An independent source of commentary on WP articles, Best-Disinfectant Dept. Options

[Larry Sanger]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature. We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article. The key word is independent. As anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows, all the interesting work on articles happens on Wikipedia talk pages. (As I write this, I wistfully recall almost ten years ago telling people "take the non-article talk to the talk page!" We were the first wiki to separate meta-talk from content.) But talk pages are too often dominated by various, shall we say, difficult people. And by "dominated" I mean "controlled." If you disagree with them much, you can easily be blocked from the project, simply for disagreeing.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.

I have a better idea. Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's easy for me to say this, ideas are plentiful and execution is the hard part. Indeed, I don't have time to do this myself. And maybe the idea is half-baked; maybe the commentary site will end up just as messed up as Wikipedia itself. But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

[Jon Awbrey]

With all due respect, Larry, you had independent folks at the upstart of Citizendium — but you killed them off the project — because you can't stand working with anyone but fawning acolytes.

Just like that other co-founder …

Jon

[Emperor]

I like the idea, and would probably participate if someone else set it up. I'm not going to set it up myself though.

The closest I got to something like that was the Encyc forum and it never really took off. I think a place where the articles are aligned easily with Wikipedia articles would probably do better.

If this place is wildly successful and manages to maintain a decent relationship with Wikipedia, it might get a link on Wikipedia's talk pages so readers can easily flip back and forth.

[thekohser]

I think Facebook is doing this.

[Newyorkbrad]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature. We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article. The key word is independent. As anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows, all the interesting work on articles happens on Wikipedia talk pages. (As I write this, I wistfully recall almost ten years ago telling people "take the non-article talk to the talk page!" We were the first wiki to separate meta-talk from content.) But talk pages are too often dominated by various, shall we say, difficult people. And by "dominated" I mean "controlled." If you disagree with them much, you can easily be blocked from the project, simply for disagreeing.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.

I have a better idea. Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's easy for me to say this, ideas are plentiful and execution is the hard part. Indeed, I don't have time to do this myself. And maybe the idea is half-baked; maybe the commentary site will end up just as messed up as Wikipedia itself. But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

An interesting concept. But the first question that occurs to me is, what percentage of the new site's content would consist of useful discussion of points that for whatever reason can't be made or aren't successfully being made on Wikipedia, and what percentage of it would wind up consisting of content that Wikipedia rightfully excluded.

On BLP articles in particular, which are widely and correctly viewed as the biggest issue facing Wikipedia today, it seems to me that there is a real danger that people prevented from including defamatory, privacy-invading, or otherwise inappropriate content in the Wikipedia article would include it on the new site instead. And then there would be a debate on the new site about whether the content was appropriate or not ... it seems to me that things might quickly deteriorate into precisely the same sort of disputes that are found on Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia talkpages, only before a smaller audience, which could be either a strength or a weakness, and without even Wikipedia's anti-vandal and anti-BLPvio policies, inadequate as some may think them.

Of course I can think of other circumstances in which the type of site suggested here could have value. But before anyone thinks of putting in the effort required to set it up, one needs to think through the likely upside and downsite. Otherwise I think what you would wind up with is Wikipedia Lite, and I'm not at all sure that that is a plausible answer to the issues with Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Newyorkbrad: Mon 15th November 2010, 4:51pm

[Kelly Martin]

Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

While anyone could do this, it would go nowhere unless it was linked to by Wikipedia. And that will never happen. Never. Not in a million gajillion years. Without direct linkage from Wikipedia, any such forum would be like this one, a backwater with no influence, no exposure, and no importance.

Wikipedia has no interest in being critically analyzed, and a lot of interest in not being analyzed. You might as well wish for fluffy bunnies to pop up and deliver you bonbons each morning with your coffee, and yet never leave bunny turds on the carpet.

I think Facebook is doing this.

True, you can coopt a Facebook page based on a Wikipedia topic to "discuss" it. And if anyone has more social reach on the Internet than Wikipedia, it's Facebook.

