NYB on The Volokh Conspiracy, Some First Thoughts on Wikipedia Options

[tarantino]

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1242098183.shtml

Ira requests:

I make only one request: that regular Wikipedians who are looking over my shoulder, as well as Wikipedia critics from Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, bear in mind that this is a general-interest audience. Please don't hijack the comment threads with our own internal disputes and debates. No one here wants to read who is a sockpuppet of whom or whether so-and-so's block was fair or not. We have ANI and Wikipedia Review to hash those things out later.

[Somey]

Not bad, but Mr. Brad should know by now that high search engine rankings, and the impact they have on both content and on article subjects, are only part of the overall objection to Wikipedia. The negative impact on the publishing industry and academia are another, and on traditional culture in general. It's also helping to destroy the diversity of the web, foster an unaccountable anonymity subculture that's potentially dangerous to democracy, and cheapen intellectualism, among other things. Then there's the whole cultishness thing, WRT the actual users...

Still, I don't suppose it's worth complaining about - at least he's trying to be fair about the whole thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[the fieryangel]

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1242098183.shtml

Ira requests:

I make only one request: that regular Wikipedians who are looking over my shoulder, as well as Wikipedia critics from Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, bear in mind that this is a general-interest audience. Please don't hijack the comment threads with our own internal disputes and debates. No one here wants to read who is a sockpuppet of whom or whether so-and-so's block was fair or not. We have ANI and Wikipedia Review to hash those things out later.

I can't count the number of times I've seen Greg K., Barry Kort or Jon Ambrey make a perfectly logical and well-thought-out comment on a blog only to have them be swamped with Wikipediots making ad hominem attacks and Pro-WP rhetoric attacks ad naseum. If Brad could keep the WP troops in order, none of this would happen. Since he's made this statement, this would seem to confirm this as fact.

One of the joys of Web 2.0, Brad, is that (like Wikipedia) any idiot can participate even if they're completely wrong. The only solution is to 1. moderate the comments or 2. turn them off.

If only WP would do this for BLP articles and ban those Wikipediots who place BLP violations on other sites as revenge, maybe the rest of the World would follow suit?

[Newyorkbrad]

Not bad, but Mr. Brad should know by now that high search engine rankings, and the impact they have on both content and on article subjects, are only part of the overall objection to Wikipedia. The negative impact on the publishing industry and academia are another, and on traditional culture in general. It's also helping to destroy the diversity of the web, foster an unaccountable anonymity subculture that's potentially dangerous to democracy, and cheapen intellectualism, among other things. Then there's the whole cultishness thing, WRT the actual users...

Still, I don't suppose it's worth complaining about - at least he's trying to be fair about the whole thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Also please bear in mind that I couldn't really address every possible critique or criticism of Wikipedia in a 1500-word introduction, or even in a week's worth of posts, which is what I have to work with. As previously promised, in one of my posts I will link to some criticism sites, including this one. I really am trying to be as balanced as I can, although I obviously don't share the entirely negative view of Wikipedia that you express.

[GlassBeadGame]

NYB's preemptively chastising, discounting and discouraging replies from WR on another forum is disrespectful to this site. I won't be troubling you over there, Mr. Brad.

[Newyorkbrad]

NYB's preemptively chastising, discounting and discouraging replies from WR on another forum is disrespectful to this site. I won't be troubling you over there, Mr. Brad.

I fear I've been unclear there and/or misconstrued here. Replies on VC about the general issues I raise there are most welcome. What I was trying to head off was more along the lines of a long debate in a comment thread, which would be incomprehensible to the general readership over there, about whether User:X deserved to be desysopped, why User:Y shouldn't have been blocked, whether User:Z is government agent, etc. That remark was equally directed at Wikipedians as Reviewers, by the way.

[the fieryangel]

Not bad, but Mr. Brad should know by now that high search engine rankings, and the impact they have on both content and on article subjects, are only part of the overall objection to Wikipedia. The negative impact on the publishing industry and academia are another, and on traditional culture in general. It's also helping to destroy the diversity of the web, foster an unaccountable anonymity subculture that's potentially dangerous to democracy, and cheapen intellectualism, among other things. Then there's the whole cultishness thing, WRT the actual users...

Still, I don't suppose it's worth complaining about - at least he's trying to be fair about the whole thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

...although I obviously don't share the entirely negative view of Wikipedia that you express.

That's just it, Brad: Somey's view of all of this isn't entirely negative, but centered in the "balanced criticism" mode that both Akahele and you seem to be striving for. He's just not wearing those nice "rose-colored glasses" that the Wikipediots seem to favor...

[Moulton]

NYBrad's second installment is posted: Wikipedia, the Internet, and Diminished Privacy.

[Newyorkbrad]

NYBrad's second installment is posted: Wikipedia, the Internet, and Diminished Privacy.

My third post on Volokh is now up, for those interested. It's more about the BLP issue (and I will continue on that tomorrow as well). Most of the content will be old hat to Wikipedia Reviewers, but my goal is to raise the issues with and get comments from a wider audience.

[Cla68]

NYBrad's second installment is posted: Wikipedia, the Internet, and Diminished Privacy.

My third post on Volokh is now up, for those interested. It's more about the BLP issue (and I will continue on that tomorrow as well). Most of the content will be old hat to Wikipedia Reviewers, but my goal is to raise the issues with and get comments from a wider audience.

Judging from the number of comments, it appears that that forum has a fairly large number of readers, so your message is reaching a lot of people.

[thekohser]

NYBrad's second installment is posted: Wikipedia, the Internet, and Diminished Privacy.

My third post on Volokh is now up, for those interested. It's more about the BLP issue (and I will continue on that tomorrow as well). Most of the content will be old hat to Wikipedia Reviewers, but my goal is to raise the issues with and get comments from a wider audience.

