The WikiPedia Medium Is The WikiPedia Massage, What Is The Real Purpose Of The WikiProgramme? Options

Picking up on one of Kato's «Key Questions» and generalizing another:

• What is the root problem in Wikipedia?
• What do all of these episodes we keep watching have in common?

I suggest that the answer will come from pursuing the question:

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think we have to watch every last episode of the Wikipediot Soap Opera, much less every spin-off like Citzendium, ConservaToryPedia, VergoPedia, AdNauseaPedia that comes down the WikiPike in order to figure out the answer to this question once and for all.

So permit me to extract my most recent mini-manifesto on this score from the pages of the Soap Opera Digest (SOD) — where it is likely to get buried beneath the fray of WhoScrewedWhoToday — and reprint it here.

I keep trying to share what clues I've gathered, but folks at The Wikipedia Review are as just as blind as folks at Wikipedia and all the clueless InterNeuts in the Wowie-Zowie-Web-O-Sphere.

Maybe folks didn't read the same books My Generation did in school and college. The scenario was laid out clearly enough in all of those Prophetically Dystopian novels of my childhood, and the basic principles of media dynamics that are involved in Wikipediac Devolution were all laid out by Marshall McLuhan so long ago that they passed from Archetype to Cliche when I was an Undergrub, and apparently into Oblivion now.

You all keep being distracted by one damn Message after another when you ought to be looking at the kind of Medium that is being so craftily crafted under your very noses.

For example, people on all sides waste so gawdawful much time trying to figure out what side the Cabal is on — when it comes to this or that economic, political, religious, or scientific tiff.

The Cabal is not on any side but the Cabal's side.

Sure, maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today, but it can just as easily shift to taking the side of Southerly Eurasia any time that it becomes convenient to do so.

What does that mean for the Media Operating Characteristic (MOC) that will selected as their Most Favoured MOC?

It means that their Most Favoured MOC cannot allow itself to get phase-locked forever into any one POV. More precisely, it must be agile enough to shift its phase 180° in a period of time just ε-greater than the modal attention span of the viewing public.

How long is that?

Your Mullage May Vary, but if we look at the US case in the last Dubya-Dubya Police Action, the US media were reporting on the Future Sea Battle for just about 6 months before it started to look downright silly not to go ahead and have it.

Six months is not exactly turning on a dime, and I think that the Powers That Bee are probably trying to get that down to a temporal turning radius ≤ 6 weeks.

For now …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

Short answer : follow the money and you'll find out...

I think that it started as tax shelter for Jimbo and has grown into something else....but is much more profitable than Jimbo initially imagined...

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

Short answer : follow the money and you'll find out …

I think that it started as tax shelter for Jimbo and has grown into something else … but is much more profitable than Jimbo initially imagined …

Yes, I did start out with the word "created" instead of "control", but I changed it deliberately and precisely so that we wouldn't get distracted by a genetic φallacy.

Plus, I have known way too many projects over the last decade or so that look like they were upstarted by this or that hit-or-miss upstarter or other, and then one day a Man In Black Or Grey Flannel Or Olive Drab Or Shiny Sharkskin Or Some Other Gang Color approaches them with an offer they can't refuse.

So the emphasis must be placed squarely on Who's Walking You Home Today (WWYHT)?

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I am reviving this thread on account of its relevance to various hypotheses that we have been discussing in connection with the Current Issue of ArbComics on the Theme of WP:NOR,

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

It occurs to me that there is a clue in Jimbo's testimony earlier this week on E-Gov 2.0, in which he touted the Wiki technology model as extensible to other public enterprises beyond encyclopedia writing. It looks to me like he wants to corner the market on public applications of Wiki-based systems.

Google, however, is positioned to provide alternative Web 2.0 technologies that may be more intelligently designed and better adapted to the task.

Jimbo seems to be enamored of the media, but he lacks Google's ability to craft the media tools that are best adapted to the public need. Wiki technology, as implemented and demonstrated on Wikipedia, supports and encourages oligarchical thuggery rather than genuine information democracy.

Work In Progress —

Picking up on one of Kato's «Key Questions» and generalizing another:

• What is the root problem in Wikipedia?
• What do all of these episodes we keep watching have in common?