[TungstenCarbide]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature. We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article. The key word is independent. As anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows, all the interesting work on articles happens on Wikipedia talk pages. (As I write this, I wistfully recall almost ten years ago telling people "take the non-article talk to the talk page!" We were the first wiki to separate meta-talk from content.) But talk pages are too often dominated by various, shall we say, difficult people. And by "dominated" I mean "controlled." If you disagree with them much, you can easily be blocked from the project, simply for disagreeing.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.

I have a better idea. Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's easy for me to say this, ideas are plentiful and execution is the hard part. Indeed, I don't have time to do this myself. And maybe the idea is half-baked; maybe the commentary site will end up just as messed up as Wikipedia itself. But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

Those are some good ideas. An uncensored forum still needs to be managed, however. If you let every nutcase on the internet ride roughshod over serious commentors, the good people leave. You'd have to engineer the right culture to make this work. Then there's motivation - if the site has no influence, not many people would want to spend time there.

...
On BLP articles in particular, which are widely and correctly viewed as the biggest issue facing Wikipedia today, it seems to me that there is a real danger that people prevented from including defamatory, privacy-invading, or otherwise inappropriate content in the Wikipedia article would include it on the new site instead. And then there would be a debate on the new site about whether the content was appropriate or not ... it seems to me that things might quickly deteriorate into precisely the same sort of disputes that are found on Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia talkpages, only before a smaller audience, which could be either a strength or a weakness, and without even Wikipedia's anti-vandal and anti-BLPvio policies, inadequate as some may think them...

Pointing to wikipeidia's 'BLP' problem has always bugged me. Wikipedia says that BLPs have to be treated with mature judgment and extra caution ... what about the rest of wikipedia? The 'BLP' problem simply illustrates a lack of maturity and competence of the entire project. What about BDPs ? The simple truth is that dead people are less likely to sue, so go ahead and write whatever you want... Really, why should wikipedia not hold the standards of maturity and judgment reserved for BLPs to the entire article space? Reminds me of a recent Onion article; Pope Vows to Get Church Pedophilia down to Acceptable Levels.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Mon 15th November 2010, 7:28pm

[Abd]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature. We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article. The key word is independent. As anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows, all the interesting work on articles happens on Wikipedia talk pages. (As I write this, I wistfully recall almost ten years ago telling people "take the non-article talk to the talk page!" We were the first wiki to separate meta-talk from content.) But talk pages are too often dominated by various, shall we say, difficult people. And by "dominated" I mean "controlled." If you disagree with them much, you can easily be blocked from the project, simply for disagreeing.

Yes. This is why independent sites are part of any overall wiki structure that aims for true neutrality. The tradition needs to be there from the beginning that these cooperating wikis (common goal, broadly defined, but as clear as possible and under active interpretation) will reference each other, providing alternate pages where that's relevant. No BADSITES as to page content, unless the pages blatantly violate core principles. It is possible that some of the cooperating wikis would be topic-focused. With delegable proxy, mentioned below, it's possible for a huge number of such wikis to be coordinated with efficiency.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.

Yes. Common knowledge.

Basically, the solution is to start with a community understanding of the value of true consensus. Any individual power structure can be co-opted, and some degree of this is inevitable, per the Iron Law of Oligarchy. So this community will set up, particularly if there are visionary leaders, structure that does not allow concentration of power to control the overall structure, which is composed of independent but communicating individual power structures (and individuals). Let's think of them as wikis but the individual structures could also be, as a simple example, mailing lists for forums.

One of these resources would function,when it's needed, as a classic nonprofit organization, with a board that is dedicated to serving the community. The board is self-elected, but the community makes recommendations which the board routinely follows -- but it is not compelled to, just as it is not compelled by the community to make financial decisions; however, in these types of organizations, the nonprofit corporation is entirely dependent on the continued voluntary contributions of members. It does not develop an endowment, merely what is called a "prudent reserve," which would allow it to shut down gracefully if it's needed, i.e., enough to give time for that and pay all debts. The way that the overall structure is developed, if the board runs away with the project, the community always has the means to set up a new central structure. It should be trivial, if enough people want to do it, and the structure makes it simply for these people to organize to do it -- off wiki!

