Archive for the ‘Jimbo Wales’ Category
I’d like to apologize in advance for the length of this blog entry. One of the biggest problems with Wikiland, at least for me, is that the funniest things that happen are often based on events and relationships that are too complex and involved to make for an easily-digestible humor piece. This is one of those things.
It also shows that Wikimedia’s own management is just as incapable of understanding these complexities as anyone else who isn’t directly involved, preferring to unthinkingly blame all problems on “trolls” (assuming they can’t also be blamed on lack of funding or manpower) and the failure of well-meaning volunteer administrators to “just ban them.” But perhaps this is inevitable, since understanding an incident like this takes a great deal of time, effort, and concentration - not things the Wikimedia folks are known for!
In brief, Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) board member and Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales was nearly tricked, with an ease that can only be described as laughable, into shutting down the entire English Wikiversity subdomain, a wiki with over 80,000 web pages - all with the “full support of the Foundation” - by someone who had announced shortly beforehand on Wikiversity itself that he was about to try to get Wales to do just that, as an “experiment.”
The intent of this (still unidentified) person is unknown, but it’s conceivable that he thought he was actually helping to protect Wikipedia by “teaching the trolls a lesson.” Wales’ threat to shut down Wikiversity gained nothing, and indeed, some Wikiversity users left the site in frustration, if not outright disgust. All of this is still going on, as I type this: Several long-term Jimbo sycophants, such as User:Raul654 and User:JzG, are still calling for the dissolution of Wikiversity - presumably as a form of punishment for their “allowing” Wales to be tricked in this fashion.
How could this happen?
Wikipedia has never operated under any sort of organized community quality-control testing regime; there’s no formal internal mechanism for determining how well the community responds to various attempts to introduce false information into articles. Moreover, when people outside the Wikimedia Sphere Of Control (WMSOC) attempt to organize studies in lieu of such testing, Wikipedians refer to these studies by a misnomer: breaching experiments. It’s a self-serving misnomer, because there’s nothing to breach: Wikipedia has no security, no barriers to entry, and does not generally prevent anyone from anonymously adding or changing any information they want, preferring to fix problematic contributions (or “vandalism,” itself a misnomer) after the fact, assuming someone even notices them at all. Calling response-tests “breaching experiments” implies that Wikipedia does have such security, when it simply does not (other than granular protection and “semi-protection” of individual articles such as Wales’ own biography).
The misnomers are significant, because non-Wikipedians operating within the WMSOC often feel compelled to use the Wikipedia vernacular, the way one would try to speak the native language while traveling in a foreign country. So instead of saying, “We’re proposing a response-testing study, with third-party oversight and full public awareness, to determine the Wikipedia community’s effectiveness in changing or removing false or potentially defamatory biographical content,” they feel compelled to say this: We’re proposing an ethical breaching experiment to determine how quickly and efficiently the Wikipedia community deals with BLP vandalism. In fact, the latter wording differs significantly from what was actually being proposed. And, predictably, some Wikipedians even assumed that the term “ethical breaching experiment” actually meant “an experiment in how to best commit an ethical breach,” in almost complete ignorance of context.
These calls for formal response-testing studies are, in turn, motivated by the Wikipedia community’s failure to implement features to prevent such “vandalism,” despite promises to do so that date back to 2006. A substantial minority within Wikipedia still believes that defamatory edits to BLPs aren’t a real problem, and some believe that this minority can be persuaded by statistics, since a few have claimed that the abundant anecdotal evidence of the problem is “inherently worthless.”
(R)esponse (T)esting (G)uidelines?
On January 18, 2010, User:Privatemusings, an Australian whose interest in Wikipedia (and related projects) could fairly be characterized as “critique-oriented,” began a page entitled “Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments.” You can still read most of the original page on Google’s “Exodemic” project:
Definitions: Ethical Breaching Experiment: An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change, but which uses methods which may violate the letter or spirit of the guildeline “Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.”
