Here's where it all went wrong., Heart of all evil Options

[alienus]

I noticed the following Jimbo quote in a WR thread:

"Newcomers should not have to know or realize that they are restricted in any way from doing things that some old timers can do. We should always leave things as open as possible, not requiring login, registration, etc."

This is where it all went wrong. WP has a stated policy of pretending to be open; it's supposedly the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Of course, this is false, and it has to be. Any encyclopedia worth trusting has editorial oversight to prevent idiots and zealots from fucking things up.

If WP started off by admitting this fact, then it would have taken the first step towards providing transparency into the necessary and ugly process of content dispute resolution. It would admit that there is a need for watchmen and therefore for someone to watch those watchmen. Instead, it pretends as hard as it can that WP is magically self-regulating, like a Randist's idealistic view of the perfect free market.

To further this illusion, the plain-clothes policemen masquerade as janitors who are just taking out the trash, armed only with innocent little mops. In fact, their powers exceed that of law enforcement personnel in anything short of a police state; they are judge, jury and executioner, without accountability. But this really is a police state, and there is no Internal Affairs Department to complain to with video tapes of beatings diffs.

It all starts with honesty. No, you cannot edit anything you like, and not all people have equal ability to edit. If contributors knew this up front, then they'd be conscious of the reasonable restrictions placed upon their actions and have a fair expectation of when their actions will be seen as unacceptable. They could be confident that, if they simply follow the rules, they will be free to participate in building the content without being persecuted. It is a hallmark of a free society that an innocent man does not fear for his life when he is pulled over by the police.

Instead, we have a situation where the rules are applied differently based on unspoken membership criteria and sometimes aren't applied at all. SlimVirgin can make all the sock puppets she likes, and not only continues to edit but retains admin powers. ThAtSo didn't break any of the supposed rules, but was stupid enough to make well-supported content changes against the cabal that owns the Objectivism articles, so he was summarily banned under the pretext of being a puppet. To add to the irony, instead of a CU, which would obviously have cleared his name, he was convicted on the basis of cherry-picking by Proabivoac, who turns out to be a sock puppet of an abusive editor, aligned with the Team America cabal.

I chose these examples because I'm familiar with them, but you probably know of many more. Every day, hard-working contributors find themselves blocked for reasons they could not have anticipated, without warning or recourse. Their well-meaning changes to articles are rolled back and replaced with partisan babble. Large, professional-quality articles are deleted while every bit of Buffy the Vampire Slayer minutia has its day in the sun. Meanwhile, real people, with real reputations in the real world, are harmed by WP-hosted libel, not only in the articles but in the various talk and system pages, which archive every last attack (except when a god-like overseer oversights it away to protect their friends).

These are not exceptions to the rule. They are what exists instead of rules, and this is intentional. Arbitrary laws and punishments are par for the course in places where free speech is crushed. It is their very arbitrariness that gives them power, forcing people through fear to censor themselves more stringently than even the censors themselves could manage through consistent enforcement of policies. Yet, by pretending that WP runs by consensus, or by written rules, Jimbo gets to claim that WP is all about free speech.

Of course, it's not free, but it's profitable. The reason Jimbo hides the barbed wires isn't just to make them sharper, but to lure people in. He wants newbies to contribute their work for free, and doesn't much care that many of them will be abused. That's not important to him. What's important is how many articles WP has. The less people know about WP, the more willing they are to contribute.

The profit angle is particularly murky. If WP served Google ads, it would be clear just how Jimbo is cashing in, but even that would be too open, too transparent. Instead, he uses his "encyclopedia" to generate cash donations, which presumably pay for hosting. We know that some of the partisans who enjoy protection by ArbCom are paid to do their editing; I wonder if they paid Jimbo to get that protection. To understand this, we need more than just a heckler like me, we need a forensic accountant armed with warrants from a civil suit. For example, a shark hired by Don Murphy's lawyer to prosecute WP for libel.

Just a thought.

Al

This post has been edited by alienus: Mon 1st October 2007, 5:14pm

[JohnA]

It's the "wisdom of crowds" in action.

Wikipedia likes to think that its open-sourcing information and even history itself, but no open-source project worth spit would ever allow the free-for-all content revision that is the hallmark of Wikipedia, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. So in the absence of a formal hierarchy based on, well, scholarly ability another informal hierarchy has arisen based on popularity and political ability.

It's not exactly encouraging that history is being rewritten moment by moment in the interests of accuracy - its an Orwellian nightmare live on the Internet. and everyone's invited to watch the insides of the Ministry of Truth from the comfort of their own PC.