I suggest that the answer will come from pursuing the question:

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

I don't think we have to watch every last episode of the Wikipediot Soap Opera, much less every spin-off like Citzendium, ConservaToryPedia, VergoPedia, ad nauseum that comes down the pike in order to figure out the answer to this question once and for all.

So permit me to extract my most recent mini-manifesto on this score from the pages of the Soap Opera Digest (SOD) — where it is likely to get buried beneath the fray of WhoScrewedWhoToday — and reprint it here.

I keep trying to share what clues I've gathered, but folks at The Wikipedia Review are as just as blind as folks at Wikipedia and all the clueless InterNeuts in the Blogosphere.

The basic scenario was laid out clearly enough in those Dystopian novels that I read as a youth and the basic principles of media dynamics that govern Wikipediot Devolution were laid out by Marshall McLuhan so long ago that they passed from Archetype to Cliche when I was an undergraduate, and apparently into Oblivion now.

People keep being distracted by one damn Message after another when they ought to be looking at the kind of Medium that is being so craftily crafted under their very noses.

For example, people on all sides waste so much time trying to figure out what side the Cabal is on — when it comes to this or that economic, political, religious, or scientific tiff.

The Cabal is not on any side but the Cabal's side.

Sure, maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today, but it can just as easily shift to taking the side of Southerly Eurasia any time that it becomes convenient to do so.

What does that mean about the Media Operating Characteristic (MOC) that is the Cabal's MOC of Choice?

It means that the Cabal's most favored medium must be extremely agile, ductile, flexible, malleable, and plastic. It cannot be a medium that allows of being rigidly phase-locked into any one position or any one POV. More precisely, it must be agile enough to shift its phase 180° in a period of time just ε-greater than the modal attention span of the viewing public.

How long is that?

Your Mullage May Vary, but if we look at the US case in the last Dubya-Dubya Police Action, the US media were reporting on the Future Sea Battle for just about 6 months before it started to look downright silly not to go ahead and have it.

Six months is not exactly turning on a dime, and I think that the Powers That Be are probably trying to get that down to a temporal turning radius ≤ 6 weeks.

¤ ¤ ¤

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

Short answer : follow the money and you'll find out …

I think that it started as tax shelter for Jimbo and has grown into something else … but is much more profitable than Jimbo initially imagined …

Yes, I did start out with the word "created" instead of "control", but I changed it deliberately and precisely so that we wouldn't get distracted by a genetic φallacy.

Plus, I have known way too many projects over the last decade or so that look like they were upstarted by this or that hit-or-miss upstarter or other, and then one day a Man In Black or Grey Flannel or Olive Drab or Shiny Sharkskin or Some Other Gang Color approaches them with an offer they can't refuse.

So the emphasis must be placed squarely on Who's Walking You Home Today (WWYHT)?

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

It occurs to me that there is a clue in Jimbo's testimony earlier this week on E-Gov 2.0, in which he touted the Wiki technology model as extensible to other public enterprises beyond encyclopedia writing. It looks to me like he wants to corner the market on public applications of Wiki-based systems.

Google, however, is positioned to provide alternative Web 2.0 technologies that may be more intelligently designed and better adapted to the task.

Jimbo seems to be enamored of the media, but he lacks Google's ability to craft the media tools that are best adapted to the public need. Wiki technology, as implemented and demonstrated on Wikipedia, supports and encourages oligarchical thuggery rather than genuine information democracy.

He can corner the market on a losing proposition that will ultimately be regulated by the Fed. for being abusive and counter to U.S. privacy laws. Further, if it won't work for MySpace or Facebook, it is gone.

Lord Of The Flies ends poorly...and the aftershock is also not pretty.

The WMF will ultimately lose protection that it gets from the charitable status.




http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/14/google.knol/


I will put my money with Google; Bill Gates; free market capitalism.

Jimmy, Angela, Durova and JzG will ........ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

It occurs to me that there is a clue in Jimbo's testimony earlier this week on E-Gov 2.0, in which he touted the Wiki technology model as extensible to other public enterprises beyond encyclopedia writing. It looks to me like he wants to corner the market on public applications of Wiki-based systems.

Google, however, is positioned to provide alternative Web 2.0 technologies that may be more intelligently designed and better adapted to the task.