Because of this, however, in organizations where the kind of thing I'm talking about is done, and where the principles are widely understood, while power struggles do occur, they do not predominate, and no competing central structure has been formed, with few exceptions. Founder influence caused one of these central structures, for a 12-step program, to violate the standard traditions regarding consensus, and, as a result, homosexual members and others who supported them, formed their own independent organization. Both of these are minor programs. The Big Daddy of 12-step programs operates with very high levels of consensus, but with no central control. They do not need the central office for anything, it is merely a coordinating body with relative minor expenses compared to the local group activity, which, itself, is entirely member-supported. It mostly prints literature, which it sells to local meetings at low prices. Local meetings can and have printed their own literature. They don't accept outside contributions. The lack of large treasuries means much less to fight over.

I have a better idea. Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

Yeah, and I proposed something like that a few days ago, and mentioned your name. Because this could have been how Citizendium operated, by layering over Wikipedia. It would do several things: it would, as you wanted, arrange for expert vetting of articles, but it would also include and maintain all Wikipedia content, but with its own Talk pages, and with procedure for finding local consensus that a local version of an article -- it would use flagged revisions -- was better than the Wikipedia article, if it was.

The core of the Fork, as I called it, would be consensus process, as well as expert recognition. My own conclusion about experts is that the advice of experts is crucial, but that experts should not control. It's really the same principle as the independence of the judiciary. We want to know what experts on a topic think about it, we want articles to not have stupid mistakes that any expert would recognize. But we also want all notable points of view to be covered, and experts will very much disagree among themselves, sometimes attacking each other. Not all experts will be academics, but by declaring expertise in a field, you would be dropping your right to make contentious edits in that field, while, at the same time, you'd be protected as to making suggestions. Experts would be expected to push their POVs!

But, I'll say it again, the core would be genuine consensus process, and just to confuse you more, decisions would actually be made by majority rule of eligible voters, probably through an elected representative body, and I specifically propose delegable proxy to avoid participation bias while still maximally representing the community in any decision. Majority rule with identified and documented voters makes decisions that are much easier to change than decisions allegedly made by "consensus." Consensus is the goal, not the decision-making process! The goal will never be perfectly realized in all areas, but it can be approached, and the only reliable measure of neutrality is consensus. Or you can define it as consensus of the knowledgeable, or consensus of the experts, but if you do the latter, you have to make sure that the expert selection process doesn't exclude minority positions unfairly.

(Citizendium has elected bodies, but they are elected through a very defective voting system. There are far better systems that ensure true proportional representation, and the best of these, Asset Voting, is actually quite old, having been proposed by Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), in about 1883, as a tweak on Single Transferable Vote, that allowed voters to just vote for one candidate without wasting the vote, as happens with STV.)

And there can be more than one Fork. There would be an overall coordinating body, which might merely be a mailing list with a few resources. The purpose of the overall coordinating body would be to handle inter-fork relations and to foster cooperation, as well as to note and take advantage of diversity of approach.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Yes. If the Fork develops true consensus process, it can do far better than Wikipedia on articles where it turns its attention, and it remains the same as Wikipedia on everything else. Local process would vet articles, until then, they would simply be noted as being unreviewed Wikipedia articles, to be handled with care. They could be blanked as a local decision. Indeed, if it were necessary to control traffic to keep costs down, those pages could present Wikipedia content in a frame, the browser retrieving the content from Wikipedia (and this would all be disclosed). But once a local version is considered better or safer, it would host the content locally. And it would stay that way unless, again, a decision was made that the Wikipedia article had become better. This is a simple decision that is only a yes/no vote, is this better or that? The local article, while live, would be subject to more usual editing process.

