The Purpose Of Criticism, & The Critique Of Pure Pose Options Rating

[dtobias]

The way websites come to an end depends on how they were run to begin with... if they're big-money, high-profile ones like in the infamous dot-com boom of the late '90s, they're likely to flame out spectactularly when the money runs out and the business plan is finally seen as unworkable, probably leading to it vanishing completely or getting bought out by some other company and transformed into something completely different. On the other hand, sites involving less money (and run mostly as labors-of-love by their owners and participants) are more likely to have a long, slow fade-out as they gradually turn into "cobweb sites" that are rarely updated and have little activity, but remain online because it doesn't cost anybody very much to keep them running (most personal websites, on a cheap hosting account, fit in this category). At some point in the distant future there's an anticlimactic actual end when the owner fails to renew the domain name and/or hosting account and links to the site go dead (or maybe wind up going to a cybersquatting porn site).

[Moulton]

Or, more likely, the hardware dies and it ain't worth the trouble to resurrect it on a new machine.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

With respect, or lack thereof, to Wikipedia, there appear to be at least two schools of thought that prevail among the members of this Review.

• There are those who, having entered Wikipedia, have abandoned all hope of saving it.
• There are those who wait in Casablocca, and wait, and wait, and wait, ..., and wait ...

For my part, the good of this Review, in concert with the purpose of criticism at large, is far broader than a focal fixation on the fate, good or ill, of Wikipedia.

For me, the main attraction of this forum, however strange, is cued by the phrase, "for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects", where the extension to "other Wikimedia projects" remains, in a choice word, critical.

That's the e-scape clause that affords us a port to the future.

So let's not muff the opportunity.

Jonny

I do not believe in, nor do I have faith in, the structural integrity of any corporation that exists in a vacuum without anyone at the helm. Fake people and fake laws. Such is the case in re: Wikipedia. I do not agree with the basic premise of any “wiki” or system of knowledge, that cannot be secured against a continuous stream of kids changing the truth, at will. Wikipedia is successful because of the tireless effort of thousands of people working for work sake. Although very admirable, the end result is a default state that becomes only as wise and simple as all the editors involved, can, in fact, produce. It is average, then, at best.

I do not want a presence there, and I will not work there. However, if the project ever merges into a corporate structure like Microsoft or Google, I will re-think my position.

I came here because a group of kids invaded WP using my good name.

I left with the help of real life counsel…

http://www.Musiclaw1.com


Thank you Frank, Isotope23, and NewYorkBrad for deleting the feaux Lee.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Sun 16th March 2008, 4:36pm

[Wolfe]

No true at all. The Sciences are born of disagreements. But modern scientific practices allow for the endless disagreements to be played out in a comparatively productive, progressive manner. Yet on WP scientific methods have been utterly eschewed by Wales and his useless dispute resolution practices, much to our loss.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me. Would you agree that there is a greater degree of consensus in the sciences than there is in say, English Literature or Philosophy (the latter has a shared method, but empirical evidence plays little or no role because of the nature of the questions)? It's really a distinction of degree rather than kind.

Wales is clearly a clown and Wikipedia is obviously flawed in several ways, but despite the inmates being in control of the asylum I would have expected Wikipedia to be far worse than it is. I guess I count as an "expert" in a particular field, and while I can find stuff I don't like on my topic in Wikipedia, it is no worse than Britannica and more extensive.

I realize that unlike myself a lot of posters here have had unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia, probably at the hands of the sociopaths and control freaks (Jayjg in particular, who is a thoroughly revolting individual) that led me to this place.

I do not want a presence there, and I will not work there. However, if the project ever merges into a corporate structure like Microsoft or Google, I will re-think my position.

I think I'd die if Microsoft took it over, although I suggested in a recent Slashdot post that Google would be the perfect company to take it over.

Whatever happens, the incompetent Wales needs to go.

[Jonny Cache]

The sciences are probably the area within academia where there is most agreement, given shared methods and a relative lack of politically controversial material.

Not true at all. The Sciences are born of disagreements. But modern scientific practices allow for the endless disagreements to be played out in a comparatively productive, progressive manner. Yet on WP scientific methods have been utterly eschewed by Wales and his useless dispute resolution practices, much to our loss.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me. Would you agree that there is a greater degree of consensus in the sciences than there is in say, English Literature or Philosophy (the latter has a shared method, but empirical evidence plays little or no role because of the nature of the questions)? It's really a distinction of degree rather than kind.