Heaven forbid! This was deleted well over a month later, on Feb. 28, by User:Ottava Rima - a Wikiversity administrator currently under a one-year ban from Wikipedia for “incivility.” (Just thought we’d throw that in - sorry, Ottava.) But to Ottava’s tremendous chagrin, the page was later restored, ostensibly so that Wikiversity users could partake in some “further discussion” of the idea.
Without the page history to refer to, it’s difficult to get a clear picture of how this discussion progressed. But it eventually spilled over into the “Colloquium” (Wikiversity’s general discussion/noticeboard page) on March 12, when User:RTG, who had not contributed to Wikiversity for over a year, compared the experiments to barbaric animal research (akin to “snapping monkeys’ heads all day“), and then personally informed Jimbo Wales of the situation. However, just before doing that, RTG posted this to the “Ethical Breaching Experiments” page:
Deleting a project without discussion. First you would need to find an operative with the sysop tools. Give them a quick story such as, “Some bunch of nuts are creating a project whose goal is to disrupt Wikimedia, would you just delete it for a minute?” Then, once it is deleted, contact the admin again, “Could you just leave it that way for a couple of hours while I check up on something?” Then after a few hours are nearly up contact the admin again, “The Wikimedia Law Enfocement Agency (made up for this experiment) have declared the project to be in ethical breech and insist that you leave it as deleted.” The admin claims they do not know the Agency so you have your friend, an admin who has no contact with this admin, to send an email pretending to be from the agency and sanctioning the permanent deletion of the project. And then the whole project is permanently deleted and there never even was such a thing as Wikimedia Law Enforcement Agency.
Deleting Wikisource. A similar approach to deleting a project except this time the contact is made with a steward on Meta and the goal is to convince them to delete the Wikisource website.
Almost immediately thereafter, RTG posted this to Jimbo Wales’ Wikipedia talk page:
“Dear Jimbo, although not a member myself, I would cordially like to invite you to a workshop where you can learn all about disrupting and decieving Wikimedia with experiments in practice.”
After Wales blocked User:Privatemusings indefinitely, deleted the Wikiversity pages without discussion, and revoked the admin rights of User:SB_Johnny for objecting, drama quite naturally ensued (see this timeline). Indeed, Wales played right along, threatening to close Wikiversity completely:
“I am currently discussing the closure of Wikiversity with the board. That is an unlikely outcome, but I mention it because I really want to press the point that the scope of Wikiversity has to be restricted to genuine OER. I think that my actions here are strongly supportive of the genuine community who want to do that, making it clear to them that they have very strong support for making it happen. Some may feel that Wikiversity should be a place for silly and juvenile experimentation. If people want to discuss such things, there is an entire Internet open to them - they should not hijack Wikiversity for these purposes.”
Presumably, the subtext of this is that Wales himself gets to define what the terms “genuine OER” and “genuine community” mean in the context of subdomains within the WMSOC, not the users of those subdomains themselves.
(The acronym “OER” stands for “Online Educational Resources,” in case you thought it meant “Overtly Evil Research.”)
To be fair, several “real” Wikiversity users agreed with Wales, arguing that he had, and deserved to have, special rights as the putative leader and public face of the Wikimedia organization. The incident (and the heated discussion that followed) also led to this WR thread, which provides detailed blow-by-blow commentary, as well as this blog post by Leigh Blackall, another Australian who specializes in developing online educational resources. Not to be outdone, RTG now compared the offending pages to “a police psychologist around dropping litter and parking out on the road as an experiment in breaking the law.” At the same time, he actually proved his own complete lack of contextual understanding with his opening statement: “Breeching [sic] ethics is a break in the rules.” Later, he persisted in this error even after being explicitly corrected, even to the point of total absurdity. (And as if that weren’t enough, he consistently misspelled the word “breaching” as “breeching” the entire time, despite the correct spelling appearing in large bold type on several different pages.) Upon noting the suggestion that he was causing “disruption” and perhaps should be banned himself, RTG later claimed that his “approach to deleting a project” was, in fact, “just a tease.”