This post has been edited by JohnA: Mon 1st October 2007, 5:52pm

[Jonny Cache]

We've discussed this Quotation from Chairman Jimbo several times already.

Are there any new thoughts about it?

Jonny

[alienus]

That's an interesting comment.

What makes WP so bad isn't that it lacks a hierarchy, but that it conceals the corrupt one that it has. If there were no heirarchy at all, then WP would either quickly fail or an ad hoc herarchy would form, depending on what the software allows. Instead, there is a permanent gap. The semi-secret hierarchy can't do the job that's needed but its existence prevents the formation of a competent grass roots effort. In short, it's a recipe for disaster.

As for rewriting history, what's interesting is just how poorly it works. Yes, the current official story is that Jimbo is the Great Mind behind WP, but it's an open secret that the idea came from others who are no longer associated with the project. While the victor has rewritten history, the history is easily recovered. As SlimVirgin's learned, even oversighted entries have been backed up, and not even ArbComm can hide the fact that someone's a professional propagandist.

It's important to remember that, by and large, these people are amateurs, not super-spies. They try to do nasty stuff and often succeed, but they fuck up a lot, too, and they're sloppy as hell. The ruling cabal is a victim of its own incompetence. Hell, if it were any good, we'd actively believe it was benevolent, if we even suspected its existence in the first place.

What makes this so entertaining is that their efforts are transparent, at least when enough motivated and skilled people shine the painful light of research on their efforts. When we do this, WR is at its best. We become the conscience of WP, not an attack site or a place for outlaws to whine about their fate.

Al

[GlassBeadGame]

Some good stuff in this post:

To further this illusion, the plain-clothes policemen masquerade as janitors who are just taking out the trash, armed only with innocent little mops.

and:

These are not exceptions to the rule. They are what exists instead of rules, and this is intentional. Arbitrary laws and punishments are par for the course in places where free speech is crushed. It is their very arbitrariness that gives them power, forcing people through fear to censor themselves more stringently than even the censors themselves could manage through consistent enforcement of policies.

Captures the feel of the dysfunctional social networking environment rather nicely.

[gomi]

What makes WP so bad isn't that it lacks a hierarchy, but that it conceals the corrupt one that it has. If there were no heirarchy at all, then WP would either quickly fail or an ad hoc herarchy would form ...

No one runs all of Wikipedia, except perhaps Jimbo, whose heavy hand is stayed by the knowledge that the minions would scatter in a moment if it was wielded.

However, certain groups of people run parts of Wikipedia. Using a common SF trope, Wikipedia is a quintessential post-apocalyptic warlord society. The warlords (admins) reign over subdomains of a generally anarchic space. The periodically fight each other (wheel wars), and participate in planned or ad hoc campaigns against each other. At the same time, they prevent the rise of additional opposition through exile (blocking) and assassination (banning), or cultivate acolytes and sycophants with privileges and rewards (tolerated rule-breaking, barnstars, admin status).

The warlords trade and jockey for status among themselves using a variety of mechanisms, including ritual combat -- often with proxy fighters (ArbCom), denunciation (RFC), and whispering campaigns (IRC, off-wiki in general), and when one is weakened, they will ruthlessly turn on him/her (cf. Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway).

[dtobias]

What makes this so entertaining is that their efforts are transparent, at least when enough motivated and skilled people shine the painful light of research on their efforts. When we do this, WR is at its best. We become the conscience of WP, not an attack site or a place for outlaws to whine about their fate.

But at its worst, WR just digs up (real or surmised) personal stuff about editors and admins and snickers at it like teenage boys, in a manner more like peeking in their bedroom window to find and laugh at their odd fetishes than shining the light of research on actual significant misdeeds.

[BobbyBombastic]

But at its worst, WR just digs up (real or surmised) personal stuff about editors and admins and snickers at it like teenage boys, in a manner more like peeking in their bedroom window to find and laugh at their odd fetishes than shining the light of research on actual significant misdeeds.

Dan, with all due respect, where the fuck is this taking place right now? And if you are talking about Lamont's post, I should point out that though Lamont, at times, seems greater than a man but less than a God, he is not WR. Not to mention that members already chimed in to call it bullshit, so why say anything else about that? In fact, most of the things you talk about being posted here are called bullshit within the first few posts. I am not WR, Somey is not WR, Daniel Brandt is not WR and Jonny is not WR. They are individuals that post on WR, just like you. Sometimes individuals post bullshit. Are you in favor of silencing these individuals, or letting others judge the merits?

