The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[thekohser]

On this you're very wrong. I don't say that these or any Wikipedians do everything right. I say that these and some others, because of their work on the site, face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse -- over long periods -- that might well be more than you or I could stand up to.

I think you mistyped the word "work" above. You meant "manipulative misdeeds", right?

I'll give you this point of fact. Durova and I had had very, very little interaction on Wikipedia (yet I had still noticed how prolific she was) up until the point she decided to inject herself into my Jimbo-enacted unblock. Her very first statement of opinion about me contained an unsubstantiated bit of libel about me, which she took months and months and months to finally retract.

Please. "Facing personal attacks" is often something one endures when you have anti-social (sociopathic?) tendencies yourself.

[the fieryangel]

Tell me who you mean and I might tell you whether they are in. Here's the first mention of Wikipedia Review. This comes in a survey of criticism sites:

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you haven't done your homework.

Obviously, this book is for koolaid drinkers only....

And of course the Review is mentioned at the crucial moment in the Essjay story:

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

...actually, I don't ever believe that anybody here ever qualified "EssJay" as being "good". I remember other descriptive words being used at the time.

However, you can read that monumental thread here. That was probably one of the major tipping points in the history of Wikipedia, and the history of how it played out is all here.

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture. Of course, that's exactly what you were intending on doing, wasn't it?

[gomi]

I could answer you with my own question: Why are there now three poorly-written happy-talk fan books about Wikipedia, and hardly any outright criticisms of it in print? Why is Andrew Keen all alone in the desert?

Because, despite what some people here seem to think, there is far more to praise than to criticise? Nobody (other than David Gerard) says Wikipedia is perfect and flawless, but I think at least 3 to 1 is right.

Because, to the naive, superficial praise of the novel is often more interesting than deeper insights into the traditional.

To those with longer experience, any fad -- a category in which Wikipedia firmly fits, even if it is a longer-lived-than-average one -- contains within it the interesting duality of why it becomes popular and why it will fail. With technology and social media fads, from Wikipedia to Twitter and Facebook, the attraction is well worth studying, but one who cannot see the "fail" will have little worth saying about either stage.

Caveat: I have not read Mr. Dalby's book.

[Andrew Dalby]

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture.

Er ... you've seen a two-sentence selection. How do you know what I've cut out?

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sun 8th November 2009, 2:35pm

[Andrew Dalby]

Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Such a thread as you suggest would be drivel. Enjoy your brave new world that has such people in it.

Back to the drawing board, Milton.

[the fieryangel]

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture.

Er ... you've seen a two-sentence selection. How do you know what I've cut out?

You were the one who selected these two sentences to illustrate your point. If there is more information, then you may add that.

However, if this is how you're presenting Daniel Brandt's discussion of EssJay on Wikipedia Review (which could almost be worked into a book itself, considering the amount of text he wrote about that situation), then you're leaving quite a bit of information out of your account. You can go here and read that thread, which you should have done before you wrote your book.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is such a corrupting influence on so many educational, ethical, and scholarly fronts that any contribution to it does nothing but lend aid and comfort to an enemy of education, ethics, and scholarship.

I am happy and delighted to at long last find a remark from Jon that I can enthusiastically endorse, highlight, and whole-heartedly agree with.

"Facing personal attacks" is often something one endures when you have anti-social (sociopathic?) tendencies yourself.

There is a gray area between constructive criticism and pejorative remarks about a person's character. It takes a fair amount of maturity to improve one's labors with the help of constructive criticism while soldiering on in the face of taunts, jibes, and similar forms of narcissistic wounding.

[Andrew Dalby]

On this you're very wrong. I don't say that these or any Wikipedians do everything right. I say that these and some others, because of their work on the site, face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse -- over long periods -- that might well be more than you or I could stand up to.

Do you mention those who face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse and worse because of their efforts in criticizing Wikipedia?

"Facing personal attacks" is often something one endures when you have anti-social (sociopathic?) tendencies yourself.

Interesting viewpoints. I prefer not to pre-judge the victims (any victims, either side).

It has become too easy for us to talk and talk, attack and wound, without thinking of the consequences. The last episode discussed in my book is the temporary suppression of news about David Rohde's kidnapping in Afghanistan. Was this "censorship" right or wrong? I want the book's readers to think about this. I don't tell them the answer. I want them to try to grasp the intentions, not only of those who were keeping the news secret, but also of those who were trying to reveal it; some claiming freedom of speech -- one of those inviolable rights -- and some, possibly, with darker intentions. As you'll know, there was an anonymous Wikipedian, an enthusiast for fighting games, who, tried many, many times to put the news of the kidnapping on to the Rohde page, and each time he was reverted. He was an enthusiast for fighting games: here's one of his other edit summaries:

Saddler was blown up by a rocket. Krauser's left arm disintegrated. Las Plagas only dies when the host dies. Grow the fuck up.

Eventually -- when Rohde was released -- his edit to the Rohde page was allowed to stay, and here's the edit summary:

Is this enough proof you fucking retards? I was right. You were wrong.

Was he?

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sun 8th November 2009, 3:19pm

[Moulton]

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia is such a corrupting influence on so many educational, ethical, and scholarly fronts that any contribution to it does nothing but lend aid and comfort to an enemy of education, ethics, and scholarship.

I am happy and delighted to at long last find a remark from Jon that I can enthusiastically endorse, highlight, and whole-heartedly agree with.

Given that I've been rappelling exactly the same line since Day One, I'm glad to have finally gotten it across the gap.

And on the 7th Day, he rested …

Jon

[Andrew Dalby]

You were the one who selected these two sentences to illustrate your point. If there is more information, then you may add that ... You can go here and read that thread, which you should have done before you wrote your book.