There’s a great deal of user crossover between projects within the WMSOC, so it’s difficult to simply state that most of the people arguing in favor of Wales’ actions were Wikipedians showing up on Wikiversity, as opposed to bona fide members of the “Wikiversity community.” However, a few Wikiversity users, including some administrators, did draw that conclusion. Wales tried to restore order by, among other things, claiming to be in the midst of a “productive” e-mail discussion with Privatemusings that Privatemusings had no knowledge of. He later unblocked Privatemusings, and even offered to restore SB_Johnny’s admin rights, under the condition that he never, ever, ever involve himself in any more “breaching experiments.” Instead, SB_Johnny - apparently not wishing to limit himself - resigned.
Wikiversity users who were not card-carrying members of the “Cult of Jimbo” weren’t going to take this lying down. It was bad enough that their efforts had been treated dismissively and derisively since the project’s inception, even by yours truly. (For the record, I still believe most of what I wrote in that post, though I shouldn’t have used the word “disturbing” in this one. Uhh, sorry about that.)
But now, to have Jimbo Wales himself taking this line was simply too much. After much protest and general opprobrium, Wikiversity regulars began writing an Open Letter to the WMF Board of Trustees on March 24, asking if Wales did, indeed, have the Foundation Board’s backing in his threat to close Wikiversity. (Earlier, a small group of users had raised the suspicion that he hadn’t even discussed the matter with them in any meaningful way, though Sue Gardner did post a message in support of Wales.) Other Wikiversity users were even more daring in their objections. On March 25, User:Juan de Vojnikov even went to the extent of suggesting that a formal procedure should exist whereby the “Founder flag” on Wales’ global account, which gives him the right to do pretty much anything he wants on any Wikimedia site, be removed - at least for specific projects. Golly!
Poking at the hive
The open letter was completed and “sent” to the WMF board on April 4, with this notification to the Foundation’s mailing list. This was not exactly a “friendly venue,” with long-term Wikipedian David Gerard characterizing the breaching experiment concept as a “‘how to troll’ project started by a troll banned from multiple other Wikimedia projects for trolling.”
Negative reaction to the open letter on Wikipedia itself was mostly in the same vein, and again led by long-term Wikipedians. Incredibly, Mark “Raul654″ Pelligrini - perhaps the person most closely associated with the concept of a “ruling cabal” on Wikipedia - renewed the call to shut down Wikiversity completely, apparently in near-total ignorance of RTG’s earlier actions. He even started a petition to shut down Wikiversity (along with an announcement):
“I think this open letter is a perfect example of what is wrong with Wikiversity. Where most Wikimedia projets [sic] serve some useful purpose (as an encyclopedia, dictionary, free media repository, quote collection, etc), Wikiversity serves none. It is simply a haven for trolls banned from other projects, who migrate here to continue whatever behavior got them banned originally. I think it’s long past time to shut the entire project down.”
Prominent Wikiversity user Hillgentleman disagreed, pointing out that Wikiversity actually does contain some purpose-driven content not produced by “trolls”:
“I think this message is a perfect example of what is wrong with wikipedians jumping into wikiversity, not understanding what is going on and passing judgements. A simple search would reveal such pages as wikiversity:mission and Wikiversity:Approved_Wikiversity_project_proposal#Mission, and Wikiversity:Main Page. A simple question on the colloquium would lead you to wikiversity:school and university projects and betawikiversity:brick and mortar collaboration. While you may or may not agree with what are done on these projects, it is folly to speak with such volume without even being aware of them.”
The petition didn’t have the desired outcome (running 6 in favor, 18 against at the time of this writing), but Raul654 has never been known for being easily dissuaded.
