Proof Jimbo Wales is the internet's #1 troll Options

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

What's wrong with Krimpet? He was one of the seven admins who supported a (discussion of) unblocking the Poetlister account.

[Jonny Cache]

Actually, I'm not disputing what Firsfron says above — the internet very much did suck, and I might even go so far as to say it still does, though obviously less than it did.

The issue with Jimbo and Co. is, quite simply, hubris. Hubris leads to arrogance, which leads to insularity, which leads to cultish behavior … If you start with the idea that your solution to a problem is the one that will work, and you can then produce metrics (in this case, Alexa rankings and hit-count) to prove that it does, in fact, work - then the process towards insularity is completely predictable. And yet, most of WP's supporters (if not most people in general) would say this is almost absurd, given the near-total openness of the content-generation model.

It's an interesting problem — explaining to an outsider how a website that "anyone can edit" can actually be moving in the direction of a closed-loop, hierarchical authority structure isn't easy. I think they used to call it "top-down management", but even that isn't easily demonstrable anymore, given Jimbo's increasing distance from day-to-day operations and decisionmaking.

So you can only really describe it in terms like "hive-mind" and "cultishness" and such … You have to look at patterns and tendencies among groups, and that takes time and effort, which most people don't have the patience for. And so the worst ones, those who deliberately operate in a manipulative fashion, mostly get away with it.

I should come up with an analogy for this …

I've warned you about that before —

Jonny I-BOSA-U Local # 61396

Speaking ex officio, though, the way of it is really quite simple. You can ∑ it ↑ on the following two principles:

• Wikipedia — We Don't Edit Articles, We Edit People.
• Consensus Is Just Another Word For Nobody Left To Ban

Then again, maybe that's only one principle after all.

Jonny

If you're really interested in the Arc of Injustice, the psycho-socio-dynamics of it all — and I know from your work on Wikiphrenia that you are — there are a couple of literature streams that are crucial. Curiously enough, both streams are landmarked by books that have the word Quest in their titles — The Quest for Certainty by John Dewey and The Quest for Glory by Karen Horney (pronounced horn-eye, ya knuckleheads).

I can't find the book by KH that I thought I had. Maybe it was a paper or a chapter title? Anyway, for a taste of what she said about it, see this quotation.

Back later …

Such is memory — it looks like it must have been "The Search for Glory" = Chapter 1 of Neurosis and Human Growth : The Struggle Toward Self-Realization (W.W. Norton, 1950).

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 15th September 2007, 3:24pm

[BobbyBombastic]

I guess the internet did suck then. I do remember using it in a more utilitarian way than I do now, but that probably has more to do with connection speeds and the vast amount of content that there is now. I can't say how much Wikipedia has influenced the rise (and type) of content, but I guess they probably did have a hand in inspiring some of it. I can appreciate Wikipedia as a place to look up thinks like what "Wet Brain" is and the like, but then there are other things about it that are sickening.

Absolutely, Bobby. I think that goes for the rest of the Internet, too.

Yes, I considered that. All I have for that is the same old argument, the prominence of Wikipedia ought to make it more aware of the sickening parts of the site and deal with them more efficiently. By sickening I mainly mean the things that are done on WP that have no benefit as to the content of the site, and are only done for the community. This is purposely a very broad example, for the sake of conversation.

But then again, I'm not sure who I blame for the prominence of Wikipedia, and why people use it the way they do. I think there is blame to spread around for that.

On to reminiscing about geocities, I had a site about an obscure technical topic. I think about it now, and I had some of the information that Wikipedia has on it, but I also had more areas of "how-tos" and practical knowledge. Wikipedia lacks in the how tos and practical knowledge, and I guess a lot of that info is probably still mainly available on the free geocities-like sites. The idea of practical knowledge now taking a back seat to Wikipedia approved information is an interesting idea to ponder, but I really don't know where I'm going with the idea, so i'll shut up about that.

I wonder if 10 years from now we'll be talking about the internet sucking in 2007. I think it would be interesting if things came full circle, but instead of the niche geocities sites, there would be more niche wikis (that people are actually aware of), instead of Wikipedia as the place to find basic info about a topic. I think that may result in 'better' content. That thought seems to have occurred to someone else, too. It seems that Jimbo is building an internet knowledge empire!

