A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people?

Raul owns the global warming articles, and there is overlap with the ID crowd.

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

Has anyone tried disabling their e-mails and protecting their talk pages? That normally stops the shouting!

I would be a cruel administrator, wouldn't I? I have an extraordinary amount of patience, but I would have to show these people the door. Especially with what they're doing to a BLP victim.

[Cla68]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

[Derktar]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

Well this is how wikiworld works. Except eventually the heat dies down and uninvolved people stop caring/looking out and the thuggery begins again.

[Somey]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

I was impressed!

I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.

Meanwhile, I'd been holding off on starting my own petition, to promote my theory of the Universal Smelliness of German Cheeses. But hey, it might actually be safe now.

[Moulton]

Moulton, has Ms. Picard called attention to this travesty to the press? Because I think Brian Bergstein or Cade Metz needs to see this debacle. I sense another Seigenthaler scandal approaching.

I rather doubt that Rosalind Picard has contacted the press, for two reasons.

First, the events on her BLP have been unfolding so rapidly, and with such intensity, that I doubt she has been able to keep up. I've been following such fast-breaking firefights on WP for some time, and I was unable to stay abreast of this one, which began at noon on Sunday with Krimpet's first edits on the BLP.

Second, Picard has neither the time nor the temperament to do what Siegenthaler or I did — namely publish essays, technical analyses, or Op-Ed pieces on episodes like this. Consider how much time and energy I have put into highlighting the BLP problem since last August. Picard has way too much important work to do in her faculty responsibilities at MIT to spend time putting a spotlight on the failings of Wikipedia. That's what the reformers of WR are here for.

Let me illustrate...

Among the essays and Op-Ed pieces I wrote was this blog post on the Media Ethics Blog at Utah State University. Among those participants here who visited that blog was PrivateMusings, who left me a comment that eventually led to my participation in Episode 6 of Not The Wikipedia Weekly (WP:NTWW). As you know, Durova and Filll eventually became regulars on NTWW, with Durova hosting several sessions, including the recent one with Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press. For both political and technical reasons, I was only able to participate via private text chat with Durova. Nonetheless, I was able to pose germane questions that both Durova and Bergstein agreed were good questions. In view of the technical glitches during the recording, I followed up by E-Mail to Bergstein to invite him to reprise his comments that were lost in the Skypecast technical difficulties. He called me up yesterday, and we spoke by phone for a good hour. In the end, Brian decided not to publish any personal critical commentary of Wikipedia lest it taint his status as an objective reporter on the technology beat. Already, Seth Finkelstein and Cade Metz have had to deal with backlash from WP on that score, and Brian's judgment was that it was not in his best interests as a journalist to editorialize on the subject of his stories. However, he did ask me about my own history with Wikipedia, and I filled him in on the story, as best I was able to narrate it from the perspective of someone inside the story. I also told him about the firestorm that had gotten underway on Picard's BLP with Krimpet's edits of Sunday noon.

As you may know, I made the acquaintance of Kim Bruning at the conclusion of the Skypecast session with Bergstein. Once the recording had ended, and after Bergstein had logged off, Durova added me to the voice conference and introduced me to Kim and some of the other panelists, who had asked why Greg and I had received less than a warm welcome to join the public Skypecast with Bergstein. Durova recited the background of my case, and I responded to questions from Kim and the others who had been unfamiliar with my case. Filll, who was also present, refused to present his side as long as I was present, so Adrian-DorfTrottel unceremoniously booted me off the Skypecast conference bridge to let Filll present his version without me being present to hear or rebut Filll. Both Durova and PrivateMusings were chagrinned at this uncongenial and uncollegial gesture of alienation, but let Filll have his say in camera without my presence. Afterwards, Kim Bruning and I conversed one-on-one on Skype, during which time he asked me to respond to his understanding of Filll's case against me. In the end, Kim made an offer: If Rosalind Picard would send him E-Mail with her concerns about the contents or tone of her biography, he would make a good faith effort to bring it into compliance with WP's standards and policies for BLPs.

I followed up by communicating Kim's offer to Picard, with a copy to Kim. Because of her busy schedule, it took me a week to get some face-time with Picard to explain to her who Kim was and what he was offering. Picard asked me to summarize it all in E-Mail, which I did. On Sunday, Picard found the time to review the situation and compose her entreaty to Kim (with a copy to me). As it happens, Picard's message to Kim went out at 6PM on Sunday, just hours after Krimpet had quietly made two edits to Picard's bio. By the time I caught up with that, the edit war between Krimpet and the ID Cabal had erupted into an AN/I firestorm. Then, yesterday, Kim called in another editor, Ottava Rima, to repair Picard's bio. The colloquies on the talk page tell the rest of the story better than I can.

In the meantime, I had sent Brian Bergstein a thank you message for his phone call to me, and left him an open invitation to look further into the story, should he find it of newsworthy value. I have no idea if Brian will look into it further, or decide whether it rises to reportable news by AP standards.

My guess is that Cade Metz or Seth Finkelstein would be more likely to pick this story up than Brian, given all the factors that such a story would have to encompass.

[Moulton]

Kudos to Krimpet, aka Mrs. Moulton (or so we are to be told )

For the record, I had no direct contact with Krimpet, who evidently gleaned the story from postings here. When she made the edits to Picard's bio at noon on Sunday, I frankly didn't know who she was, having failed to remember that she and I had posted similar views in the NewYorkBrad thread.

After being slapped down on AN/I, Raul654 has protected Rosalind Picard. The anti-ID clique, having nothing better to do, then converges on Affective computing because they can. Nothing to see here, no siree.

Sigh.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

[Moulton]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

While I regret the ugly politics that have surfaced in the wake of this case, I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it. In due course, I hope to be able to identify and thank each of the responsible editors and admins who (better late than never) stepped up to the challenge of doing the right thing here.