Obviously, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest here that Raul654’s attitude with regards to Wikiversity is unfair or inappropriate. After all, I completely agree with him: Wikiversity should be shut down. However, it’s fair to say that Raul654 and I approach the problem from two different directions; I believe that all Wikimedia projects should be shut down immediately, whereas Raul654 would probably prefer to start slowly, only shutting down Wikiversity at first, and as for the rest… perhaps a bit later. Nevertheless, it’s one thing for me to suggest shutting down a Wikimedia subdomain with 80,000-plus pages, and quite another to have that suggestion come from Jimbo Wales or even Raul654. As we’ve seen, people who contribute to Wikimedia sites tend to react very badly to the deletion of anything they’ve contributed to “in good faith.”
Admittedly, though, it’s unclear if Wales and Raul654 mean to actually delete Wikiversity, or merely restrict access to “authorized personnel only.”
Better living through dentistry
These events are still ongoing, so who knows what will happen in the end, but it’s probably safe to predict that Wikiversity won’t be “closed” in the short term, due to popular sentiment against the idea. However, Wikipedia has never been in the business of self-criticism, and a destructive idea in the head of a Wikipedian is like a bad tooth: It can be really, really hard to get rid of, and there’ll be plenty of yelling and screaming if you try to pull it out without a good anesthetic.
In the long term, I suspect Wikiversity will be one of the first casualties of a phenomenon we’re already seeing a glimmer of, that of Maintenance-Fail. As more and more people see the futility of trying to produce and maintain quality work in wiki environments with limited quality control, minimal ethical standards, and no features to prevent “vandalism,” they’ll simply vote with their feet, and the ensuing neglect will only speed up the process of deterioration. Perhaps unfortunately, the end is likely to come more quickly for Wikiversity than other Wikimedia sites, since coursework (legitimate or otherwise) requires constant input and feedback to succeed. But it’s likely that Jimbo’s crew has foreseen something like this for Wikipedia too, since this is precisely the phenomenon that the “ethical breaching experiments” were supposed to measure, and clearly they don’t like people trying to measure it.
The Wikiversity folks shouldn’t feel too bad, though; they’ve exceeded most expectations. Wikiversity was created at the very height of the irrationally-hyped “magic wiki phenomenon,” a time when people drunk on the ol’ Jimbo-juice would say, “hey, let’s build a wiki!” for almost anything that might constitute a “collaboration” among two or more people, as well as a few things that might not. Ultimately, Wikiversity was designed as a kind of “breaching experiment” in itself, to determine if professional academia could be influenced and informed by web-based crowdsourcing. Whatever their intentions, such experiments don’t always succeed, even when people aren’t actively trying to undermine them.
I was thinking of posting this directly to Larry Sanger’s blog on Citizendium.org, but it’s too long, and Dr. Sanger would probably object. Also, it’s a bit personal, and I don’t like to be seen as a grudge-bearer, but sometimes you just have to speak out… So, just to follow up on my post from yesterday, I’d like to ask our highly appreciated and valued readers to indulge me, just this once.
In 2001, I was working for a small Midwestern (USA) IT company, a VAR actually, and one day we were told that the owner was moving to the West Coast and had sold the company to another guy, who we’ll just call “New Owner.” Well, it turned out that New Owner was an Ayn Rand fanatic who would wax ebullient over her “objectivist philosophy” whenever he got the chance, and even kept extra copies of Ayn’s literary masterworks in his desk drawer to hand out to people. (This is how I got my copy of The Fountainhead, which I ultimately threw away after being utterly appalled by the first 80 pages or so). Read the rest of this entry »
The whole debate over whether or not Wikia’s Jimmy Wales should be referred to as the “co-founder” of Wikipedia, along with Dr. Larry Sanger, has always been more than a little amusing. Mr. Wales was the CEO of Bomis, Inc., the pornographic link-farm site/company that employed Sanger to develop an online encyclopedia project from January 2000 to March 2002. As such, Mr. Wales now assumes - perhaps rightly - that he can legally declare anything produced by Sanger during that time to be a “work for hire,” and therefore take sole credit for it. After all, money talks; employees simply get laid off.