I think you need break from debating the badsites fools on wp, it actually seems to be poisoning your logic.

[Castle Rock]

But at its worst, WR just digs up (real or surmised) personal stuff about editors and admins and snickers at it like teenage boys, in a manner more like peeking in their bedroom window to find and laugh at their odd fetishes than shining the light of research on actual significant misdeeds.

Dan, with all due respect, where the fuck is this taking place right now? And if you are talking about Lamont's post, I should point out that though Lamont, at times, seems greater than a man but less than a God, he is not WR. Not to mention that members already chimed in to call it bullshit, so why say anything else about that? In fact, most of the things you talk about being posted here are called bullshit within the first few posts. I am not WR, Somey is not WR, Daniel Brandt is not WR and Jonny is not WR. They are individuals that post on WR, just like you. Sometimes individuals post bullshit. Are you in favor of silencing these individuals, or letting others judge the merits?

I think you need break from debating the badsites fools on wp, it actually seems to be poisoning your logic.

Agreed don't let those glassy eyed zealots sap your strength and poison your mind.

[alienus]

I've had trouble making multiple replies, so I'm going to combine my comments here:

Gomi, when you say that nobody runs Wikipedia, you're right in one sense but I think wrong in a deeper one. Yes, it's chaotic and arbitrary, with admins sometimes stepping all over each other to ban and unban, and no place to go when you get screwed. However, there is some structure beneath the apparent chaos. The local structure is that admin-supported cabals run fiefdoms, such as Team Rand owning the Objectivism articles. Ultimately, this is part of the devil's bargain offered by ArbCom to admins; we'll let you own some topics you care about but you must do our bidding.

That's where it gets complicated, but not entirely chaotic. Mostly, whether a contribution is punished depends on the whims of the local cabal, with the so-called rules applied selectively and brutally. However, some people have King Jimbo's special favor and, for whatever reason ($$$?), have the protection of the High Court of Arbitration and can therefore safely trample local baronies. I don't have deep insight into this; I don't really understand what's going on and why. I'd like to, but I don't have the skills to put it all together. More on this later.

Moving on to dtobias, he makes some good points about WR at its worst. I've also been frustrated with this site on occasion, to the point where I more-or-less walked away, returning only in a more limited capacity. Having said that, I think we have to recognize the multiple roles it serves.

For one thing, WR is where many people go once they've been fucked over on WP, whether it's temporary or permanent. As such, these frustrated persons are naturally going to vent and this is the only place available to them. Venting consists of bitching about their own treatment, and isn't necessarily going to involve a whole lot of constructive criticism. However, it's needed, if only for the mental health of the abused. In addition, sometimes those who air their dirty laundry get useful advice, or their posting helps highlight a pattern of abuse. Ultimately, this is the court of last resort for those who can't get any wikijustice, and while WR has no power of appeal, at least it's a place where the truth can come out.

It's when we focus on the truth, both by performing intensive research and synthesizing the data to discover patterns of behavior, that WR stops sucking. WR serves an important role in outing the particularly egregious offenses of certain admins and in spreading information discovered about them (such as Linda Mack's shady past). More significantly, the commentary on policy is often constructive and insightful; even if you disagree with the specifics, you come away with a deeper understanding.

Not everything published here is golden, so we need to focus on the parts that are of value. Glassbeadgame noticed a few lines of my essay that might be worth considering more deeply. The first is that the whole janitorial analogy is deeply misleading. The goal is to focus on the wet, dirty mop head that washes away sleezy vandalism, not on the other end of the stick, which is used to bash in the heads of those who dare make edits against the desires of the powers that be. We're supposed to see admins as these poor, hardworking souls who keep WP clean, without understanding that their primary role is in enforcing the rulings of cabals by pummeling contributors who want articles to be objective and comprehensive. The second is that the wacky arbitrariness of enforcement isn't a failure, it's an intentional policy to keep people scared and allow the persecution of whoever steps out of line (see above regarding the painful end of the mop). These are not uncontroversial claims, much less patently obvious ones, but I do believe they represent some understanding of the bigger picture.

The common thread here is that we need to understand WP as deeply and fully as we can, cutting through the protective cloud of self-serving BS and memetically-engineered "conventional wisdom" that protect those who run the place. If WR can do that, then it can make a difference in WP, whether by fixing it or killing it (or perhaps some of each). All of us bring something to the mix, whether it's research skills, technical knowledge, or the ability to zoom out and see it all from above. Perhaps we can rise above the noise to figure out what's really going on in WP-land.

