The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[Andrew Dalby]

How come you're allowed to include this self-published book in your biography and my company's name has been removed from Wikipedia as "spam", even on a number of articles about specific notable works?

I'm not saying that your self-published (or more correctly "family-published") book should be removed, but I would like your commentary on what is clearly a double standard here. Was this type of "community framing" discussed in your book?

Yes, you're absolutely right, there is a double (or multiple) standard; and yes, I do discuss it (and I use myself as an example). I try to be very open about it. People with a sort of "academic" or official respectability get on to Wikipedia very easily, and stay in there, and some of them go on to spam themselves across the Wikipedias. For blatant examples, arousing no protest or scarcely any, see Kleinert, Floridi and Ebner -- and just count those interwiki links! And yet non-academic poets, painters and musicians get hounded and ejected: as an example, no longer visible on the English Wikipedia (see links on the Latin Vicipaedia where I'm an admin), take Mehmet Murat Ildan, a Turkish poet: I bet his stuff is just as good as Klaus Ebner's, but he's been almost totally erased.

[Added a moment later:] Well, I'm out of date about Ildan. He is back again on the English Wikipedia: he was re-created under a different spelling (without making any interwiki links) back in March, and the interwiki links were added recently. Will he get to stay this time?

Another example, deleted as a "hoax" from nearly all Wikipedias, was the Catalan painter Estéfano Viu. I think he's real, doesn't like the internet, and was added to several Wikipedias by a well-meaning friend, and deserved to be there. But I don't know for sure.

As I say in the book, "Increasingly, writers, artists and other media people who depend on audience recognition to go on earning an income need to be on Wikipedia". As that becomes more imperative, the de-facto and inefficient selection that is operated on Wikipedia becomes ever more akin to censorship.

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sat 14th November 2009, 12:52pm

[the fieryangel]

As I say in the book, "Increasingly, writers, artists and other media people who depend on audience recognition to go on earning an income need to be on Wikipedia". As that becomes more imperative, the de-facto and inefficient selection that is operated on Wikipedia becomes ever more akin to censorship.

And my own experience has been just the opposite: our sales figures have tripled since we have been removed from Wikipedia.

I don't think that being in Wikipedia does anything, really, in terms of actual sales. It's much more important to have your products in retail outlets.

And in terms of Wikipedia Art, their project became notable...because they were removed from Wikipedia. So, being removed from Wikipedia can sometimes generate more interest than simply having a parked vanity article...

[Jon Awbrey]

As I say in the book, "Increasingly, writers, artists and other media people who depend on audience recognition to go on earning an income need to be on Wikipedia". As that becomes more imperative, the de-facto and inefficient selection that is operated on Wikipedia becomes ever more akin to censorship.

And my own experience has been just the opposite: our sales figures have tripled since we have been removed from Wikipedia.

I don't think that being in Wikipedia does anything, really, in terms of actual sales. It's much more important to have your products in retail outlets.

And in terms of Wikipedia Art, their project became notable … because they were removed from Wikipedia. So, being removed from Wikipedia can sometimes generate more interest than simply having a parked vanity article …

Let's cut to the chase —

Anyone who pays attention to the Wiki-Prestidigitation for very long figures out that all the charges that Wiki-Prostitutors, er, Wiki-Prosecutors are constantly leveling at other people are simply a divetimento and a manifestation of psychological projection.

All this guff 'n' stuff about self-promotion and what I have called their In-Url Retentiveness being prime examples.

Jon Awbrey

[A Horse With No Name]

Did anyone read this book yet?

I read the book last night while waiting for my laundry. My time would have been better spent watching my laundry spin around in the washer-drier.

The book is astonishing, for all the wrong reasons. As in-depth research, it is shallow and slipshod. As an examination of the socio-educational implications of Wikipedia, it is worthless. Controversies regarding plagiarism and vandalism are chuckled aside in a "boys will be boys" type of shrug. The rejection of Wikipedia by the vast majority U.S. academia is glossed over. The presence of pornographic material on the site is ignored, but there is a light acknowledgment of the site's uber-focus on Ayn Rand and Lyndon LaRouche.

