MONGO quits, The cabal loses another one Options

[poopooball]

what a fcuking idiot. palaying teh victim when he shuld have taken teh orignal arbcom case with teh 'excessive zeal' as a sgn to back off. insted he is repremanded for waht he got away with b4 and btiches.

This post has been edited by poopooball: Mon 11th December 2006, 7:23pm

[Somey]

For a handy check on the current status of User:MONGO's Sysop flag, click here (the first is from meta, which is apparently the official record now - the second is just WP, which apparently isn't. (ed. 12/26, sorry for any confusion)):

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...AMONGO%40enwiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ge=User%3AMONGO

Meanwhile, a posting to WikiEN-L in defense of User:MONGO started an avalanche of controversy over there:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien...ber/058221.html

At first I thought "ConcernedWikipedian" must be User:Cyde, since he's really the only person so consumed by the need to defend his own sysoppiness that he'd write such a lengthy diatribe about a fellow admin who's almost as unpopular as he is. But Cyde would never write something like this:

Last time I checked, MONGO wasn't the only administrator who could, on occasion, skirt the guidelines of civility. I could name 15 or so who do it worse than he does, and yet it is him who takes the fall.

Obviously anyone reading that would immediately think of Cyde, since he'd be the list-topper, and Cyde's probably smart enough to realize that. Other possibilities include MONGO himself, newish admin User:Doug Bell, fellow admin User:Durin, and also non-admin User:Elaragirl, who went so far as to refer to us here at Wikipedia Review as "ghouls." All of them (the WP'ers that is, not us) have presumably egged MONGO on over the last year or so in his apparently self-proclaimed War on 9/11 "Truthers," and have recently appeared on MONGO's talk page to offer moral support. (I dunno, I think I actually like "ghouls" better than "trolls." Much scarier! What do you all think? I sense a poll coming on...)

I, for one, have mixed feelings about this whole situation. To some extent, I would think that an organization like Wikipedia, being practically all-volunteer (as far as we know), should reward loyalty, even at the expense of popularity. Not to do so could suggest that Wikipedia is rising to a new level of corporate arrogance, for want of a better term. But here's where MONGO really gets it wrong:

...when a person is "right" more than 99% of the time in the real world, they get a promotion. On wikipedia, if someone sifts through your entire contributions history and finds that 1% and posts it on an arbcom hearing...you get desysopped.

There's also a lot of "nobody's perfect" talk going back and forth in general, of course. If anything, I see this as further proof that MONGO works for the government. In private industry, you're judged by things like sales volume, earning performance, cost-cutting ability, and so on. Government workers (and, I'll admit, assembly-line workers and proofreaders) are among the only ones routinely judged on the basis of mistake percentage... In a typical private corporation, you can make all the mistakes you want, and as long as you keep contributing to increased revenue, you're fine. If you don't do that, just one mistake can be your last.

However, I have to admit that MONGO is right about the 1 percent thing, as it applies to Wikipedia. But if MONGO has 26,000 edits, does that mean he's made 260 mistakes? That's a lot of mistakes, even for them.

So I'm not sure what I would do if I were Jimbo... Probably nothing, which I'm sure is what he'll do.

[gomi]

I would think that an organization like Wikipedia, being practically all-volunteer (as far as we know), should reward loyalty, even at the expense of popularity. Not to do so could suggest that Wikipedia is rising to a new level of corporate arrogance, for want of a better term.

It makes perfect sense for Wikipedia to reward (some definition of) loyalty in editors. The problem is that when "loyalty" gets interpreted for admins, the collective gets it wrong, and the reinforcement cycle grows a group of brownshirts. The brownshirts, when they get tired of executing the others, turn on themselves, using ever-more-spurious definitions to "loyalty" to justify periodic purges.

Originally, Wikipedia sort of got it right, considering admins the "mop-and-bucket brigade". The ability to easily revert vandalism and perform other janitorial acts is just fine. It is the pseudo-Police (bans, blocks. checkuser, sock-hunting) and pseudo-Justice (Arbcom) functions of admins that are most prone to abuse, and most abused.

This post has been edited by gomi: Tue 12th December 2006, 11:57pm

[Jonny Cache]

I would think that an organization like Wikipedia, being practically all-volunteer (as far as we know), should reward loyalty, even at the expense of popularity. Not to do so could suggest that Wikipedia is rising to a new level of corporate arrogance, for want of a better term.