If you want more, Angel, you'll have to buy the book, or at least demand it from your library. You'll find it differs very strongly from the book you're imagining. Yes, "penetratingly boring" though Wikipedia Review may be, I read the thread. The whole thread. Every word. End to end. And quoted it. And acknowledged it.

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

[the fieryangel]

If you want more, Angel, you'll have to buy the book, or at least demand it from your library.

Ah, I see: the sales pitch.

Yes, we were expecting that.

I suppose that it will get into the catalog of the BNF at some point, although I spend most of my time in the music department.

If Wikipedia Review is so boring, then what are you doing here?

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

You mean your post or Moulton's?

(If you meant Moulton's, you obviously don't know Barry very well....)

[Andrew Dalby]

If Wikipedia Review is so boring, then what are you doing here?

I admit it seems less boring viewed from within.

[the fieryangel]

If Wikipedia Review is so boring, then what are you doing here?

I admit it seems less boring viewed from within.

You'll find that it gets less and less boring as you go along.

[Milton Roe]

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

That's because it's a koan without any clear meaning. Taoists certainly think about right and wrong. If they don't use these explicit labels, it still counts.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Such a thread as you suggest would be drivel. Enjoy your brave new world that has such people in it.

Back to the drawing board, Milton.

You're reading Glassbead instead of me. I think such stuff is useful in context, as a contrast to BAD editing and administration on WP. And I still don't know why you didn't name Kintetsubuffalo, who shares more co-edited articles with you than anybody else I can find on your list.

Not so, you say? Give me another editor you've worked more closely with, or edited more article in conjunction with.

And I'll check it.

[GlassBeadGame]

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

That's because it's a koan without any clear meaning. Taoists certainly think about right and wrong. If they don't use these explicit labels, it still counts.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Such a thread as you suggest would be drivel. Enjoy your brave new world that has such people in it.

Back to the drawing board, Milton.

You're reading Glassbead instead of me. I think such stuff is useful in context, as a contrast to BAD editing and administration on WP. And I still don't know why you didn't name Kintetsubuffalo, who shares more co-edited articles with you than anybody else I can find on your list.

Not so, you say? Give me another editor you've worked more closely with, or edited more article in conjunction with.

And I'll check it.

Maybe he's confusing the other Milton with The Bard?

[Andrew Dalby]

And I still don't know why you didn't name Kintetsubuffalo, who shares more co-edited articles with you than anybody else I can find on your list. Not so, you say? Give me another editor you've worked more closely with, or edited more article in conjunction with.

Milton, you're almost obsessed, it seems, with this question about a different book, one that I haven't written. ''The World and Wikipedia'' is not a memoir of happy work on Wikipedia. It isn't a celebration of good Wikipedia editors. You write that book, or I'll write it -- fine, just find me a publisher and a good contract -- but this book isn't it.

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

OK, back to Kintetsubuffalo. I've interacted with KB and I agree with all you say about his work. Actually you exaggerate the extent to which we've interacted: since I joined Wikipedia, no one has commissioned me to write a book on Burma, and that means, perforce, that I have written less on that subject on Wikipedia than I expected. My personal work on Wikipedia nearly always reflects the other work I'm doing: I use Wikipedia (and nowadays the Latin Wikipedia) as a notepad, gathering information and links that I will want, or may soon want, in writing books. The article on Scott, which you cited, was just one of those: KB started it at a moment when I was just ready to add some stuff to it. A nice coincidence, although not such a big deal as you seem to suggest. You could equally name Agne27, who wanted me to write more about wine -- and I will, I will, as soon as it fits with all the other things I have to do! I could name others with whom I've interacted (look at Imladjov, who did so much for articles on Byzantium before he was driven off by trolling) and many others whose contributions are wholly positive and admirable. But, if you check these names, you won't be finding things I should have mentioned in this book. You're talking about a book you want, not the book I've written.

[Peter Damian]

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

Now you're talking. How is Wikipedia actually destroying other sources of reference?. On 'how bad is that' I opened another thread with a question for you. I have serious concerns not just about the content of the existing Wikipedia but about the structural problems that skew its point of view towards academically marginal points of view. But interested in your view.

If your book really does cover this sort of concern, I will get it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th November 2009, 7:58pm

[Andrew Dalby]

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

Now you're talking. How is Wikipedia actually destroying other sources of reference?. On 'how bad is that' I opened another thread with a question for you. I have serious concerns not just about the content of the existing Wikipedia but about the structural problems that skew its point of view towards academically marginal points of view. But interested in your view.

If your book really does cover this sort of concern, I will get it.

Now you're talking! Evidence not just from Britain and USA but from Europe too: the surprising number of encyclopedias, in several languages, that have announced they won't be publishing any more. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French, others. They still exist, yes; they still have websites, mostly free; you can buy them on DVD for practically nothing. Their business models no longer sustain professional revision.

It's not disastrous this year or next year: most people can get by with a five-year-old edition of an encyclopedia (which is why the annual Britannicas of the 1960s killed their own market without any help from Wikipedia). It's disastrous in the long run. Once those teams of specialist editors have dispersed, they won't be reassembled.

Yes, I just noticed that other thread (I'm not supposed to be doing this, I'm supposed to be writing a book proposal this evening) and have made a brief comment while considering further.

[A Horse With No Name]

Now you're talking! Evidence not just from Britain and USA but from Europe too: the surprising number of encyclopedias, in several languages, that have announced they won't be publishing any more. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French, others. They still exist, yes; they still have websites, mostly free; you can buy them on DVD for practically nothing. Their business models no longer sustain professional revision.

But is that directly related to Mr. Wales' magical web site or the state of book publishing, which has been in a decline (particularly in the US) for a number of years?

Wikipedia might be a reflection of the so-called "dumbing down" of society, but I have not seen any evidence that reference publishing has lost one cent due its presence.