reading through a few threads, I gave some thought to the general appearance of abusive administrators, and what might be done to fix the problem. And it may come across as pessimistic, I think that to some degree, abusive behavior by those in power will always be a problem. Even if you removed the worst examples, there may be someone else who comes along who develops a pattern of misusing what they have available to them. I don't really get a feel of "Fix the issues" from Wikipedia, in reading through here. And to me there's no hope for a project that refuses to see its own flaws.
Cobalt & All —
What we have here is MOB rule:
And tomorrow …
Jonny
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 9th October 2006, 10:01pm)
QUOTE(Cobalt @ Mon 9th October 2006, 9:05pm)
The first time I heard about Wikipedia I was interested in what it was. I looked into it and learned a little more about it, and liked the idea. I also noticed that it was a very good source of what you could call "trival" knowledge, such as more than you may ever want to know about Lightsabers in Star Wars. But I never bothered with wanting to edit anything, simply because I knew I didn't know enough about any one topic to start an article, and what I did know already had articles created, with nothing I could add.
Eventually, I realized I could continue a hobby I enjoy, fixing errors in grammar, linking pages together where they could be, so I made myself an account (Under a different username) and began occasionally fixing errors I found in whatever I felt like looking up at the time.
At one point, I somehow came across Lir's story of being blocked and was instantly fascinated. I found this site and read through some of the current threads with increasing interest. It struck me that some people who casually/rarely edit/read Wikipedia would never even know it was going on.
After reading through a few threads, I gave some thought to the general appearance of abusive administrators, and what might be done to fix the problem. And it may come across as pessimistic, I think that to some degree, abusive behavior by those in power will always be a problem. Even if you removed the worst examples, there may be someone else who comes along who develops a pattern of misusing what they have available to them. I don't really get a feel of "Fix the issues" from Wikipedia, in reading through here. And to me there's no hope for a project that refuses to see its own flaws.
Cobalt & All —
What we have here is MOB rule:
- There is mass of beings (mob_1) and mass of bits (mob_2), and a software system that allows mob_1 to interact with each other in the medium of mob_2.
- Each mob has its various and sundry submobs that we, the members of mob_1, come to know under various names.
- For instance, the mass of bits (mob_2) splits into submasses of bits that we know as (2.1) the state of WP articles, (2.2) the state of WP discussions, (2.3) the state of WP policies and projects, (2.4) the state of the WP IRC, and so on.
- For another thing, the mass of beings (mob_1) splits into submasses of beings that act in different ways on the different parts of mob_2.
And tomorrow …
Jonny
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.