It makes perfect sense for Wikipedia to reward (some definition of) loyalty in editors. The problem is that when "loyalty" gets interpreted for admins, the collective gets it wrong, and the reinforcement cycle grows a group of brownshirts. The brownshirts, when they get tired of executing the others, turn on themselves, using ever-more-spurious definitions to "loyalty" to justify periodic purges.

Originally, Wikipedia sort of got it right, considering admins the "mop-and-bucket brigade". The ability to easily revert vandalism and perform other janitorial acts is just fine. It is the pseudo-Police (bans, blocks. checkuser, sock-hunting) and pseudo-Justice (Arbcom) functions of admins that are most prone to abuse, and most abused.

This is one of the clearest, most succinct summaries of the situation that I have read in a long time.

I award you the

Per Angusta Ad Augusta In A Nut'sHell Star Of Arete

``````````````Z.................

With Imprisoned Lightning Rocker

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 13th December 2006, 3:48am

[gomi]

This is one of the clearest, most succinct summaries of the situation that I have read in a long time.

I award you the Per Angusta Ad Augusta In A Nut'sHell Star Of Arete

Aw shucks, .... you like me! But can I have it as a barnstar for my home page?

[Somey]

I don't see why not... Still, if they come from us, maybe they should be called "ghoulstars"!

Back to the subject at hand, though... How then do we interpret this particular situation? Nobody would suggest that User:MONGO isn't loyal to Wikipedia. The issue seems to be that MONGO has put himself in some sort of psychological jeopardy by making himself into their attack-dog, to fight tooth-and-nail against the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and also the ED'ers. Phrases like "his mental state" are being used in the current discussion... He put himself in this position by choice, of course - I doubt that anybody twisted his arm. But ultimately, Wikipedia needs people like that.

Don't get me wrong, of course; Wikipedia is a corrupt and culturally-damaging institution, no question about it. But that doesn't change the fact that they need people like MONGO to keep going. What's really happening here, IMO, is that in order to maintain the illusion of neutrality, Wikipedia either has to ruthlessly attack any and all alternative-history types who come along, or use "improved technology" (i.e., tighter up-front editing restrictions and "smart" content filtering) to defend itself. Presumably, such technological controls would make Wikipedia less "open" and would "compromise its core principles." Can't have that! So, instead, they put their unpaid, psychologically ill-equipped admins out on the front line, drawing fire from people who, for good or ill, won't take no for an answer when it comes to getting attention for their extreme-minority ideas and theories.

I realize that by saying this, to a certain extent I'm actually agreeing with some of the most hard-line cabalists WP has to offer. (Sorry, folks!) Indeed, here's what MONGO uber-defender User:JzG has to say about it:

It seems to me that a fairly small proportion of admins do the lion's share of the work defending the project against lunatic fringes. That work can be utterly destructive to the individual's ability to maintain perspective. I wish I had some idea how to fix it. We are well set up for dealing with cluelessness and brainless vandalism, but we are much less sure I think of how to deal with determined, well-organised and intelligent groups determined to use the project for their own ends. And when they are also both malicious and resourceful, we have a real problem.

But think about it. He wishes he had some idea how to fix it? Has he never read a single word posted to this website, which I might add is just one among many?

People keep saying things like "Wikipedia can't survive," and "the system will collapse under its own weight," i.e., the weight of arrogance and anti-humanism, in a few more years. But it seems to me that it could survive almost indefinitely, as long as people like MONGO are willing to mess themselves up, and I mean seriously mess themselves up, defending it. And for what? That nice feeling you get when you compile lots of knowledge, without getting paid, to be given away for free?

Of course not. They're doing it because it makes them feel powerful, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia will survive as long as it can convince people that adminship is power, and that such power is obtainable by anyone who wants to play the game. And once you've won, the game still isn't over, because you have to keep your position, or else you lose.

How do they deal with that? Can they convince these loyal, mostly well-intentioned people they've hoodwinked that now the opposite is true, and that the system they've built isn't really a game? That adminship isn't "power" in any real sense of the word (important note: it isn't)? I don't see how they can. It's what the whole thing is founded upon. (Or co-founded, as the case may be.)

That's why it's a corrupt system. It doesn't just attract nutcases - it turns perfectly sane, productive people into nutcases, who wouldn't be otherwise.