There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well.

I was impressed!

I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.

Yes. What Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima pulled off yesterday was nothing short of a miracle.

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 6th May 2008, 8:11am

[Proabivouac]

I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

It gets much worse than this, actually.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies.

Well this is how wikiworld works. Except eventually the heat dies down and uninvolved people stop caring/looking out and the thuggery begins again.

No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 6th May 2008, 8:50am

[Moulton]

I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

It gets much worse than this, actually.

Yes, it sometimes does.

What are the members of the ID Cabal doing hacking up editing an article on Affective Computing, a technical subject on which they have no meaningful background or expertise?

While there were many problems with the article, I can think of no other answer here besides revenge. This is how Wikipedia editorial policy is formulated. There is no one who will take responsibility for the decisions that are made: formally, no decisions are being made. It's just volunteers, you know, helping out where they can according to WP policies.

The irony is that I first went to Wikipedia last August, during a slow week, to see if WP even had an article on Affective Computing, and if it was in need of any updates, in anticipation of the start of another school year. And that's when I clicked on the name of the MIT faculty member who was the founder of the field of Affective Computing, and found this.

Editing articles on Wikipedia is like playing Whack-A-Mole.

No one is blocked, no one is topic banned, and no one has been assigned responsibility for decisions about this (or any other) article. There is nothing to stop the problems from recurring; we can be fairly certain that they will.

That's why I view this anecdotal case as indicative of a structural, systemic problem. Just fixing this one article does little more than shave off the tip of the iceberg. When I zoomed out from the first problematic article, I found it was far from a unique example.

While this thread began with an opening sneeze involving Krimpet and OrangeMarlin, perhaps the thread title could be revised to more accurately capture the essence of the story as it unfolded during the course of the opera.

The story reminds me of The Hary Janos Suite, but I daresay that's too obscure a musical reference to be meaningful to most observers here.

[that one guy]

The whole situation can be summed up as one big messy bold, revert, discuss. Except this time it became bold, revert, bitch and moan at each other, massively improve article, ???, PROFIT! (sorry, couldn't resist that).

Net positive for the article, net negative for some involved, and net zero for others involved.

[Proabivouac]

Yes, it sometimes does.

He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does

Many of us? On Wikipedia?

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163556281

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 6th May 2008, 12:50pm

[Moulton]

Yes, it sometimes does.

He presumes that his age and degree allow him to dictate to us and lecture to us, when many of us have more illustrious academic and professional credentials than he does.

Many of us? On Wikipedia?

I presume he means on Wikipedia, as that is where Filll is posting, in the annals of AN/I on the English Wikipedia.

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [Possible Unblock of Moulton]

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place.

[Random832]

I know his background, having been both at Bell Labs and MIT and a PhD (and a few other graduate degrees). [Possible Unblock of Moulton]

Wait, Filll is himself claiming these credentials? Am I reading this incorrectly? I don't think so. Okay, this is a big deal. I don’t doubt it or undoubt it, but Filll, please produce some evidence for these claims.

Fill has never disclosed his academic record or credentials to me, so I don't know. I only have two graduate degrees -- MS and Ph.D, both from Stanford University. So the reference to "a few other graduate degrees" would not apply to me. If User:Filll (Bob Stevens) was ever at Bell Labs or MIT, I never met him at either place.

It's an odd phrasing, but I think he's talking about you.

[Kato]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

[Jon Awbrey]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

Oh, now, Kato, you're just being bitter.

Good thing there's a pill for that.*

Jon

* Side effects. Okay, so it's a bitter pill, too. What did you expect?

[dogbiscuit]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I'd disagree. What that page does show is an indisputable example of tendatious and biased editing, especially Filll, (get back to the editing Guys) who invented a long original analysis that avoided addressing the fundamental issue, but a textbook example of the ID cabal at work, unable to grasp that they were making it all up. It is another brick in the wall. I think one reason SV is a relatively uncontroversial subject these days is that the publicity of her actions has been so widespread that she no longer holds the title of "widely respected admin".

I take it that someone has worked down the petition line by line and attacked every signatory? Is it worth doing a check and seeing if the same behaviour has been applied? If it has, I'd be going for a block or a ban for, well, Lack of common Sense.

What is really annoying is that I think most people would agree that the ID movement is a fringe movement, and certainly almost entirely American based with little traction elsewhere in the world. So it is really annoying that dolts like OrangeMarlin give it credibility by distorting the case to make it seem like they do not believe their cause can stand the cold light of day. It almost makes me want to edit in favour of ID to redress the balance!

So Wikipedia does have a learning curve, it is just tediously slow, and as I was reminded, it requires the re-education of an infinite number of monkeys joining the project.

Ah, I've just contradicted myself, I'll get me coat.

[Moulton]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

[Jon Awbrey]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

In order to be capable of inquiry into a puzzling phenomenon, one has to be capable of entertaining many alternative hypotheses.

When one hypothesis does not account for the observations, then it is time to consider another.

Even though you know a lot of things, it is obvious from the things you say that you do not know Wikipedia very well at all. From what I've read of your story — heaven knows I haven't read it all — you got booted out of Wikipedia at very early stage, and this is probably why most of the things that you say are the sorts of things that most of us were saying at a very early stage of our trials there.

So it is not too surprising that you seem to be stuck on the Nøøb Hypothesis that the Wikipediot Population at large, in compact with the Foundation that "services" it, really are trying to craft a quality information source, but just don't know how.

I think that it might provide you with additional data and alternative hypotheses if you actually listened to the stories of others, instead of just preaching about plays and such.

Just A Thought …

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 6th May 2008, 4:48pm