The central activities of the Fork would be aimed at ensuring that local process seeks consensus. Banning would never be for POV-pushing, per se. Dominating discussions can usually be controlled by lesser responses than blocks, and there are various ways of dealing with users who cannot control their own behavior, should that become necessary, that are short of true bans. Mentorship, the best of it on Wikipedia, gives some clues: the key is filtering, and the ideal filter of a user's content is someone who voluntarily accepts the task, chosen and trusted by the user to do it reasonably well, better than any other available option. If the user cannot find someone ... well, participation opportunities might become thin! That is a natural consequence of being unable to work cooperatively. It does not have to be imposed as judgment and blame. I'd suggest bot reversion for editors who need control, it is better than actual blocking because it doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water, and only editors who abused the right to edit by flooding or highly repetitive edits (which cause harm through distraction without providing additional benefit) would need blocking.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's easy for me to say this, ideas are plentiful and execution is the hard part. Indeed, I don't have time to do this myself. And maybe the idea is half-baked; maybe the commentary site will end up just as messed up as Wikipedia itself. But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

Larry, we should talk. I do believe that this would be practical, and I've said that if *two* other people want to do it and are willing to do at least a little work to that end, I'd start it myself. It takes almost no money, but it will take work. However, with good design, it will be efficient. One might notice that the structure I've described -- which is just one concept, one expression, and if the consensus process is built and there are some intelligent users active, better than what I could possibly imagine will come up and be considered -- is like setting a ratchet on a gear so that it can only turn in one direction. It always gets better, as an overall judgment of a page, if that process for approving revisions is sane and efficient. This project would be far easier to maintain than Wikipedia itself.

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

[powercorrupts]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature.

(puts down spliff) Hey wow man, what feature is that Larry?

We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article.. managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period).. When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Oh shit man, the Plan 9 film again.

But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

The sheer success could be frightening, man.

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

You mean working to help Wikipedia continue being Wikipedia? I don't think you've quite got the hang of this place yet have you Larry man.

You just do not understand at all why Wikipedia is the way it is. You seem to be part of the way there, but you just don't get the big business side of it, perhaps partly because you are clearly not a business man. And you have no idea at all of constitutes a decent entry in an encyclopedia - you seem to believe in their articles. You cannot force WIkipedia to change its ways by encouraging people to use 'outside' discussion space too - it simply doesn't make any sense. Aside from anything it would be constantly hammered by wp:consensus, and any number of other stuff they would call up. Wikipedia is designed to be a self-sufficient monster, with Jimbo and his motley crew controlling its path. It is powerful enough to fairly-easily fend-off all kinds of competition, critics and internal and external criticism.

If something is as badly and dangerously broken as Wikipedia then you either fix it properly, or bring in something new for its stead. You've failed doing both, and your idea here is just surreal. Aside from nothing but wobbly bright-green question marks over how it could possibly operate and still achieve its aims, billions of more tonnes of cyber-plopping over these cretinous 'articles' is not at all what the world needs. It's just loopy loopy poopy loop.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Mon 15th November 2010, 10:22pm

[thekohser]

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

I do lift a finger, quite often. But, I guess I'm not "quite appropriate" a person.

[anthony]

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

I do lift a finger, quite often. But, I guess I'm not "quite appropriate" a person.

Or maybe it's not quite the appropriate finger that you're lifting.

[Subtle Bee]

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

I do lift a finger, quite often. But, I guess I'm not "quite appropriate" a person.

Or maybe it's not quite the appropriate finger that you're lifting.

Well observed!

[Zoloft]

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

I do lift a finger, quite often. But, I guess I'm not "quite appropriate" a person.

Or maybe it's not quite the appropriate finger that you're lifting.

Well observed!

I suppose I could edit Wikipedia with my pinky raised.

I'm tempted to set up a regular ol' phpBB forum with anti-spam guards, and build it with posting rules that a topic be about an article, and that each topic be placed in the appropriate sub-forum.

I'd have to build a sub-forum tree, get enough moderators, have the mods show me their real-life identities (as I did in the old BBS days), and each user would have to at a minimum make an edit to their WP or WR identity to prove commonality.

Very light civility rules, to promote collaborative editing, enforced by the moderators, answerable to me only (dictator and site owner).

I would start slow, build connections, and then expand/scale as feasible. A managed fork could be a later phase.

It would be a lot of work, but the key to these things, just like any collaborative structure, is to get the users to do most of the labor.

[victim of censorship]

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.
I

There is, File civil and criminal charges. The child porn on Wikipedia, classifies it as a child porn repository on the internet, deserving for shut down and the trustees of the Wikimedia to answer before a Judge.