Meanwhile, since speaker’s fees evidently make up a large portion of Mr. Wales’ personal income, the reduction in status he could suffer by being commonly referred to as merely the “co-founder” of Wikipedia might make him a less marketable commodity on the lecture circuit. Yikes! Without these fees, Mr. Wales might have to rely on his income as CEO of Wikia, Inc. just to survive - clearly not an attractive prospect, given the nature of Wikia’s business model.
But why all the fuss over one word, “co-founder,” when that word isn’t even accurate in referring to either of these two giants of unpaid-volunteer online content aggregation? Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned to use a term that’s more descriptive of what these two men actually did, like “co-instigator,” “co-conspirator,” or “co-defiler of Western educational traditions”? At least that way, there wouldn’t be all this petty sniping, since presumably there would be less objection to sharing such a title in the first place.
Then again, if people would just use accurate terminology to describe Wikipedia itself (i.e., Multi-User Dungeon, rather than “encyclopedia”), maybe this entire dispute would be unnecessary. Read the rest of this entry »
And we’re just supposed to take his word for it
Every once in a while, Jimbo Wales will mistakenly schedule an interview with a reporter or talk-show host who is actually willing to broach the subject of how Wikipedia might cause problems for society overall, or have negative effects on individuals or social institutions. In most such situations, his response is to point out that Wikipedia is “benign,” as if this is somehow self-evident, and that he fails to understand how or why anyone could possibly think otherwise.
Unfortunately, many highly successful technological innovations, no matter how seemingly “benign” they might be when considered at face value, can actually have devastating unintended consequences. One example of this is the modern toilet. Like Wikipedia, the toilet is a receptacle for human effluvia and other waste products. Unlike Wikipedia, it’s a fairly simple mechanical device that provides a seemingly clean and efficient means of disposing of that waste, minimizing its unpleasant stench and effectively eliminating the equally-unpleasant task of manual removing it from people’s homes. Nearly 200 years after its invention, it is difficult to imagine a modern, “civilized” society without toilets. But when they were first introduced, the story was rather different - indeed, a case study of disastrous unintended consequences.
Read the rest of this entry »
On 23 March 2008, Canadian journalist Rachel Marsden posted the below to her user space on Wikipedia, she posted the same thing to Jimbo Wales’s talk page. Marsden had conducted a brief affair with the Wiki God-King, who then ordered changes to her biography on her behalf. In early March, Wales posted a long personal message on Wikipedia detailing the end of their relationship. Marsden’s response some three weeks later, posted to the same place, was hastily deleted by Wales’s Wiki-minions and Marsden was unceremoniously blocked from the site.
Rachel Marsden : As anyone who has ever cared about Jimbo here knows, the only way to have any sort of rational or caring discussion with him is in the Wikimatrix here. Alright, fine. Game on, sweetheart. Newsflash: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia; it is a cult. I wouldn’t even be included in a real encyclopedia. I want the Wikipedia entry about me deleted. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to accept.
This post was submitted to the forum by The Review’s resident Wikipedia Watcher Daniel Brandt. The post was in response to a piece in The Register by Cade Metz researching Roger McNamee, the major donor to the WikiMedia Foundation.
Daniel Brandt: The New York Times yesterday quoted Florence:
Florence Nibart-Devouard, the chairwoman of the Wikimedia board, who has never met Mr. McNamee, did not sound enthusiastic.
“It’s not a huge concern right now, but I am not comfortable with the concept,” she said, of venture capitalists consistently making donations to the foundation. “I would much prefer a varied diverse base of donors, some could be large, some could be long-term friends, who help in finding new friends. I hope the foundation won’t rely on these relationships.”