Wales is clearly a clown and Wikipedia is obviously flawed in several ways, but despite the inmates being in control of the asylum I would have expected Wikipedia to be far worse than it is. I guess I count as an "expert" in a particular field, and while I can find stuff I don't like on my topic in Wikipedia, it is no worse than Britannica and more extensive.

I realize that unlike myself a lot of posters here have had unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia, probably at the hands of the sociopaths and control freaks (Jayjg in particular, who is a thoroughly revolting individual) that led me to this place.

Other than yeoperson proof-reading work, it never occurred to me to edit articles in areas that I had not studied for several decades. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia is downright atrocious in most parts of most of those areas. My attempts to bring a host of articles up to the level of basic textbook knowledge were transiently successful, but most of that has been eroded in the time since I left.

Wikipediots on the whole lack the basic respect for knowledge that it takes to manage any type of knowledge resource. It's a waste of time trying to improve the quality of content in Wikipedia. People who have anything beyond high school howlers, popular misconceptions, teeny-bopper trivia, and urban legends to contribute need to find a worksite where the adults are still in charge.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 17th March 2008, 2:22pm

[Gold heart]

WP is a bit like Route 66, it's changing rapidly and surely. Going are the days of friendships among editors, to be replaced by snarley editors, and their snarley admins. Through the years I have worked with mainly British and Irish editors, and on both sides the friendships have been of a warm and cordial nature. But that day is almost gone, even amongst Irish editors, of which I am one, the friendships are gone, and a coldness looms. And whois is responsible for all this, snarley admins who have gotten much bigger than the editors, and consider themselves some sort of untouchable elite. We saw it lately when a handful of admins continuously attacked Vintagekits over his misplaced adjectives, and there were a few. They completely overdid their roll and developed a hysteria about the subject. Then the concerted abuse followed - a long tale of woe which I won't rehash. What's not always realised is that even if one editor on Wikipedia is mistreated, that mistreatment becomes the standard, and becomes what in fact Wikipedia is, a cesspool of abuse and debortuary. Wikipedia won't demise, but like Route 66, it will change. If it doesn't change its ways, it's finished.

"whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me"

[Milton Roe]

WP is a bit like Route 66, it's changing rapidly and surely. Going are the days of friendships among editors, to be replaced by snarley editors, and their snarley admins. ..Wikipedia won't demise, but like Route 66, it will change. If it doesn't change its ways, it's finished.

Out where I live, Route 66 is called Foothill Blvd and is full of no-tell hotels, old radiator repair shops, and manufacturing buildings tagged with orange spraypaint graffiti. At night, the water mains aboveground are cut and stolen for their copper content. It's gone downhill greatly.

It's a function of too many people: The village changes into the city, then the center becomes the ghetto. The sense of community is sometimes lost if the place is so filled with people that you don't know your neighbors. People are nicer to each other as function of population density; you know this if you've visited Nevada, Alaska, Utah. But people are always nicer as pioneers, because that's the kind of people pioneers are.

The only hope I have, is that there are other selection factors, too, which operate even though density of people and anonymity. Have you ever been to the Burning Man festival in Nevada? For a few weeks, 40,000 or more people converge in a small place in the desert, and manage to be nice to each other, even though they don't know each other. It's the spirit with which they come in the first place. And there is a selection factor that only people who plan ahead for tickets and are prepared for the inclement conditions and conditions of no possible economic benefit, are represented. (Kosher Greg might ruminate on that, a bit).

In any case. Never underestimate the power of pre-selection. I was thinking about this the other day when an English friend of mine remarked that he thought Japanese were all very clever, until he spent some time actually in Japan, where he met many stupid Japanese. Then he realized his problem: he hadn't previously known a truly representative sample. Likewise, the internet in general and Wikipedia in particular used to be a far more interesting place, in the times when not everybody could get there.

Frontiers, my boy! Frontiers!

-- Wyatt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 18th March 2008, 3:57am

[Milton Roe]

I guess I count as an "expert" in a particular field, and while I can find stuff I don't like on my topic in Wikipedia, it is no worse than Britannica and more extensive.

LOL. Yes. I'm reminded of Sagan's tale about "Worlds in Collision" Velikovsky, and what audiences thought of the man. He said the scientists thought his science abominable, but his history good; whereas the historians thought his history terrible but his science brilliant. (The irony is that a bit of the same was said of Sagan; it is ever the fate of polymaths to look great, only so long as they stay away from groups of experts).