And the plagiarism (stolen IP property) as well as defamation, cries lawsuit.

Wikipedia is a failed enterprise do more harm now the ever. Walk up and cut out this cancerous tumor from the body internet.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

True, you can coopt a Facebook page based on a Wikipedia topic to "discuss" it. And if anyone has more social reach on the Internet than Wikipedia, it's Facebook.

How does this work, exactly?

It occurs to me--and I don't claim to be the first to have this idea, or even that it is my first time having this idea--that Wikipedia desperately needs a certain feature.

Citizendium needs this feature as well.

Actually, it isn't WP, or CZ, that needs this feature. It is the rest of the world that needs this feature. We need an independent forum, independent in the way that Wikipedia Review is independent, for each Wikipedia article. The key word is independent. As anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows, all the interesting work on articles happens on Wikipedia talk pages. (As I write this, I wistfully recall almost ten years ago telling people "take the non-article talk to the talk page!" We were the first wiki to separate meta-talk from content.) But talk pages are too often dominated by various, shall we say, difficult people. And by "dominated" I mean "controlled." If you disagree with them much, you can easily be blocked from the project, simply for disagreeing.

This amounts to censorship, because here is a powerful group, capable of doing great harm and injustice to individuals and other organizations, and there is essentially no known recourse that the public can turn to, to make their reaction to Wikipedia's inaccuracies, or other problems, known. In short, in order for you to have much influence on Wikipedia, and get your case heard fairly, you have to join, and spend lots of time in, what has become an enormously dysfunctional community.

I have a better idea. Somebody ought to create a site, managed 100% independently of Wikipedia (so, the managers simply cannot have any authority on Wikipedia, period), that sets up a web forum for each Wikipedia article.

When you see something that you think is inaccurate, libellous, biased, or in any other way problematic, you can have your say without being censored or shouted down by Wikipedia's true believers.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's easy for me to say this, ideas are plentiful and execution is the hard part. Indeed, I don't have time to do this myself. And maybe the idea is half-baked; maybe the commentary site will end up just as messed up as Wikipedia itself. But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

It seems to me some people from Wikipedia Review would be perfect candidates for getting this started...

I think this could be re-worked as an essay by Larry for the WR Blog. I'm not sure whether his proposal could work, because such a forum would turn into a flamefest unless moderated, and who would pick the moderators? Aye, there's the rub. But the proposal and the implicit criticism of WP are interesting, especially given Larry's history.

[EricBarbour]

Hi Larry!

May I please ask a question?

The Anome (T-C-L-K-R-D) is one of the oldest admins on Wikipedia. He was given admin powers in 2001, when you were still involved with Wikipedia. He's done some rotten things, and he's apparently responsible for the username word blacklist, plus a few other (sleazy) administrative ideas.

Is it possible you know who The Anome is in real life? Could he be one of those original Nupedia editors?
Or was he a Friend Of Jimbo who used his friendship to gain immediate power on WP?

Just curious.....

(It does relate to having an independent area to talk about WP articles. Because I honestly think this idea sucks. It will NOT fix anything in Wikipedia, because the whole culture of Wikipedia is rotten and corrupt. The Anome being a suitable example thereof, admittedly a minor, but long-lasting example.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 16th November 2010, 1:21am

[Abd]

(Larry Sanger:) But if I like it, I will support it. I will also be happy to put my name behind it (e.g., on a managing board).

The sheer success could be frightening, man.

Powercorrupts reminds me of what contemptuous assholes one encounters in the Wikipedia neighborhood.

You cannot force WIkipedia to change its ways by encouraging people to use 'outside' discussion space too - it simply doesn't make any sense.

Powercorrupts doesn't understand the concept of non-coercive influence. What Larry has proposed, as I modified it, would not "force" Wikipedia to do anything. It would merely use Wikipedia content as a base, to build superior content. It would not bite off more than it could handle, than it had active users for.

My sense has been, from my life experience, that it's possible to build organizational structures that are both efficient and extremely difficult to corrupt. I don't wonder that people are skeptical about this, because they have so much contrary experience.