As a recounting of Wikipedia gossip, it is highly selective. The book could be subtitled "The Apotheosis of J.delanoy" -- he is mentioned three times as a saintly presence who closes rambunctious dust-ups (though, strangely, he is not mentioned for reporting of RHMED to the Tiscali ISP for the supposed libel of Mr. Wales).

Mantanmoreland gets a passing mention in a single sentence. Tarantino also shows up -- though we have no idea who he is or what role he plays in any of this. Newyorkbrad, as mentioned, is inexplicably outed (no reason is given as to why his real-life ID was required) -- though, mercifully, he comes across as being one of the relatively few sane people in this Muppet Show.

There is an absurdly long retelling of ChildofMidnight's various adventures in bringing "Bacon Mania" to Wikipedia. David Shankbone is mentioned in one sentence, editing (what else?) the Michael Lucas article -- no mention of David Saranga, though, and Shankbone's photographic input is also not mentioned. The ultimate train wreck, the DHMO (Giggy) RfA, isn't cited; the RfA wars don't seem very important here (and, no, Balloonman doesn't get into the book).

If you know the WP drama, you will find the book very funny as unintentional comedy. For those who know nothing about WP and its zany family, the book will probably be a confusing bore.

[thekohser]

Horsey, it sounds like you failed to "read between the lines", as Dalby instructed us to do.

[A Horse With No Name]

Horsey, it sounds like you failed to "read between the lines", as Dalby instructed us to do.

I did read between the lines -- the blank spaces were the only place my eyes could find a Zen-like rest from the intrusive text.

[Cedric]

Horsey, it sounds like you failed to "read between the lines", as Dalby instructed us to do.

I did read between the lines -- the blank spaces were the only place my eyes could find a Zen-like rest from the intrusive text.

I think you need to copy this post to Amazon.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think you need to copy this post to Amazon.

Nah -- Amazon's reviews don't carry much credibility. Either friends of the author puff up the work or detractors go out of the way to trash something. I would pitch this as a book review somewhere, but there is a conflict of interest on my part. Thus, I'll just talk about it here.

[co13]

Actually, Keeper could get a brief mention for the period in 2008 when his talk page became a mini-MySpace with every nutty character dropping in for jokes, complaints, baseball talk steroids and (my favorite) a barnstar competition. It was a lot of fun for awhile, and it showed that Wikipedia could foster a positive atmosphere. But that kind of stuff was later discouraged.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, Keeper could get a brief mention for the period in 2008 when his talk page became a mini-MySpace with every nutty character dropping in for jokes, complaints, baseball talk steroids and (my favorite) a barnstar competition. It was a lot of fun for awhile, and it showed that Wikipedia could foster a positive atmosphere. But that kind of stuff was later discouraged.

That period on his talk page was actually the only time I truly enjoyed going on WP. I miss absolutely nothing about WP except that brief stretch of fun.

[EricBarbour]

I wonder if Mr. Dalby stalked away angrily.

His reception here was less than sweet and loving. (Good.)

[Andrew Dalby]

I wonder if Mr. Dalby stalked away angrily.

His reception here was less than sweet and loving. (Good.)

Still around!

[Jon Awbrey]

I wonder if Mr. Dalby stalked away angrily.

Don't stalk away angrily — just stalk away …

Someday, we gotta learn some new words …

I'll make up a φew …

Jon

[GlassBeadGame]

Well I'm glad to see him around. If he can take the rejection and diss'ing he deserves to stay if he wants. I mean telling Wikipedians what they want to hear, and talking about there favorite subject (themselves) to sale a book, might make you an sycophant, but it also might make you a bit of a rogue. Given the flim-flammy self-publication thingy I'm inclined to go with rogue. Before Sara appropriate that word it always had some favorable cogitations, at least for me. I can't blame him for scamming Wikipedians, after all they've already stepped in the biggest con since Tom got his friends to pay for whitewashing that fence.