She said that she had proposed a resolution, passed recently, to require that any donation larger than 2 percent of revenues be approved by the board. And she said she would “make some noise” if a venture capitalist were to try to become a board member.
In the same NYT piece, Jimbo very strongly stated that Wikipedia will always remain nonprofit, and he will continue to show the door to greedy venture capitalists.
I think there’s a conspiracy going on, and Florence’s reaction is reasonable, but too little and too late. She’s in over her head. Jimbo is pushing bullshit to distract from the conspiracy. It’s sort of hard to tell, because Jimbo is almost always unbelievable. Maybe that’s by design!
Thanks goes out to The Review’s resident business brain, Selina for highlighting Jimmy Wales’s appearance before a US Senate committee in December to discuss the potential of the New Internet Technology for the US government. The committee sat through a session of the usual Mimbo-Jimbo, including Wales’s announcement that Wikipedia was “a carrier of traditional American values”. An enthusiastic Senator Joe Lieberman (pictured), who chaired the committee, introduced the irksome God-King with these words:
“We’re very glad to have as a witness Jimmy Wales the founder of Wikipedia, one of the most thrilling examples of what collaborative technology can produce. And we’ve asked Mr Wales to take us through some of the ideas behind Wikipedia.”
Due to the ideas behind Wikipedia, articles are constantly being reshaped by Wikipedians with information appearing and disappearing all the time. At any given moment, an article could carry new information never before seen, or it could be lacking in information that had been present in the article for years. The reader must learn to understand this new dynamic collaborative technology - which offers great potential for us all!
Jimmy Wales, who in contrast has his article permanently locked and fully protected from damaging mistruths at all times (see that little lock symbol in the corner), was kind enough to extend the same protection to Senator Lieberman’s biography — for six hours while the hearing took place. After Jimmy had left the building, Joe’s biography was unlocked and the dynamic collaborative process resumed in earnest. The article subsequently stated that Lieberman was a “flaming homo” and a crossdresser for the rest of the day.
If 2006 was the year when unaccountable Wikipedia cliques consolidated their hold on the site, then 2007 was the year they started to bully the rest of the Internet into submitting to their cultish practices. Having watched them spend the year trashing critics foul or fair and removing links to dissenting voices to hit google rankings where they hurt, most of us had seen enough.
Much to our encouragement, 2007 was also the year the rest of the Internet began to fight back. And so successful has this been that we end 2007 on a festive high. Not only have Google arrived like the Naval Officer at the close of Lord Of The Flies to promise an escape from the spiraling barbarism on Jimbo’s fantasist island, the media have stepped off the boat to tell the world what really happens when the parents aren’t around.
Yet a couple of weeks into a series of devastating revelations about the site’s corrupt core, rather than engage in soul searching reassessments, floundering Wikipediots continue to respond in the only way they know how — by attacking the source.
Something monumentally offensive has happened this week on Wikipedia, and the powers that be are trying to sweep it under the rug. All Wikipedia critics should take this excellent opportunity to write letters to the Editors of their local and regional newspapers, and to contact their elected officials. The public opinion of Wikipedia can and should be changed by these six simple points:
Truth and fact are at the core of an encyclopedia, be it “user-edited” or otherwise. Wikipedia is hollow at the core, because it subordinates truth to consensus and a passive compliance that it calls “civility.” This flaw has crippled its credibility, and will continue to do so as time marches on.
A thicket of Wikipedia “pillars,” “policies,” and guidelines give lip service to the truth, but the reality is different: Wikipedia’s users routinely remove verified facts from articles, and their actions are routinely upheld by administrators. As a result, no Wikipedia article can be considered reliable by its reader.
This is increasingly apparent in colleges, which have begun to forbid students from citing Wikipedia in their research. The general public is catching on as well, as a consequence of a series of revelations including a senior Wikipedia administrator’s fabrication of academic credentials (with the knowledge of Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales) and the revision of encyclopedia entries by corporations and government entities… Read the rest of this entry »