If this is Web 2.0, I think we should either downgrade, or get Web 2.1 up and running as soon as possible!

[Jonny Cache]

Power-tripping autocrats. Power-tripping anarchists.

It's called symbiosis.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 13th December 2006, 4:03am

[Jonny Cache]

This is one of the clearest, most succinct summaries of the situation that I have read in a long time.

I award you the Per Angusta Ad Augusta In A Nut'sHell Star Of Arete

Aw shucks, .... you like me! But can I have it as a barnstar for my home page?

Sure, hang our Banshee Star on your Home Page door at Passover and your first-born child will be safe from the WikiPerils of the WikiPlague. Plus, the wider distribution of auto-shibboleths like that is guaranteed to swell the ranks of us Retching Refusniks in the Ghoulag Archipelago.

Jonny

[Jonny Cache]

I don't see why not... Still, if they come from us, maybe they should be called "ghoulstars"!

Back to the subject at hand, though... How then do we interpret this particular situation? Nobody would suggest that User:MONGO isn't loyal to Wikipedia. The issue seems to be that MONGO has put himself in some sort of psychological jeopardy by making himself into their attack-dog, to fight tooth-and-nail against the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and also the ED'ers. Phrases like "his mental state" are being used in the current discussion... He put himself in this position by choice, of course - I doubt that anybody twisted his arm. But ultimately, Wikipedia needs people like that.

Don't get me wrong, of course; Wikipedia is a corrupt and culturally-damaging institution, no question about it. But that doesn't change the fact that they need people like MONGO to keep going. What's really happening here, IMO, is that in order to maintain the illusion of neutrality, Wikipedia either has to ruthlessly attack any and all alternative-history types who come along, or use "improved technology" (i.e., tighter up-front editing restrictions and "smart" content filtering) to defend itself. Presumably, such technological controls would make Wikipedia less "open" and would "compromise its core principles." Can't have that! So, instead, they put their unpaid, psychologically ill-equipped admins out on the front line, drawing fire from people who, for good or ill, won't take no for an answer when it comes to getting attention for their extreme-minority ideas and theories.

I realize that by saying this, to a certain extent I'm actually agreeing with some of the most hard-line cabalists WP has to offer. (Sorry, folks!) Indeed, here's what MONGO uber-defender User:JzG has to say about it:

It seems to me that a fairly small proportion of admins do the lion's share of the work defending the project against lunatic fringes. That work can be utterly destructive to the individual's ability to maintain perspective. I wish I had some idea how to fix it. We are well set up for dealing with cluelessness and brainless vandalism, but we are much less sure I think of how to deal with determined, well-organised and intelligent groups determined to use the project for their own ends. And when they are also both malicious and resourceful, we have a real problem.

But think about it. He wishes he had some idea how to fix it? Has he never read a single word posted to this website, which I might add is just one among many?

People keep saying things like "Wikipedia can't survive," and "the system will collapse under its own weight," i.e., the weight of arrogance and anti-humanism, in a few more years. But it seems to me that it could survive almost indefinitely, as long as people like MONGO are willing to mess themselves up, and I mean seriously mess themselves up, defending it. And for what? That nice feeling you get when you compile lots of knowledge, without getting paid, to be given away for free?

Of course not. They're doing it because it makes them feel powerful, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia will survive as long as it can convince people that adminship is power, and that such power is obtainable by anyone who wants to play the game. And once you've won, the game still isn't over, because you have to keep your position, or else you lose.

How do they deal with that? Can they convince these loyal, mostly well-intentioned people they've hoodwinked that now the opposite is true, and that the system they've built isn't really a game? That adminship isn't "power" in any real sense of the word (important note: it isn't)? I don't see how they can. It's what the whole thing is founded upon. (Or co-founded, as the case may be.)

That's why it's a corrupt system. It doesn't just attract nutcases - it turns perfectly sane, productive people into nutcases, who wouldn't be otherwise.

If this is Web 2.0, I think we should either downgrade, or get Web 2.1 up and running as soon as possible!

This is all first-rate analysis, and I think that its main principles need to be abstrated from the concrete particulars of these more peculiar cases.

I never encountered MONGO myself, and as I slowly back away from the Amalgamated Jimbo-Larry Big Top, I'm losing what little fascination I once had with the Ins & Outs of their individual Wiki-Pathos-&-Bathos.