He has demonstrated his academic bona fides elsewhere. There was no need to write a good book for the purpose I describe. It's not like Wikipedians could tell the difference.

[A Horse With No Name]

He has demonstrated his academic bona fides elsewhere. There was no need to write a good book for the purpose I describe. It's not like Wikipedians could tell the difference.

Considering the kind of photos that keep popping up in these Wikipedia discussions, I think it would be correct to redefine it as academic boner fides!

[Somey]

That period on his talk page was actually the only time I truly enjoyed going on WP. I miss absolutely nothing about WP except that brief stretch of fun.

I take it you're referring to material like what's on this page?

The whole question of whether Wikipedians have a sense of humor (generally or specifically) has always interested me of course, but I think I concluded a year or so ago that the answer was "no." That doesn't mean they're incapable of producing unintentional humor, of course - they do that all the time, otherwise I wouldn't still be doing this.

In fact, that might make a good chapter for the next book about Wikipedia...

[A Horse With No Name]

I take it you're referring to material like what's on this page?

No, the Keeper76 talk page during the spring, summer and early fall of 2008. The flow of wacky people who came and went was astonishing. It was almost like the Wikipedia eqiuvalent of "Laugh-In."

The whole question of whether Wikipedians have a sense of humor (generally or specifically) has always interested me of course, but I think I concluded a year or so ago that the answer was "no." That doesn't mean they're incapable of producing unintentional humor, of course - they do that all the time, otherwise I wouldn't still be doing this.

In fact, that might make a good chapter for the next book about Wikipedia...

On Wikipedia, the only people who currently make me laugh out loud are Malleus and Mandsford.

The only time I genuinely laughed out loud with gusto on Wikipedia was from the Lerner & Loewe mania that fueled this AfD - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ady_(2009_film) - it showed that people had a sense of humor, including (of all folks) Protonk!

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Wed 18th November 2009, 7:28pm

[CharlotteWebb]

The whole question of whether Wikipedians have a sense of humor (generally or specifically) has always interested me of course, but I think I concluded a year or so ago that the answer was "no."

Well, a lot of the ones I've observed are reluctant to exhibit humor "on" "wiki" or laugh for any purpose other than rhetorical effect. Just a little bit over-disciplined I think. But in e-mail or badfora such as this, the same person's writing will usually invoke a mental picture closer to that of a human than anything they've posted on WP.

Albeit at lower levels.

C'era una volta il wikipedia I believe it was possible to crack a good joke without getting a templated civility warning, but something changed.

[thekohser]

Albeit at lower levels.

The phrase we made famous!

[John Limey]

I won't say I really read this as that would be a lie, but I took a look (it was very difficult to get my hands on a copy). I present the following review/quotes for your enjoyment.

Dalby begins, in his brief Prologue with one of those unbridled expressions of love for Wikipedia. He writes "Any errors you have seen and not as yet corrected are your fault" (p. 7). Yes, that's exactly the problem with Wikipedia; all those ***holes who see the problems but don't volunteer their time to fix them. Wikipedia isn't at fault when it's innaccurate, you are.

Most of the next several chapters is a series of anecdotes. The only thing interesting about them is how recent they are, some from only a few months ago. This just demonstrates how quickly the book went through the publishing proccess, and hints that it was not reviewed at all.

Dalby also presents some views of Wikipedia governance that I would not describe as necessarily mainstream. Of Wales, he writes "an advantage is that he holds dictatorial powers to ban users, delete pages, and erase page histories" (p. 10). Both the assertions here are problematic. It's fairly clear that Wales no longer has dictatorial powers, and it's certain that if he did, it wouldn't be "an advantage".