If you ask any random group of a few hundred people a random question, something interesting happens. Odds are bad that they'll contain any geniune world-expert on any single small topic. But on the other hand, odds are good that somebody in a group of that many people, will know more about (almost) anything, than YOU do. So also Wikipedia and USENET. Try to stay away from things you really know a lot about, and if you can, it all seems quite reasonable and true indeed. And perhaps, in some sense, it is. These things are relative. Wikipedia is actually better than average. It takes billllllions and billllllions to produce the very best of everything.

Better-than-average is good. And of course the best is ever the enemy of the good.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 18th March 2008, 4:21am

[Jonny Cache]

The Mush Mouth Of The Month Contest Is Down The Hall

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 18th March 2008, 12:36pm

[Wolfe]

If you ask any random group of a few hundred people a random question, something interesting happens. Odds are bad that they'll contain any geniune world-expert on any single small topic. But on the other hand, odds are good that somebody in a group of that many people, will know more about (almost) anything, than YOU do. So also Wikipedia and USENET. Try to stay away from things you really know a lot about, and if you can, it all seems quite reasonable and true indeed. And perhaps, in some sense, it is. These things are relative. Wikipedia is actually better than average. It takes billllllions and billllllions to produce the very best of everything.

I know a lot about my chosen subject, so there won't be many people on earth who know more than me (it is insanely obscure). However, there will be very many people who, while they know less than me, know something I don't know about the subject.

I'm an academic, and the one thing I have learned is that even the most educated people in our society don't know all that much.

In many cases, groups of individuals are superior to individuals when it comes to getting the correct result. Wikipedia is a test case. The interesting thing is that it isn't a complete failure. I can think of probably half a dozen things that could be done that would make it much better than it is. The problem is that the project as it stands absolutely reeks of bongwater, and as usual in such cases, the idealists are taken for a ride by the sociopaths.

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia. They just need to set effective rules and engage professional management. One obvious problem is that the project serves the interests of the editors rather than the readers.

[Moulton]

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia. They just need to set effective rules and engage professional management. One obvious problem is that the project serves the interests of the editors rather than the readers.

It is a myth that there exists an effective set of rules to create a functional system. If you want a functional system, you have to build it out of functions, not rules. The language of rules is too weak a language to craft the requisite functions.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.

This comparison keeps turning up, and while it sounds reasonable on a sloganeering level, its fundamentally wrong.

The driver for the development of Linux is real and pressing - the movement of mass computing to a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard is stiflingly unhealthy, and OSS breeds diversity and invention. Particularly, had LAMP not been created, a lot of the web innovation of the last decade likely wouldn't have happened. Good-quality developers were drawn to OSS for good reasons, and established a decent level of governance because you just can't engineer software without it. Because the technically incompetent don't last long, Linux benefits from a virtuous circle: better software = more users = more developers = better software.

There is no such driver for the development of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a redundant re-mediation of the internet, which is already an "open-source encyclopaedia", and which anyone on a connected network can contribute to with a lot less moderation and interference than they'd get from a wp admin.

Because the task of a wp editor is to basically read and re-mediate, without the need to engage with ideas and work hard to (god forbid) become an expert, its a magnet for the not-particularly-bright. Many contributors aren't really interested in putting knowledge on the internet, because they fear the obscurity that awaits their mediocre contributions - so they rely on wikipedia's skewed pagerank to put their stunted prose at the top of search results pages and give them that warm glow of self-importance. And there's no effective competence filter, so the circle is reversed: higher SERPS for mediocre content = more users = more talentless nincompoops throwing shite at the wiki and linking to each other = higher SERPS for mediocre content.

And the worst bit - the bit that really shows up the facile nature of the "wp = open source" comparison - is that the logical conclusion of wikia/wikipedia is a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard, where every page and every site pretty much looks the same, works the same, and has the same culture.

[Jonny Cache]

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.

This comparison keeps turning up, and while it sounds reasonable on a sloganeering level, its fundamentally wrong.

The driver for the development of Linux is real and pressing — the movement of mass computing to a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard is stiflingly unhealthy, and OSS breeds diversity and invention. Particularly, had LAMP not been created, a lot of the web innovation of the last decade likely wouldn't have happened. Good-quality developers were drawn to OSS for good reasons, and established a decent level of governance because you just can't engineer software without it. Because the technically incompetent don't last long, Linux benefits from a virtuous circle: better software = more users = more developers = better software.

There is no such driver for the development of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a redundant re-mediation of the internet, which is already an "open-source encyclopaedia", and which anyone on a connected network can contribute to with a lot less moderation and interference than they'd get from a wp admin.