Jimbo seems to be enamored of the media, but he lacks Google's ability to craft the media tools that are best adapted to the public need. Wiki technology, as implemented and demonstrated on Wikipedia, supports and encourages oligarchical thuggery rather than genuine information democracy.

He can corner the market on a losing proposition that will ultimately be regulated by the Fed. for being abusive and counter to U.S. privacy laws. Further, if it won't work for MySpace or Facebook, it is gone.

Lord Of The Flies ends poorly … and the aftershock is also not pretty.

The WMF will ultimately lose protection that it gets from the charitable status.

If you read the previous discussion on this thread, you may notice that I am taking some pains to avoid falling into two types of error —

• The observational error that social psychologists call Fundamental Attribution Bias (FAB), which arises from the natural human tendency to fixate on the casual effects of individual actors as the principal explanation of any phenomenon, doing that at the expense of giving due regard to background, contextual, environmental, functional, historical, and systematic factors.
• The theoretical error that is commonly called the Genetic Fallacy, which arises from the natural human tendency to fixate on the origin or the genesis of a thing in explaining or evaluating that thing.

The combination of those two sources of error in the present case leads people to answer questions about the present purpose of Wikipedia by speculating on what the purpose of its founders might have been at the beginning of its life.

I think that is likely to prove a red herring.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

It occurs to me that a thorough analysis will examine each plausible factor, including the two that you worry about over-weighting.

Perhaps they do carry zero weight in the final analysis, but that should be an outcome of an objective analysis, not an assumption going into it.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/14/google.knol/




Now you will be able to contribute your works to an encyclopedia that will pay for your work (via optional ad space) and the product may guarded from the work of vandals. Leave it to Google and Microsoft, and it will be wildly successful.

The kids will still be able to play at WP, MySpace, and Facebook, albeit educators and professionals will work on a system that is founded upon real life credentials and wisdom.

Build it and they will come.

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

I think you need to have a broad understanding of what 'those who control Wikipedia' means in order to get a useful answer to this. If you look narrowly, you can probably find answers in psychological needs: Jimbo Wales, possibly in response to becoming a father, wants to be known for something other than pornography; Linda Mack wants to combat the forces of wickedness that she sees in the world; etc.

But in the broader sense, Wikipedia is part of a long-standing matter of modern democracy. Prior to there being any meaningful democracy, the "ruling elites" pretty much did what they want. With democracy, however, the "ruling elites" are mostly still there, but now they have to get the consent of most of the people in order to do what they want. So you need to control the press, and most of the press, including all major media, is pretty well controlled. Not to the extent of controlling particular broadcasts, but to the extent of being sure that certain "shared values" will always be respected. CNN, for example, which in the early days endeavored to be an international news outlet, now will routinely report things as Americans (sometimes as Westerners), and openly gush about what is good for America, regardless of whether it is right or wrong or good for the rest of the world.

All of this, however, was predicated upon the social structure of the corporation, which is extremely un-free and un-democratic: there is no right to free speech in a corporation and there is a rigid hierarchical control. If you step out of bounds in a corporation, you are expelled from the corporation with no trial and no questions asked. (This may be less true outside of the US, but it is still generally true.)

But the internet threw a potential wrench into the works: there is no central control of the information broadcast around the internet. But you do have things like Google, which endeavors to be a center for retrieving information from the internet, and like Wikipedia, which endeavors to be a central collection site for information on the internet. If a majority of the people could be relied upon to get most of their internet information through either something already under corporate control or through Google or Wikipedia, the potential problem of information on the internet becomes a lot more tractable. Google, first of all, is a corporation, so it can be brought to rein in the normal way. Wikipedia, however, is a more amorphous thing.

So, how do the "ruling elites" make sure that the proper "shared values" are enforced at Wikipedia?

It occurs to me that a thorough analysis will examine each plausible factor, including the two that you worry about over-weighting.

Perhaps they do carry zero weight in the final analysis, but that should be an outcome of an objective analysis, not an assumption going into it.

Those are simple heuristic cautions that trained observers and trained theoreticians are trained to be on guard against. They got their names and their local habitations within various disciplines through long histories of experience with systematic errors that people just naturally tend to make. They are of course not intended as absolute rules or substitutes for thought. You will notice that, as often happens with heuristic rules, they tend to come in pairs that nudge the mind in opposite directions.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Purposive systems can have both expressed and implied intentions, as well as emergent and contingent purposes. Teasing these apart will be a challenge, given the changing Web 2.0 landscape, competitive threats, and cultural feedback.

