Wiki-Induced Kognitive Insufficiency (WIKI), Enough Symptomatics! What Is The Cause? Options Rating

[Jonny Cache]

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, I know the dynamics of our own sweet Etopia well enough to know that nothing so meditative will compete with the Main Distraction on the Midway this week … or the next … but I thought I might leave this note to self, just in case things get dull toward the Ides.

P.S. I was going to call it Wiki-Induced Learning Disorder but the acronym WILD might have made it sound like a good thing.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Kato]

A simple answer could be that the software discourages a positive learning experience.

Productive learning requires an environment of patience, encouragement, confidence re-enforcement, room to breathe and so on.

In contrast, the mediawiki format fuels antagonism, competitiveness, impatience, anxiety. I'm not sure I fully understand why, much of this may be put down to superficial reasons right down to the use of font for example, but it does.

[whatever]

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings. Although I'm not sure I as yet support the idea that Wikipedia has failed.

[Jonny Cache]

A simple answer could be that the software discourages a positive learning experience.

Productive learning requires an environment of patience, encouragement, confidence re-enforcement, room to breathe and so on.

In contrast, the mediawiki format fuels antagonism, competitiveness, impatience, anxiety. I'm not sure I fully understand why, much of this may be put down to superficial reasons right down to the use of font for example, but it does.

I have been always been careful to distinguish the wiki software paradigm in general from the more specious spin-oof [sic] of Wikipedia, and I will continue to do that.

But I think I'm beginning to recognize a few "features" of the genus Wiki that were always bound to degenerate into bugs — at any rate, in any eviralment that involves post-critical masses of human users, especially the sort who are using technology as a crutch to flee their own humanity.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Jonny Cache]

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings. Although I'm not sure I as yet support the idea that Wikipedia has failed.

Sure, all of that goes with the territory of being human.

But the reason why we build tools is to leverage our strengths and compensate for our weaknesses. Of course we wouldn't want to cop out with the proverbial excuse of the poor workman and blame our tools for everything that goes wrong with the work. But it really is the case sometimes that we have to examine the bugs that bedevil our tools and try to build better ones.

I understand the wish of many to deny what's before their eyes, but I think it will just keep hitting us in the face that all our plans to turn this wiki-tool-thing to good purpose — to facilitate communication and learning and knowledge and all that — that all these plans have gang agley somehow.

So I think we need to look very carefully at the properties of the Soc-Tech Architecture that Jimbo et Larry et alia built on the infrastructure of the wiki software platform — with especial attention to the components that might be amplifying the negative more than the accentuating the positive in human nature.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Moulton]

Wikipedia doesn't define itself as a Learning Community.

Rather it defines itself as a Knowledge Dissemination Community.

That is, the participants on Wikipedia adopt the conceit that their beliefs already represent accurate knowledge and are thus worthy of publication without further ado.

But inevitably the participants encounter conflicting beliefs (or conflicting points of view).

Since Wikipedia is not a Learning Community, it lacks a Research Mode for resolving questions of incompatible beliefs. Instead, the conflict turns into unproductive political drama.

[Jonny Cache]

Wikipedia doesn't define itself as a Learning Community.

Rather it defines itself as a Knowledge Dissemination Community.

That is, the participants on Wikipedia adopt the conceit that their beliefs already represent accurate knowledge and are thus worthy of publication without further ado.

But inevitably the participants encounter conflicting beliefs (or conflicting points of view).

Since Wikipedia is not a Learning Community, it lacks a Research Mode for resolving questions of incompatible beliefs. Instead, the conflict turns into unproductive political drama.

Sure 'Nuff …

But in order for knowledge to be disseminated — don't go there, ya knuckleheads — there must be seminator and seminatee.

When you get too many editors — and especially too many administrators — who have become so content with what they already incline to think that they cannot permit another thought to break through the smug snugness of their Cognitive Immune System, well, then you have ceased to have a real encyclopedia at all.

Strictly speaking, we must distinguish between Learning Communities and Learning Organizations. The two ideas can be combined, but they don't always have to be. Sadly, all too sadly, Wikipedia is failing on both scores.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Moulton]

Yes, a Learning Organization (in the sense of Peter Senge) is one that does learn, even though learning is not its primary purpose. There is copious evidence that Wikipedia is not a Learning Organization, but rather one that exhibits classic patterns of Learning Resistance and Learning Disability.

[Jonny Cache]

Yes, a Learning Organization (in the sense of Peter Senge) is one that does learn, even though learning is not its primary purpose. There is copious evidence that Wikipedia is not a Learning Organization, but rather one that exhibits classic patterns of Learning Resistance and Learning Disability.

Check.