So, the Quest that would pass from the Futile to the Future demands that we try to articulate the general thematics of the underlying dynamics. I made one of my own last best efforts to do that at the outset of the Citizendium project, as I could see that train going down a parallel track to obliviousness, if not sheer oblivion. Alas! A lack of attention to good faith critical reflection seems to be the symptom to end all symptoms, and so that try of mine was a short-lived trial indeed.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 13th December 2006, 5:12pm

[anon1234]

Don't get me wrong, of course; Wikipedia is a corrupt and culturally-damaging institution, no question about it. But that doesn't change the fact that they need people like MONGO to keep going. What's really happening here, IMO, is that in order to maintain the illusion of neutrality, Wikipedia either has to ruthlessly attack any and all alternative-history types who come along, or use "improved technology" (i.e., tighter up-front editing restrictions and "smart" content filtering) to defend itself. Presumably, such technological controls would make Wikipedia less "open" and would "compromise its core principles." Can't have that! So, instead, they put their unpaid, psychologically ill-equipped admins out on the front line, drawing fire from people who, for good or ill, won't take no for an answer when it comes to getting attention for their extreme-minority ideas and theories.

You keep referring to Wikipedia as a thing that uses admins and makes certain choices. Wikipedia is a group of people, all with different goals. You are making a significant error in assigning coherent motives to this amorphous thing that is Wikipedia. It is particular editors that feel they need to promote or remove specific content from Wikipedia, sometimes these editors gain allies and sometimes they don't. In the end, what ends up in Wikipedia is roughly a statistical reflection of what the relatively literate and internet savvy portion of society believes.

It is mistaken to think that Wikipedia has significant causative effect, it is more like a mirror of society. If society believes the Truthers then it makes sense to document their theories in Wikipedia, and they probably will end up in Wikipedia because there are enough people who push to get that topic included. It's not the end of the world, because remember that Wikipedia is more of a mirror of the current state than a true cause of societal beliefs.

Of course not. They're doing it because it makes them feel powerful, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia will survive as long as it can convince people that adminship is power, and that such power is obtainable by anyone who wants to play the game. And once you've won, the game still isn't over, because you have to keep your position, or else you lose.

How do they deal with that? Can they convince these loyal, mostly well-intentioned people they've hoodwinked that now the opposite is true, and that the system they've built isn't really a game? That adminship isn't "power" in any real sense of the word (important note: it isn't)? I don't see how they can. It's what the whole thing is founded upon. (Or co-founded, as the case may be.)

Again you are assigning collective intentions to Wikipedia -- "as long as it can convince people that adminship is power." Wikipedia is not convincing people that adminship is power -- it is the people, some of them admins, who believe that it is power and a status symbol, and they are self-reinforcing. This is the normal way things happen in any group -- people seek out status symbols and attempt to gain power. The orientation on Wikipedia towards admins, arbitrators and bureaucrats and what not are just the manifestation within the confines of Wikipedia of this universal human need for power and status.

The real source of Wikipedia's power comes from the amount to which the general public reads wikipedia articles, which is closely related to the Google ranking afforded to its articles. Everything else is just details resulting from the over-analysis of internal Wikipedia politics.

[anon1234]

It is mistaken to think that Wikipedia has significant causative effect, it is more like a mirror of society. If society believes the Truthers then it makes sense to document their theories in Wikipedia, and they probably will end up in Wikipedia because there are enough people who push to get that topic included.

Just to be clear, there is a very large segment of society that does believe the truthers:
9/11: The Roots of Paranoia

It is less fringe that one would expect. The only way to fight off the masses of truthers is to engage in the worst Cabal-like excesses.

[Jonny Cache]

You keep referring to Wikipedia as a thing that uses admins and makes certain choices. Wikipedia is a group of people, all with different goals. You are making a significant error in assigning coherent motives to this amorphous thing that is Wikipedia. It is particular editors that feel they need to promote or remove specific content from Wikipedia, sometimes these editors gain allies and sometimes they don't. In the end, what ends up in Wikipedia is roughly a statistical reflection of what the relatively literate and internet savvy portion of society believes.

"In the end, what ends up in Wikipedia is roughly a statistical reflection of what the relatively literate and internet savvy portion of society believes." ???