Because the task of a wp editor is to basically read and re-mediate, without the need to engage with ideas and work hard to (god forbid) become an expert, its a magnet for the not-particularly-bright. Many contributors aren't really interested in putting knowledge on the internet, because they fear the obscurity that awaits their mediocre contributions — so they rely on wikipedia's skewed pagerank to put their stunted prose at the top of search results pages and give them that warm glow of self-importance. And there's no effective competence filter, so the circle is reversed: higher SERPS for mediocre content = more users = more talentless nincompoops throwing shite at the wiki and linking to each other = higher SERPS for mediocre content.

And the worst bit — the bit that really shows up the facile nature of the "wp = open source" comparison — is that the logical conclusion of wikia/wikipedia is a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard, where every page and every site pretty much looks the same, works the same, and has the same culture.

WOW — Just when I had about lost all hope for any intelligent commentary at all —

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 19th March 2008, 6:12pm

[Pumpkin Muffins]

I'm an academic, and the one thing I have learned is that even the most educated people in our society don't know all that much.

I'd go further and point out that being educated and knowing a lot of stuff has nothing to do with wisdom.

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.

If people write crappy code, its benchmarks are poor or it doesn't run so you know its crappy.

If people write a crappy wikipedia entries, editors can argue until the end of time about weather they are crappy or not. Meanwhile, the article persists and harm the subjects of the article.

[Jonny Cache]

I'm an academic, and the one thing I have learned is that even the most educated people in our society don't know all that much.

I'd go further and point out that being educated and knowing a lot of stuff has nothing to do with wisdom.

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.

If people write crappy code, its benchmarks are poor or it doesn't run so you know its crappy.

If people write a crappy Wikipedia entries, editors can argue until the end of time about weather they are crappy or not. Meanwhile, the article persists and harm the subjects of the article.

It is not wise to go about claiming you are wise —
Which is why so many foolish people do so …

Jonny

Help! I'm being held prisoner in a WikiΦortune Cookie Φactory!


This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 22nd March 2008, 5:16pm

[Wolfe]

If people can write a functional open source operating system, there is no reason why they can't write an encyclopaedia.

This comparison keeps turning up, and while it sounds reasonable on a sloganeering level, its fundamentally wrong.

The driver for the development of Linux is real and pressing - the movement of mass computing to a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard is stiflingly unhealthy, and OSS breeds diversity and invention. Particularly, had LAMP not been created, a lot of the web innovation of the last decade likely wouldn't have happened. Good-quality developers were drawn to OSS for good reasons, and established a decent level of governance because you just can't engineer software without it. Because the technically incompetent don't last long, Linux benefits from a virtuous circle: better software = more users = more developers = better software.

There is no such driver for the development of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a redundant re-mediation of the internet, which is already an "open-source encyclopaedia", and which anyone on a connected network can contribute to with a lot less moderation and interference than they'd get from a wp admin.

You must be joking. There is an obvious driver for the development of wikipedia and that is that people want a centralized repository of information in a standardized format because it is easier to use (and other people want to write it). In fact, it is the exact same motivation for the creation of paper encyclopaedias. Saying that the internet is an unmoderated "open source encyclopaedia" is like saying that the British National Library is. Sure, anyone can contribute to the National Library just by having a book published, but while the National Library contains vastly more information, it is no substitute for a traditional encyclopaedia, like Britannica which serves a simpler and more practical purpose.

Centralization and standardization of information is the whole purpose of reference works. You are must be confused about the purpose of an encyclopaedia to make such a comment.

I agree that incentives make it more difficult to develop an open online encyclopaedia than open software (although some open software is harder to successfully develop than others). There are also going to be different rules needed. But the basic principle is the same: openness can be an advantage.

Even open source software projects have rules. If the rules were bad, they wouldn't work. So the comparison is not "fundamentally wrong".

Because the task of a wp editor is to basically read and re-mediate, without the need to engage with ideas and work hard to (god forbid) become an expert, its a magnet for the not-particularly-bright. Many contributors aren't really interested in putting knowledge on the internet, because they fear the obscurity that awaits their mediocre contributions - so they rely on wikipedia's skewed pagerank to put their stunted prose at the top of search results pages and give them that warm glow of self-importance. And there's no effective competence filter, so the circle is reversed: higher SERPS for mediocre content = more users = more talentless nincompoops throwing shite at the wiki and linking to each other = higher SERPS for mediocre content.

Yet your complaints are disproved by the fact that Wikipedia is largely accurate. There are of course caveats regarding controversial subjects, and other errors, but that is true of Britannica as well. What Wikipedia lacks in accuracy it makes up for in breadth. I don't argue that Wikipedia is perfect - only that it is surprisingly good given its open nature.