But there are counterexamples, highly successful. Most people simply don't know about them.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 16th November 2010, 1:34am

[Abd]

I'm not sure whether his proposal could work, because such a forum would turn into a flamefest unless moderated, and who would pick the moderators? Aye, there's the rub. But the proposal and the implicit criticism of WP are interesting, especially given Larry's history.

These kinds of things start with a founder, who is an initial trustee, who does have founder powers, i.e., if, say, there is a mailing list, the founder is the owner of the list and can appoint (and remove) moderators. The difference is only if the founder wants to set up something that will not depend on him or her forever, and that can and will outgrow such dependence.

Ideally, the founder probably sets up a governance structure, and only intervenes when something breaks down. Jimbo more or less did this, but was unable to sit on his hands when he should have, and unable to act when he could have made major improvements, when he saw -- or should have seen -- that something was awry with his vision of how the community would govern itself.

But his face looks nice on the banners.

One of the keys is that such a structure can be set up to avoid coercive dominance by maintaining reproducibility. In theory, Wikipedia is like that, but what was missing was devices to rapidly organize users, and such devices were seen as threats or hazards and were typically crushed, quite quickly.

How to create such easy factionalization, with each faction knowing (and being known by) it's true power and influence among the general membership is one of the aspects of delegable proxy that isn't much talked about. The DP hierarchy is like a phone tree, and, it is one literally, if it is expected that proxy/client relationships involve mutual exchange of direct connection information. (Only name a proxy you trust! And only accept a client you are willing to allow to contact you directly!)

The central gatekeepers cannot disrupt that network if it needs to communicate independently. Depending on the central structures for communication is what leads a lot of organizations down the rosy path of the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

That network allows a faction to rapidly assembly a list of members to start a new fork, if considered -- by them! -- necessary. It creates independence by having factions organized continuously. Factions can then negotiate with each other. Cabals, if you will, but open, i.e., identified through the proxy table,

The paradox is that the freedom to fork can make it unnecessary to do so.

Delegable proxy and the like has lots and lots of applications in wikistructure. It was quickly rejected on Wikipedia, WP:PRX, even as an experiment with no actual rights being assigned to proxies, no changes in policy or guidelines or actual practice -- unless the community later decided to use it.

(WP:PRX was not at all an adequate explanation of the possibilities.... I knew that the community wasn't ready to consider much.)

Someone did not want to allow those expressions of trust! I think they understood, instinctively, that this could threaten the existing domination by small, highly motivated groups. They tried, hard, to MfD it.

[thekohser]

There are some quite appropriate people here, but I've never succeeded in getting any of them to lift a finger.... except for one who was really not core participants here, but who were interested for other reasons. Not quite enough.

I do lift a finger, quite often. But, I guess I'm not "quite appropriate" a person.

Or maybe it's not quite the appropriate finger that you're lifting.

Well observed!

And, Bee... that guy and I have served on the same board of trustees, had dinner together, and played poker into the wee hours of the morning. I get no respect!

[Larry Sanger]

Hi Larry!

May I please ask a question?

The Anome (T-C-L-K-R-D) is one of the oldest admins on Wikipedia. He was given admin powers in 2001, when you were still involved with Wikipedia. He's done some rotten things, and he's apparently responsible for the username word blacklist, plus a few other (sleazy) administrative ideas.

Is it possible you know who The Anome is in real life? Could he be one of those original Nupedia editors?
Or was he a Friend Of Jimbo who used his friendship to gain immediate power on WP?

Just curious.....

(It does relate to having an independent area to talk about WP articles. Because I honestly think this idea sucks. It will NOT fix anything in Wikipedia, because the whole culture of Wikipedia is rotten and corrupt. The Anome being a suitable example thereof, admittedly a minor, but long-lasting example.)

I definitely remember the name "The Anome" but I off-hand, I don't remember anything about the person. I don't know if I ever knew what his/her real name is. When I was involved, I don't think he was a top-rank contributor to the project, although I think he did quite a bit of work.


I don't know who the best person/people are to take on this project. Maybe, indeed, thekohser. But the hope is that someone really high-profile *cough* Jason C. *cough* might take it on.