Screeching halt. That's a nice recitation of the Wikipedia Mythos -- The Way It's Posed 2B -- some of us can even remember reciting that stuff ourselves. But actually believing it betrays a lack of acquaintance with the types of incidents that actually prevail in the Wikipedia system. No doubt some people are lucky enough to escape the experience of those sorts of occurrences -- more likely it's just a matter of time until they encounter them.

And, yes, it's evidently a big part of many Wikipedians self-images that they are "the relatively literate and internet savvy portion of society", but the fact is that the prevailing power elite of the Wikipedia system is a bunch of Usenet boobs who show no evidence of having seen the inside of a real world library, who are so disenculturated to normal intellectual society that they have yet to discover the necessity of using their real world names in discussions, much less being aware of the long-running dialogue that has been going on about the nature of knowledge and inquiry in an open society.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 13th December 2006, 6:17pm

[gomi]

It is less fringe that one would expect.

If you were right, it would be an example of what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority." However, you discount the Internet as an empowering tool for nutcases everwhere; it has become something more like "the tyranny of the paranoid believer". Never before have Hyde Park box-standers had such a large audience.

[anon1234]

It is less fringe that one would expect.

If you were right, it would be an example of what Thomas Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority." However, you discount the Internet as an empowering tool for nutcases everwhere; it has become something more like "the tyranny of the paranoid believer". Never before have Hyde Park box-standers had such a large audience.

I honestly believe that Wikipedia can aspire to little more than a mirror of certain segments of society, with more weight given to committed and/or coordinated activists groups like the truthers -- thus it is completely a victim of the tyranny of the majority. This is related to why Wikipedia is targeted by committed fan groups that fill it with articles on TV show trivia, computer game characters, descriptions of minor roads and every elementary school ever to exist. To think that the current structure can aspire to something higher is to set oneself up against the statistical flow of society, and its a recipe for a lot of work and almost requires one to descend into the gross excesses of Wikipedia Cabalism to be successful.

it may be more accurate to call it the "tyranny of those have the most time and dedication and ability to work within the system." Paranoiacs or simple majorities isn't really who wields the power on Wikipedia -- although that may be true in specific cases.

[Somey]

You keep referring to Wikipedia as a thing that uses admins and makes certain choices. Wikipedia is a group of people, all with different goals. You are making a significant error in assigning coherent motives to this amorphous thing that is Wikipedia. It is particular editors that feel they need to promote or remove specific content from Wikipedia, sometimes these editors gain allies and sometimes they don't...

Okay, fair enough...

It's easy to fall into what Jonny refers to as the "Group Identity Myth" with Wikipedia, but that really is unfair to the people who are working from the inside to fix and/or improve things. (Sorry, people! I got carried away there.)

So, what I really should have written was that a person like MONGO probably has a motivating concept going through his head, which to some extent is a misconceptualization, in which Wikipedia is a single, monolithic entity - an institution, to be precise. I doubt that he sees himself as defending Wikipedia's admins or Wikipedia's editors or even Wikipedia's content. Instead, I suspect that he sees himself as (and this is the second time I've used this term in just one week) a "Knight Errant," or maybe something like a Japanese ronin samurai warrior, defending the kingdom from outside invaders. He's frustrated that "nobody else understands" how important it is to keep the conspiracy nuts out, because once they're in, they'll ruin everything, and therefore the end (getting rid of them) justifies the means (repeated incivility and rule violations).

Maybe the question really should be, when someone like MONGO is faced with an ArbCom case and the strong possibility that he'll lose his admin status, who or what does he think is betraying him and refusing to recognize his loyalty and hard work? The people, or the institution? That might not seem all that important, but I'd say that if he thinks the institution is betraying him, he's much more likely to suffer real psychological damage from it.

It's not the end of the world, because remember that Wikipedia is more of a mirror of the current state than a true cause of societal beliefs.

Agreed, but tell that to MONGO!