That's the one inconvenient fact that all the moaners on this site ignore. You can go to a random Wikipedia page and you are most likely to read something that is true and reasonably informative.

And your fascination with mediocrity makes me wonder whether you understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Britannica is mediocre. It's a reference work for non-experts written in a style that they can read easily. People who spend all their time moaning about mediocrity and incompetence tend to be either fairly insecure about their own abilities or wildly overestimate them. If you want it to be some super academic resource, then you are missing the point because that's not what it is for.

Wikipedia certainly has its problems. But every human community has its problems. We eliminate them by trial and error. Perhaps Wikipedia should hire professional moderators. Perhaps disclosure of identity should be required before editing BLP articles. Perhaps those who have recognized qualifications should receive greater weight in content decisions (but even then, there will be disputes - people often have no idea how diverse expert opinion can be). There are a bunch of things that could conceivably make it better.

These are the sort of questions that are worth asking. Wanting to destroy the whole concept because it doesn't live up to impossibly high standards is simply childish.

And the worst bit - the bit that really shows up the facile nature of the "wp = open source" comparison - is that the logical conclusion of wikia/wikipedia is a monolithic, corporately-controlled standard, where every page and every site pretty much looks the same, works the same, and has the same culture.

It's supposed to look the same. Have you seen Britannica? The articles have the same format. That's because it is an encyclopaedia and that is what encyclopaedias look like because that's what readers want them to look like. Standardization can actually be a good thing. Why are you insisting that the virtues of Wikipedia are in fact vices?

Besides, you are flat out wrong. Since Wikipedia is GPLed, anyone with the means could hoover it up and reformat it, or reorganize it under different rules. I hope Google will do that, so we can be rid of the odious Wales.

The complaints on these forums that have any real legitimacy are the BLP stuff, since the potential for defamation is obviously a problem, and Wordbomb's stuff, since Wikipedia seems incapable of dealing with people Gary Weiss. The rest comes across as the whining of people who didn't get their own way and want to destroy the whole thing because of it.

[Moulton]

Even open source software projects have rules. If the rules were bad, they wouldn't work. So the comparison is not "fundamentally wrong".

Debian and Ubuntu have Social Contracts, which comprise a self-regulatory model considerably more advanced and enlightened than one based on rules enforced by sanctions and punishments.

[Wolfe]

Even open source software projects have rules. If the rules were bad, they wouldn't work. So the comparison is not "fundamentally wrong".

Debian and Ubuntu have Social Contracts, which comprise a self-regulatory model considerably more advanced and enlightened than one based on rules enforced by sanctions and punishments.

In social contract theory the social contract is in the end enforced by sanctions and punishments. If you don't enforce it this way, you are just asking for collective action problems, since people's self interest is set up in such a way to destroy the contract.

That stuff about self regulation tends to reek of exactly the same wacko libertarian bongwater that Wales' ranting does. I realize these things are popular on the internet, but in reality they have little in the way of application.

If more time was spent on practical rules to ensure a decent encyclopaedia was the result and less time pontificating about freedom and anonymity, the project would be in a better situation.

[Moulton]

Even open source software projects have rules. If the rules were bad, they wouldn't work. So the comparison is not "fundamentally wrong".

Debian and Ubuntu have Social Contracts, which comprise a self-regulatory model considerably more advanced and enlightened than one based on rules enforced by sanctions and punishments.

In social contract theory the social contract is in the end enforced by sanctions and punishments. If you don't enforce it this way, you are just asking for collective action problems, since people's self interest is set up in such a way to destroy the contract.

Not true. I have experience with several successful social contract communities that did not resort to the sanctions and punishments model.

[Jon Awbrey]

Just by way of review …

With respect, or lack thereof, to Wikipedia, there appear to be at least two schools of thought that prevail among the members of this Review.

• There are those who, having entered Wikipedia, have abandoned all hope of saving it.
• There are those who wait in Casablocca, and wait, and wait, and wait, …, and wait …

For my part, the good of this Review, in concert with the purpose of criticism at large, is far broader than a focal fixation on the fate, good or ill, of Wikipedia.

For me, the main attraction of this forum, however strange, is cued by the phrase, “for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects”, where the extension to “other Wikimedia projects” remains, in a choice word, critical.

That's the e-scape clause that affords us a port to the future.

So let's not muff the opportunity.

Jonny

Yes, it will all be on the test …

Jon