Al

[Derktar]

Very well thought out post Alienus though I will only add some commentary on one portion here:

The common thread here is that we need to understand WP as deeply and fully as we can, cutting through the protective cloud of self-serving BS and memetically-engineered "conventional wisdom" that protect those who run the place. If WR can do that, then it can make a difference in WP, whether by fixing it or killing it (or perhaps some of each). All of us bring something to the mix, whether it's research skills, technical knowledge, or the ability to zoom out and see it all from above. Perhaps we can rise above the noise to figure out what's really going on in WP-land.

Al

I have begun some private writings about this (my favorite topic is Wikipedia bureaucracy) but the more I research Wikipedia and the spiderweb of tangled controversies and incidents the more it makes sense to evaluate Wikipedia in terms of a prolonged war.

Each article or topic area is one battlefield, one theater of war if you will. Sides develop and one side engages another until one gains the upper hand. News of this spreads and affects the effort of other sides in other theaters and this chain reaction in turn affects other fields. What we need to identify is all of the groups that have formed and continue to form (we have scratched the surface on this one) and the HQs they operate out of as well as bring to task the corrupt and/or ineffective justice systems.

This is adding on a bit to the idea you and others have brought up before of tis idea of wiki-fiefdoms.

This post has been edited by Derktar: Tue 2nd October 2007, 2:01am

[GlassBeadGame]

The first is that the whole janitorial analogy is deeply misleading. The goal is to focus on the wet, dirty mop head that washes away sleezy vandalism, not on the other end of the stick, which is used to bash in the heads of those who dare make edits against the desires of the powers that be. We're supposed to see admins as these poor, hardworking souls who keep WP clean, without understanding that their primary role is in enforcing the rulings of cabals by pummeling contributors who want articles to be objective and comprehensive.

The imagery I always have is that of Abner Louima abused and tortured by New York City police. Funny thing is the WP article says they used a ''plunger" to commit the sodomy, but the New York Times say it was a broom. Understand this is just an image and I don't really compare anything we have gone through with that suffered by Mr. Louima.

[Castle Rock]

The first is that the whole janitorial analogy is deeply misleading. The goal is to focus on the wet, dirty mop head that washes away sleezy vandalism, not on the other end of the stick, which is used to bash in the heads of those who dare make edits against the desires of the powers that be. We're supposed to see admins as these poor, hardworking souls who keep WP clean, without understanding that their primary role is in enforcing the rulings of cabals by pummeling contributors who want articles to be objective and comprehensive.

The imagery I always have is that of Abner Louima abused and tortured by New York City police. Funny thing is the WP article says they used a ''plunger" to commit the sodomy, but the New York Times say it was a broom. Understand this is just an image and I don't really compare anything we have gone through with that suffered by Mr. Louima.

Interesting. I read a book by a retired NYPD officer, the name of which slips my mind right now, but in that it was stated as being a plunger. I suppose the difference is academic.

[GlassBeadGame]

Interesting. I read a book by a retired NYPD officer, the name of which slips my mind right now, but in that it was stated as being a plunger. I suppose the difference is academic.

Nixon already had dibs on plumbers. Janitors was all that was left.

[alienus]

As before, I'm writing a single reply to multiple people:

Derktar, I find the bureaucracy rather opaque. In specific, I don't quite understand what actually prevents a single admin with a spine from just walking around and busting cabals. What makes some admins untouchable while others are easily removed?

Consider the rise and fall of that total asshole, Tony Sidaway. How did he get and keep the badge, and what did it take to finally lose it? This guy was instrumental in giving me the bum's rush, but I still don't understand why nobody called him on his bullshit until after the damage was done and why nobody bothered undoing the damage. He just kept banning my ass on one lame excuse after another, and nothing anybody did removed the black marks from my record. Are loose cannons like him an aberration or a useful tool?

I think that analyzing particular battles is a fruitful path towards mapping out the fiefdoms and the barons that run them. I am perhaps more interested in seeing how it all comes together, and on why each particular baron is willing to let other baronies exist. Is it a gentleman's agreement of sorts? "You can control Objectivism without my intrusion so long as you don't intrude upon my control of Circumcision"? Or is it enforced from above by ArbCom? To what extent does the system work and when does it break down?

While I have some clue of what's going on, I'm obviously very naive about the details.