Again you are assigning collective intentions to Wikipedia -- "as long as it can convince people that adminship is power." Wikipedia is not convincing people that adminship is power -- it is the people, some of them admins, who believe that it is power and a status symbol, and they are self-reinforcing. This is the normal way things happen in any group -- people seek out status symbols and attempt to gain power. The orientation on Wikipedia towards admins, arbitrators and bureaucrats and what not are just the manifestation within the confines of Wikipedia of this universal human need for power and status.

Well, the same applies here, which is to say that you're correct, but I'd still say that Wikipedia is unusual in terms of social and power dynamics - it's like an "attractive nuisance" as far as its relationship to society goes. That is to say, in the so-called "real world," you need more than an IP address, a lot of spare time, and a willingness to play by the rules to obtain power and status... In fact, in most cases, those things are a major hindrance!

[anon1234]

Well, the same applies here, which is to say that you're correct, but I'd still say that Wikipedia is unusual in terms of social and power dynamics - it's like an "attractive nuisance" as far as its relationship to society goes. That is to say, in the so-called "real world," you need more than an IP address, a lot of spare time, and a willingness to play by the rules to obtain power and status... In fact, in most cases, those things are a major hindrance!

I agree with the majority of your comment except for the above. I think that you suffer from "Wikipedia exceptionalism", the belief that Wikipedia is unique in the way its human dynamics plays out. I've worked in business environments that have been politicized because of egotistic but fragile leaders and it isn't all that different on Wikipedia if you happen to encounter the right admin. A lot of people I've seen get banned from Wikipedia, while they felt personally like they were fighting for all that is right and just, were engaging in head-on confrontations with fragile but egotistic admins, a recipe that is just as guaranteed to fail if you tried it in real life against a person with authority who has similar characteristics.

[Jonny Cache]

The very idea that Wikipedia content or Wikipedia user conduct has any sort of valid statistical relationship either to objective reality or to the opinions of society is just total nonsense. Wikipedia has no positive resemblance to legitimate journalism, opinion polling, or scholarship in any sense of the words.

There's a double disconnect in many of the assertions being made above:

• First, an encyclopedia is not an opinion poll, that is, a statistical average or a weighted summary of the beliefs that a given population is willing to express about a given selection of subjects.
• Second, if one really were serious about conducting an opinion poll, the hit-or-miss screaming matches and Ouija Board wars that are carried on by a given day's motley of Wikipedia participants would be just about the most utterly absurd and invalid way to do it that anyone could imagine.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 14th December 2006, 5:59am

[gomi]

To be fair, I don't hear anon1234 saying that Wikipedia should be the way he describes. I actually think it is an interesting analysis, though I don't entirely buy it. One of the chief problems with Wikipedia is indeed that it is a dung-heap of sordid, unsorted opinion. What, if any, section of the Internet, America, or the world it might statistically resemble is another argument. However, observation of the reality distortion field surrounding certain topics, ranging from Mid-East politics to Canadian politicians to Animal Rights activists and beyond, would indicate that creation of an objective, scientific, journalistic encyclopedia is not what is actually going on in many places. Hell, there have been edit wars and Arbcom cases about flat-earthers, anti-Einstein activists, and other aspects of well-settled science, not to mention the articles that give the tin-foil hat crowd a woody (9/11, JFK assasination, etc).

What I disagree with, most vociferously, is that this is a cross-section of any "relatively literate" crowd, whether Internet-saavy or not. Perhaps anon1234 has a different definition of "relatively literate" than mine, but much of the Wikipedia crowd seems to be high-school aged, out of their field, or damaged in some other fundamental way. Most of them can't research their way out of a paper bag, even with google.

So to bring this back to MONGO's departure, I don't get the chest-thumping. The good people should leave, or perhaps limit themselves to minor policing in limited areas. Getting involved in the administrative bureaucracy is just abetting the crime. The Wikipedia model is broken: "anyone can edit" means that there will never be a way to trust Wikipedia as anything other than a glorified blog written by a million monkeys, and the administrative structure that exists now works, at best, orthogonally to accuracy and credibility and, as in this case, most often much worse than that. If this is anon's thesis, then I heartily agree.

[Somey]

A lot of people I've seen get banned from Wikipedia, while they felt personally like they were fighting for all that is right and just, were engaging in head-on confrontations with fragile but egotistic admins, a recipe that is just as guaranteed to fail if you tried it in real life against a person with authority who has similar characteristics.