In Chapter 2, "Where it came from", Dalby triumphally pronounces the arrival of Wikipedia as everything we have ever been waiting for. His descriptions of the virtue of Wikipedia make the things Francis Fukuyama says about democracy sound positively insincere. Dalby intones that there are "three traditions of books specially designed to help in the quest for knowledge" and that WWikipedia is the rsult of "all three tradtiona, plaited together" (p. 19). Yes, Wikipedia is all things to all people. The Wales adulation also continues. He writes "An encyclopedia that is actively growing in nearly all these languages is a unprecedented and matchless resource for the multilingual world in which we live, a resource that no one in the world would have dreamed of until, about ten years ago, Jimmy Wales dreamed of it." (p. 49). I, for one, can't wait until Jimmy passes into heaven so we can go ahead and canonize him. St. Jimbo, patron saint of wikis.

Chapter 3, is at first promisingly named "Why they hate it" but that must be held in contrast to Chapter 5 "Why we love it." Dalby spends a while advancing the case that the only people who don't like Wikipedia are those on the take from Britannica. He then talks a bit about Seigenthaler, but falls squarely into the lone-gunman, blame Brian Chase theory (What oh what can society do to contain such maniacs?) But, in the end, justice was served Chase lost his job.

Chapter 4, "Why you use it" is the same mix of tired anecdotes, boring anecdotes, and inane observations. I didn't even bother to look at 5, as I had just eaten. I also skipped 6, to have a look at 7 "Why you don't trust Wikipedia". The answer, Dalby suggests is because there are these bad people out there who put bad things on Wikipedia. He does say some things that bear repeating thoug. For one, "Whether it's of any use or not, you can be sure of one thing: Wikipedia pages will go on getting longer." (p. 181) He draws out the fact that longer isn't better, which is refreshingly accurate, although it would have been better to engage the literature here (e.g., Blumenstock).

Finally, there is Chapter 8, "Why you will trust Wikipedia". He begins with the old, Wikipedia is gettting bigger and better and broader reaching all the time. he writes that "We will rely on Wikipedia more and more" (p. 215) without really defending it. There is some more refreshing honesty, "No one can claim that Wikipedia, as a whole, is a reliable source" (p. 220) but it is tempered by fanboyishnes soon after, reverting to discredited notions; "more than most other sources of information, Wikipedia's editors are truly international. Any article bearing on world politics will have contributors from both sides, on all sides, of any argument ... the resulting Wikipedia article won't entirely satisfy any side, but all will be watching to ensure that it doesn't get far out of line" (p. 221). That doesn't even deserve a response.

Then, there are the even worse remarks. "Not only do we use Wikipedia: we needn't be ashamed to cite it" (p. 222). Yes, I remember a lovely quote from Maurice Jarre I'd like to cite to Wikipedia.

On the whole, the book is not a valuable contribution to the literature on Wikipedia. Lih's The Wikipedia Revolution was unashamedly and, often uncritically, pro-Wikipedia, but it provided a general overview of the most significant history, and related internet developments. As such, it's the sort of work that we will find in footnotes for years; it did a lot of the basic research. The Wolrd and Wikipedia, on the other hand, is too anecdotal (and I say that even in comparison to Lih) to be useful, and focuses to much on events that were trivial. I find it, on the whole, rather unreflective. The real failing, though, as with Lih, is the complete and total lack of citations to the growing scholarly literature on Wikipedia. Dalby often raises points discussed in important, peer-reviewed research, but is either unaware of that research or simply doesn't care. Too much writing on Wikipedia is still stuck at a very basic level; it's time for the field to move on. It's time for authors to cite one another and not waste time explaining the essential details. Studies of Wikipedia need to develop on their own, in a meaningful direction and develop into a paradigm of sorts (yes, flashes of Kuhn). Dalby makes no contribution in this regard. The read is pleasant, but the content is worthless.

Finally, as a little nugget to all of you. Dalby mentions the Review only briefly, but this is what he has to say. "Wikipedia Review is a forum populated by Wikipedia editors, whose attitudes range from fairly happy to extremely disgruntled. Like all forums you aren't involved in, the Review is penetratingly boring" (p. 76). There's another brief mention in the context of the Essjay scandal, but that's all he has to say for this little forum.