GlassBeadGame, what originally occurred to me is a bit less grisly than that particular bit of police abuse, though now that's going to stick in my head. Historically, a distinction between the military and the police is that the former had edged weapons, suitable for killing quickly, while the latter used blunt weapons to control with pain and damage but hopefully not death. So when I see a mop or a broom, I notice the wood first and think of blunt trauma.

A classic distinction in the days of the Roman republic was that some symbolic fasces included axes to represent the person's right have others put to death, while others were axe-free. Applying this analogy, WP admins would have the axe heads included. While they can't actually kill anyone, they do have the ability to permanently remove contributors from WP and therefore silence them as surely as death. I'm particularly amused when admins extend the bans of those who make repeated unban requests or even Protect the entire talk page to prevent complaints about abuse. (I think mine is still protected, locked in a version that's against my wishes.)

What strikes me about admin actions is their brutality. I've followed a number of cases where clueless newbies were bitten hard, and didn't know what to do. Mostly, they just gave up and left. Sometimes they tried to get the problem fixed but that just made things worse for them. It reminded me of various times and places in history where going to the authorities was risky at best, suicidal at worst. In such an environment, people either took justice in their own hands or simply gave up on justice in favor of survival. The WP version of the former is edit-warring, while the latter includes the practice of laying low, changing names frequently and avoiding controversy.

Al

[Derktar]

As before, I'm writing a single reply to multiple people:

Derktar, I find the bureaucracy rather opaque. In specific, I don't quite understand what actually prevents a single admin with a spine from just walking around and busting cabals. What makes some admins untouchable while others are easily removed?

Consider the rise and fall of that total asshole, Tony Sidaway. How did he get and keep the badge, and what did it take to finally lose it? This guy was instrumental in giving me the bum's rush, but I still don't understand why nobody called him on his bullshit until after the damage was done and why nobody bothered undoing the damage. He just kept banning my ass on one lame excuse after another, and nothing anybody did removed the black marks from my record. Are loose cannons like him an aberration or a useful tool?

I think that analyzing particular battles is a fruitful path towards mapping out the fiefdoms and the barons that run them. I am perhaps more interested in seeing how it all comes together, and on why each particular baron is willing to let other baronies exist. Is it a gentleman's agreement of sorts? "You can control Objectivism without my intrusion so long as you don't intrude upon my control of Circumcision"? Or is it enforced from above by ArbCom? To what extent does the system work and when does it break down?

While I have some clue of what's going on, I'm obviously very naive about the details.

A single admin can be taken down rather easy. The problem arises if they have supporters, and I mean supporters in high places as well as the support/indifference of the masses. The ideas of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" and "Mutually Assured Destruction" are particularly applicable. Each power hungry person on Wikipedia wants control of their own little space and as long as you don't disturb it you are pretty much fine. One reason I was never banned on Wikipedia was that I rarely touched anything close to being controversial or any of the serious history articles which are the true battlefields. Any subject matter with gray area in it has the potential to be a flame war. Mathematics, most of the sciences, etc. are immune by virtue of the fact that there isn't much gray area to be discussed.

Now for analyzing individual battles, such as arbcom cases, it will take months to effectively piece together every assorted detail but doing so will reveal the various fiefdoms and the barons who run them.

As for the Tony Sidaways of Wikipedia, I think they are used mostly by those in power to get the dirty work done, whether they know they are the grunts, the ditch diggers I cannot say. I'd think the grunts most often times accept their station as they believe they will probably be in positions of power someday, move through the ranks so to speak, and they will be the one in charge (the triangle theory of power escalation). Or on the other hand they are loose cannons in it for whatever benefit they seek to gain.

The system will only ever break down if all out war erupts or people become so disillusioned with arbcom and the tyrants that they leave or "overthrow them."

[alienus]

Ok, so let me see if I get it...

Admins are, in effect, only as powerful as their supporters allow them to be in the face of their detractors. Of course, not all people are created equal, so it's really only important to gain the support of admins. Even better is the support of those who have special admin rights, such as CU and Oversight, or have special roles, such as being on ArbCom.

An admin who tried to do their job and stop the cabals would be quickly deposed. Attempting to take down someone who's popular among admins, particularly a group of admins and lackies who form a cabal, is risky and can make you a target, while joining in with other admins to remove a so-called troublemaker buys you gratitude. It pays to tow the party line and join up with existing cabals to help them own articles and punish their enemies.