I think we're all too familiar with the human frailties afoot here, but my aim is to focus on the features of this particular Soc-Tech Architecture that were supposedly crafted to serve as social prosthetics and yet have somehow done little more than rub more salt in our ♣-footed heroic flaws.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[AB]

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, if by uncritical you mean amoral, then...

The belief that the worth of a person is determined by
how much they help or harm 'the encyclopaedia'. They
dehumanise themselves by reducing their worth as a
human being to how much they help the encyclopaedia,
have little empathy for those who only help the
encyclopaedia a bit, no empathy for those who don't
help, and scorn for those they see as harmful. They
have no respect for anyone's worth as a human being,
whether it be a question of human feelings or human
life.

Note that I am talking about an extremist position -
many may display milder variants of that philosophy.

[Jonny Cache]

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, if by uncritical you mean amoral, then …

The belief that the worth of a person is determined by how much they help or harm 'the encyclopaedia'. They dehumanise themselves by reducing their worth as a human being to how much they help the encyclopaedia, have little empathy for those who only help the encyclopaedia a bit, no empathy for those who don't help, and scorn for those they see as harmful. They have no respect for anyone's worth as a human being, whether it be a question of human feelings or human life.

Note that I am talking about an extremist position — many may display milder variants of that philosophy.

I probably wouldn't take the primary sense of uncritical to be amoral, but I do sense some sort of relation, perhaps because ethics is a normative science having to do with the conceivable goodness of conduct, and that in turn implies a conception of prudent decision-making and considerate judgment in action toward an end. Or something like that.

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

Supposing smearing, defamation, privacy violations,
and cutting people's fingers off did help their
encyclopaedia. That still wouldn't make those
actions right.

[Jonny Cache]

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

Supposing smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off did help their encyclopædia. That still wouldn't make those actions right.

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny B)

I don't actually care if it helps their
encyclopaedia or not. Still wrong.

[Jonny Cache]

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

I don't actually care if it helps their encyclopædia or not. Still wrong.

Good. Now that we have that settled, let's all return to supposing things that might actually have a chance of being true.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[AB]

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny B)

I don't actually care if it helps their encyclopædia or not. Still wrong.

Good. Now that we have that settled, let's all return to supposing things that might actually have a chance of being true.

Jonny B)

Do you believe there is some relationship between right and
wrong and what helps and harms their 'encyclopaedia'?

[Jonny Cache]

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

[Kato]

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

[whatever]

I understand the wish of many to deny what's before their eyes, but I think it will just keep hitting us in the face that all our plans to turn this wiki-tool-thing to good purpose — to facilitate communication and learning and knowledge and all that — that all these plans have gang agley somehow.

So I think we need to look very carefully at the properties of the Soc-Tech Architecture that Jimbo et Larry et alia built on the infrastructure of the wiki software platform — with especial attention to the components that might be amplifying the negative more than the accentuating the positive in human nature.

I might be misreading you again but I'll have another stab.

There are issues with allowing anonymous and ip editing, and there are problems with allowing people to have multiple accounts. It will be interesting to see how citizendium plays out because they have closed down those run-a-rounds. But does closing down those run-a-rounds mean you lose appeal and so lose the ability to build a critical mass?

There are also issues with allowing pages to always be editable, not allowing a stable version to sit in front and also allowing people unlimited editing. Page protection does not work as well as limiting editors would. If you could technologically enforce a one edit per editor rule on a disputed page, say one edit per editor to the disputed article a day, and then if that doesn't slow down the edit war, one edit a week, to enforce consensus editing.

Create or adopt a manual of style first, and make that something people have to sign up to. That will solve a large number of disputes.

Ban user bots. If someone wants a bot to do something, get the developers to instigate it through a developer controlled bot account. A lot of disputes centre around bot actions. Make a bot which edits articles inline with the manual of style. That will stop a lot of issues.

Trust your editors. Implement stages through which an editor will grow. For every 1000 edits above a certain kilobyte, grant access to a tool. Avoid voting.

Automate tagging tasks.

Establish a deletion process which is transparent, open and mandates discussion. Perhaps jury led deletion, or possibly even a two tier system of the "published" encyclopedia and the "draft"encyclopedia, so nothing needs to be deleted, it is simply subject to constant revision.

Own the content. Don't duck the legal issues, embrace them. This will enforce better practises. Make the published encyclopedia accountable, the workshop one the bulletin board.

Just flying kites. Not sure how practical they all are and whether they create more issues than they purport to solve.

[AB]

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Well, I'm thinking you, Jonny, and Herschel probably wouldn't get
along with Jimmy. Where that would go would depend on who
held the power.

You probably should've used Persons A, B, C, and D, where none
of them have ever heard of each other.