Providing the link generally helps, Brad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I finally brought myself to comment on the second installment. My rant will be familiar to those here at WR, but my goal is to raise the issues with and get comments from a wider audience. So far, not a single click-through to the study results page that I provided in my comment.

[Jon Awbrey]

Skew You Too : The Styxie Wixie —

Ah, the never-ending Drek of Wikipediots —

To baldly go where none have met their lines before …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Lar]

That's just it, Brad: Somey's view of all of this isn't entirely negative, but centered in the "balanced criticism" mode that both Akahele and you seem to be striving for. He's just not wearing those nice "rose-colored glasses" that the Wikipediots seem to favor...

When you speak of "balanced criticism" and Wikipediots in the same paragraph, it causes a cognitive dissonance.

As I've said before, you can be a critic without the pejorative/mocking appellations. In fact, you can be a **better** critic without them.

[dtobias]

To some WR types, "balanced criticism" means to give fair coverage to everything from the criticisms that say "Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed!" to the criticisms that say that Wikipedia is harmful and must be radically restructured, but might possibly be saved if most people associated with it are removed and its policies and practices changed beyond recognition. The "beyond-the-pale" viewpoints that actually mostly like Wikipedia have no place at this table, however.

[One]

NYBrad's second installment is posted: Wikipedia, the Internet, and Diminished Privacy.

My third post on Volokh is now up, for those interested. It's more about the BLP issue (and I will continue on that tomorrow as well). Most of the content will be old hat to Wikipedia Reviewers, but my goal is to raise the issues with and get comments from a wider audience.

Judging from the number of comments, it appears that that forum has a fairly large number of readers, so your message is reaching a lot of people.

It's probably the most popular and influential law blog.[1] Widely known among legal academics, students, and professionals with spare time. I guess it will have to get along without certain butthurt reviewers.

This post has been edited by One:

[Jon Awbrey]

Aside from a couple of cogent posts by Brandt and Kohs, the commentary on the VC Blog makes Fark and Slashdot look almost intelligent.

Jon Awbrey

[thekohser]

That's just it, Brad: Somey's view of all of this isn't entirely negative, but centered in the "balanced criticism" mode that both Akahele and you seem to be striving for. He's just not wearing those nice "rose-colored glasses" that the Wikipediots seem to favor...

When you speak of "balanced criticism" and Wikipediots in the same paragraph, it causes a cognitive dissonance.

As I've said before, you can be a critic without the pejorative/mocking appellations. In fact, you can be a **better** critic without them.

You're being a troll, Lar.

[tarantino]

Aside from a couple of cogent posts by Brandt and Kohs, the commentary on the VC Blog makes Fark and Slashdot look almost intelligent.

Jon Awbrey

This is funny.

Kooks, on the other hand are motivated to post a lot, and would readily respond to calls on Wikipedia Review and other sites to come to VC to take over a Wikipedia thread. (Sheesh, we even have Daniel Brandt here. Somehow I doubt he posted because he's normally a VC lurker.)

I think that people who spend a great deal of time writing Sailor Moon FAQs and anime fan fiction are a little kooky.

[Jon Awbrey]

Aside from a couple of cogent posts by Brandt and Kohs, the commentary on the VC Blog makes Fark and Slashdot look almost intelligent.

Jon Awbrey

This is funny.

Kooks, on the other hand are motivated to post a lot, and would readily respond to calls on Wikipedia Review and other sites to come to VC to take over a Wikipedia thread. (Sheesh, we even have Daniel Brandt here. Somehow I doubt he posted because he's normally a VC lurker.)

I think that people who spend a great deal of time writing Sailor Moon FAQs and anime fan fiction are a little kooky.

Dies Iræ?

The first e-stallment I tried to read looked like the room filled up with Conserva-Mosquitoes, and it got way too hard reading while rotflaffing — all that Bee-Looney about Wikipedia being a hotbed of Liberalism —

Last time I sampled it, Brandt and Kohs had posted a lot of hard-knocks analysis and data that everyone else just ignored — big surprise that.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Newyorkbrad]

Aside from a couple of cogent posts by Brandt and Kohs, the commentary on the VC Blog makes Fark and Slashdot look almost intelligent.

Jon Awbrey

This is funny.

Kooks, on the other hand are motivated to post a lot, and would readily respond to calls on Wikipedia Review and other sites to come to VC to take over a Wikipedia thread. (Sheesh, we even have Daniel Brandt here. Somehow I doubt he posted because he's normally a VC lurker.)

I think that people who spend a great deal of time writing Sailor Moon FAQs and anime fan fiction are a little kooky.

Dies Iræ?

The first e-stallment I tried to read looked like the room filled up with Conserva-Mosquitoes, and it got way too hard reading while rotflaffing — all that Bee-Looney about Wikipedia being a hotbed of Liberalism —

Last time I sampled it, Brandt and Kohs had posted a lot of hard-knocks analysis and data that everyone else just ignored — big surprise that.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

As previously promised, before I finish my guest blogging stint in a few days, I'll post links to here (both the board and the blog) and to Akihele, just so none can suggest that the purpose of my blogging there is to sugar-coat anything. I can't promise how many Volokh Conspiracy readers will follow the links, though: you can lead a horse to water, but .......

Apropos of nothing ... In one of the comment threads there, Mr. Brandt criticized the fact that I still haven't posted my real name on Wikipedia yet. Obviously, at this point I've decided to go ahead and make public that IBM=NYB, so at some point I'll probably post my name on my userpage, along with a couple of sentences of real-world bio (I'm a litigation attorney in New York, I'm the Werowance of the Wolfe Pack, etc.). I wonder exactly how long it will take before someone objects that I'm using Wikipedia for self-promotion.