To stay alive, admins do each other favors, building up debts that they can cash in later. This amounts to turning a blind eye to the abuses of others and even actively supported those abuses. In return, they gain the ability to abuse their powers in support of their own cabals. Over time, they accumulate some number of get-out-jail-free cards, which they cash in when someone tries to take them to task for a particularly obvious abuse.

Nobody is invulnerable, though, so an admin who manages to piss off too many people will burn up their support until they have to back down, lest they lose the badge or even get banned. Having said this, some people are nigh-invulnerable because they have support from the Gods of ArbCom, who make regular admins seem like mere mortals in comparison. These special few can do wildly evil things for many months, then play the sock puppet card to vanish and resurface with a new face. It's sort of like the RCC's priest-peekaboo game, where sex offenders are shuttled around when things get too hot.

As I said earlier, doing evil uses up points, so clever admins don't do all their own dirty work. Instead, they allow lunatics to have badges, then allow these loose cannons to shoot down their targets for them. If a cannon points the wrong way, it can be reigned in and nudged in another direction. Fortunately, these sort of people like nothing better than to add fuel to existing fires, so they can generally be counted on to persecute the already persecuted, kicking them when they're down, to so speak. Even more conveniently, these volunteer assassins are expendable, and disposing of them likewise removes the stink of their abuses. In fact, you get points for protecting the community from rogue admins.

On a related note, consider SV's recent attempt to recruit a list of admins willing to execute politically difficult bands. This is a fine example of how she games the system to let others take her lumps for her. Jayjg has shown similar cleverness with his patronage system, in which he gives the badge to people who are now beholden to him. These client admins support their patron in return for protection and the hope of gaining more power over time.

Is that about right?

Al

This post has been edited by alienus: Wed 3rd October 2007, 2:41am

[Joseph100]

But at its worst, WR just digs up (real or surmised) personal stuff about editors and admins and snickers at it like teenage boys, in a manner more like peeking in their bedroom window to find and laugh at their odd fetishes than shining the light of research on actual significant misdeeds.

Dan, with all due respect, where the fuck is this taking place right now? And if you are talking about Lamont's post, I should point out that though Lamont, at times, seems greater than a man but less than a God, he is not WR. Not to mention that members already chimed in to call it bullshit, so why say anything else about that? In fact, most of the things you talk about being posted here are called bullshit within the first few posts. I am not WR, Somey is not WR, Daniel Brandt is not WR and Jonny is not WR. They are individuals that post on WR, just like you. Sometimes individuals post bullshit. Are you in favor of silencing these individuals, or letting others judge the merits?

I think you need break from debating the badsites fools on wp, it actually seems to be poisoning your logic.

Agreed

Very well thought out post Alienus though I will only add some commentary on one portion here:

The common thread here is that we need to understand WP as deeply and fully as we can, cutting through the protective cloud of self-serving BS and memetically-engineered "conventional wisdom" that protect those who run the place. If WR can do that, then it can make a difference in WP, whether by fixing it or killing it (or perhaps some of each). All of us bring something to the mix, whether it's research skills, technical knowledge, or the ability to zoom out and see it all from above. Perhaps we can rise above the noise to figure out what's really going on in WP-land.

Al

I have begun some private writings about this (my favorite topic is Wikipedia bureaucracy) but the more I research Wikipedia and the spiderweb of tangled controversies and incidents the more it makes sense to evaluate Wikipedia in terms of a prolonged war.

Each article or topic area is one battlefield, one theater of war if you will. Sides develop and one side engages another until one gains the upper hand. News of this spreads and affects the effort of other sides in other theaters and this chain reaction in turn affects other fields. What we need to identify is all of the groups that have formed and continue to form (we have scratched the surface on this one) and the HQs they operate out of as well as bring to task the corrupt and/or ineffective justice systems.

This is adding on a bit to the idea you and others have brought up before of tis idea of wiki-fiefdoms.

This is very perceptive...

[Derktar]

Is that about right?

Al

I think you pretty much understand the position, I should state though this is one of a multitude of ways to evaluate the power dynamics on Wikipedia but one I find effective even as I reread On War and The Art of War (The two greatest treatises on war theorem and the concept of war ever written - I highly recommend reading both) it makes sense to evaluate Wikipedia in such a manner.

[alienus]

I think you pretty much understand the position, I should state though this is one of a multitude of ways to evaluate the power dynamics on Wikipedia but one I find effective even as I reread On War and The Art of War (The two greatest treatises on war theorem and the concept of war ever written - I highly recommend reading both) it makes sense to evaluate Wikipedia in such a manner.

On hemmed-in ground, use subterfuge.

Al