Hmm... By "fragile," do you mean people with weak ego facades, who become defensive and hostile when challenged? Or are you thinking more about people who just have a tendency to overestimate themselves, particularly with respect to their talents and abilities? (Or something else entirely?) I guess I'd assume the former, but to be honest I've been assuming too much lately!

Earlier I pointed out that some of what I've been saying about MONGO is in full agreement with some of the nastier cabal-types WP has to offer. Check out this quote from Greg Maxwell - he's in favor of desysopping MONGO, and is cleverly trying to spin it as a form of mercy, given that MONGO is burned out and behaving erratically:

I think that, as a result of our environment, far too many people feel like they are the sole defenders of the Wiki. I think the impossibility of success as a sole defender is causing people to exhibit a pattern of volatility and highly emotional responses which are counter productive, something of a sole defender syndrome.

What Maxwell is calling "sole defender syndrome" actually has a name already, IMO - "hypervigilance" - and it usually arises out of post-traumatic stress. Also, it eventually goes away, if the person is removed from the stress-causing situation for a long-enough period of time. However, it can also be associated with addictive behavior, of various kinds. Now, the people who obsessively edit Wikipedia day-in-day-out are, for the most part, probably not the sort of people who are prone to dependence on alcohol, hard drugs, or things of that nature... But if they were, they might have a better understanding of what happens inside the addicted brain when something, or someone, threatens the supply.

How does this tie in, you ask? It ties in because addiction weakens the mind, makes it more fragile - indeed, crumbles one's inner strength - all while having very little noticeable effect on the person's ego facade. Whether or not this is affecting MONGO is an open question, as it would be for anyone on WP, given that we don't really know who the f**k any of them really are. But these people ignore the effects of wiki addiction at their utmost peril, and all the while, Jimbo & Co. laugh all the way to the bank. (And then they wonder why we criticize the system to such an extent.)

...an encyclopedia is not an opinion poll, that is, a statistical average or a weighted summary of the beliefs that a given population is willing to express about a given selection of subjects.

It almost makes you wonder why anyone would want an encyclopedia to be any of those things, doesn't it!

A while ago there was a news article by a guy named Andy Updegrove who used the term "the end of archaeology" to describe what he saw as the "real" value of WP, i.e., that of a cultural snapshot of sorts:

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblo...061030173044439

...I believe that the real significance of the Wikipedia is not its status as a compendium of information, but rather its ability to provide a record of how we see ourselves, our heritage, our current events and our culture in real-time as those perceptions evolve.

I didn't know what to make of it at the time, and I guess I still don't. On the one hand, he's probably right. On the other, it's this kind of apologist spin-doctoring that's going to ultimately result in our having nothing left but anonymously-produced collaborative websites left as information resources in the future, which is really not something to look forward to.

At the same time, if people generally accept that sort reasoning, then I suppose MONGO really should be desysopped. After all, by trying to keep the conspiracy-theorists out of Wikipedia, he's actually reducing the accuracy of the cultural snapshot, isn't he? It's like the very height of irony, in a way.

[LamontStormstar]

The Wikipedia model is broken: "anyone can edit" means that there will never be a way to trust Wikipedia as anything other than a glorified blog written by a million monkeys, and the administrative structure that exists now works, at best, orthogonally to accuracy and credibility and, as in this case, most often much worse than that. If this is anon's thesis, then I heartily agree.

???

or·thog·o·nal /ɔrˈθɒgənl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr-thog-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. Mathematics. a. Also, orthographic. pertaining to or involving right angles or perpendiculars: an orthogonal projection.
b. (of a system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the product of any two different functions is zero.
c. (of a system of complex functions) defined so that the integral of the product of a function times the complex conjugate of any other function equals zero.
d. (of two vectors) having an inner product equal to zero.
e. (of a linear transformation) defined so that the length of a vector under the transformation equals the length of the original vector.
f. (of a square matrix) defined so that its product with its transpose results in the identity matrix.

2. Crystallography. referable to a rectangular set of axes.




Uhh.....

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Thu 14th December 2006, 7:43am