[Jonny Cache]

It seems that Jimbo is building an internet knowledge empire!

In order to run a knowledge ∑er camp, much less an internut know-alleged e-pyre, you have to have a population of people who are not Trembling In Their Jack And Jill And Jimbo Boots In Nattering Gellid Horror @ The Very Idea Of Linking A Thought They Don't Already Have (TITJAJAJBINGH@TVIOLATTDAH).

Aye, there's the rube …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 15th September 2007, 5:22pm

[Emperor]

I wonder if 10 years from now we'll be talking about the internet sucking in 2007.

Yes, for sure, definitely. Google 2007 will look clunky and antiquated, and Wikipedia articles will look comical. There will always be a place for an online general encyclopedia but my prediction is that MS Encarta will figure out a way to dominate somehow.

One thing that will look particularly stupid is all those little animated gifs that are polluting Wikipedia right now.

[Cedric]

One thing that will look particularly stupid is all those little animated gifs that are polluting Wikipedia right now.

Blasphemer! The punishment from The Lady of Pain shall be swift and unrelenting!

[Jonny Cache]

Hold your calls !!! — We have a winner for this year's Zager & Evans "Nostry" Award:

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find …

… Wikipedia articles will look comical.

The winner will receive $1,000,000,000 in Year 2007 Canadian Funds, adjusted for inflation to the year 2525, which works out to exactly … <sound of computers whirring and buzzing to beat all get-out> … hmmm, it appears that the winner owes the Nostradamus Awards Committee $248.96. Please send your certified check or money order to Jonny Cache c/o this station.

Jonny

[Emperor]

Hold your calls !!! — We have a winner for this year's Zager & Evans "Nostry" Award:

Wow, first 40,000th post and now this! Before you know it I'm going to have a wall full of WR awards.

One thing that will look particularly stupid is all those little animated gifs that are polluting Wikipedia right now.

Blasphemer! The punishment from The Lady of Pain shall be swift and unrelenting!

Where's my bb gun?

[Jonny Cache]

One thing that will look particularly stupid is all those little animated gifs that are polluting Wikipedia right now.

Blasphemer! The punishment from The Lady of Pain shall be swift and unrelenting!

That's one HELLUVA BIG mosquito !!!

I'll bet it really SUCKS BIG TIME !!!

Jonny

[Jonny Cache]

Hold your calls !!! — We have a winner for this year's Zager & Evans "Nostry" Award:

Wow, first 40,000th post and now this! Before you know it I'm going to have a wall full of WR awards.

Always happy to see yet another Grateful Dead Head, but we cannot ship your complimentary LuvaLump™ until we are in receipt of your certified czech or moonie order for $248.96.

The Awards Committé,

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th September 2007, 5:30pm

[Kato]

Personally, I think it goes without saying. Remember, Jimbo's most famous quote is "We make the internet not suck." Which implies that he thinks the rest of the internet sucks, and that he has the solution for it.

If you showed up on Wikipedia with that attitude, of course most of the regulars would call you a "troll." And why not? "Trolling" is exactly what you'd be doing, right?

I'm not so uncharitable as to say that someone saying those things on WP would be immediately banned or even immediately dismissed, as they do occasionally give such people a reasonably fair hearing... But you have to look a little deeper than the attitude, too. Dedicated Wikipedians, generally speaking, believe that their site provides information in ways that the rest of the internet does not, or even cannot, and in terms of sheer volume, far more than other websites. All quality issues can be fixed, and all community issues can be managed. By comparison, the rest of the internet is too chaotic, unmanaged, and unpredictable. In short, it lacks a working control structure.

By holding up Wikipedia as some sort of "shining example" of user-driven quality and organization amidst so much dross, they might actually be providing a pretext for governments and perhaps even corporate groups to "take control" of the internet in order to "improve" it.

That would be the supreme irony, of course....

I don't know enough about the internet to make a firm assessment of this, but WP does appear to me to be snorting up all the loose bits and bobs that existed out there. And re-packaging it in one scrappy format. Which is then controlled by shadowy pseudonyms, who suddenly find themselves wielding extraordinary power which they haven't earned.

And Tobias thinks that this represents a successful utopian model worth protecting?