There are elements of unmanaged autopoiesis in the evolution of Wikipedia, as well as express and implied (mis)direction from the top.

Not to mention nefarious misappropriation of system resources for unauthorized, irregular, or scandalous purposes.

Purposive systems can have both expressed and implied intentions, as well as emergent and contingent purposes. Teasing these apart will be a challenge, given the changing Web 2.0 landscape, competitive threats, and cultural feedback.

There are elements of unmanaged autopoiesis in the evolution of Wikipedia, as well as express and implied (mis)direction from the top.

Not to mention nefarious misappropriation of system resources for unauthorized, irregular, or scandalous purposes.

Sorry, I learned my systems theory back in the days when it led out of automatopoesycybermystification.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I plan to be on the lookout for chiastic anti-structure, too.

What is the real purpose of those who control Wikipedia?

I think you need to have a broad understanding of what 'those who control Wikipedia' means in order to get a useful answer to this. If you look narrowly, you can probably find answers in psychological needs: Jimbo Wales, possibly in response to becoming a father, wants to be known for something other than pornography; Linda Mack wants to combat the forces of wickedness that she sees in the world; etc.

I believe that I take a rather broad view of this question. Indeed, I have not assumed that we know the identities of the agents who could be called the «Controllers Of Wikipedia» (COW). We know some people who push and pull the system this way and that — some of them to what looks the very limits of human endurance — but I can't say that we know for sure who's really in charge of mission control.

But in the broader sense, Wikipedia is part of a long-standing matter of modern democracy. Prior to there being any meaningful democracy, the "ruling elites" pretty much did what they want. With democracy, however, the "ruling elites" are mostly still there, but now they have to get the consent of most of the people in order to do what they want. So you need to control the press, and most of the press, including all major media, is pretty well controlled. Not to the extent of controlling particular broadcasts, but to the extent of being sure that certain "shared values" will always be respected. CNN, for example, which in the early days endeavored to be an international news outlet, now will routinely report things as Americans (sometimes as Westerners), and openly gush about what is good for America, regardless of whether it is right or wrong or good for the rest of the world.

I don't see much about Wikipedia that could be called democratic, non-elitist, or populist in the genuine sense of those words.

All of this, however, was predicated upon the social structure of the corporation, which is extremely un-free and un-democratic: there is no right to free speech in a corporation and there is a rigid hierarchical control. If you step out of bounds in a corporation, you are expelled from the corporation with no trial and no questions asked. (This may be less true outside of the US, but it is still generally true.)

Nor do I see much about Wikipedia that supports free speech or pluralism. Don't make me laugh.

But the internet threw a potential wrench into the works: there is no central control of the information broadcast around the internet. But you do have things like Google, which endeavors to be a center for retrieving information from the internet, and like Wikipedia, which endeavors to be a central collection site for information on the internet. If a majority of the people could be relied upon to get most of their internet information through either something already under corporate control or through Google or Wikipedia, the potential problem of information on the internet becomes a lot more tractable. Google, first of all, is a corporation, so it can be brought to rein in the normal way. Wikipedia, however, is a more amorphous thing.

So, how do the "ruling elites" make sure that the proper "shared values" are enforced at Wikipedia?

I am not sure what values you are talking about, or among whom they are supposed to be shared.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Google, however, is positioned to provide alternative Web 2.0 technologies that may be more intelligently designed and better adapted to the task.

Google is better positioned to provide for the task. Absolutely. Some people on this site hate them, and it is true that their level of power was a bit overwhelming, but they behave as a company should. This cannot be said of Wikipedia (and I dont care if it is a 501c3, that's no excuse for how Wikipeida dealsl.

Jimbo seems to be enamored of the media, but he lacks Google's ability to craft the media tools that are best adapted to the public need. Wiki technology, as implemented and demonstrated on Wikipedia, supports and encourages oligarchical thuggery rather than genuine information democracy.

Jimbo is a flash in the pan. In 20 years he'll be like Evil Kneival (sp?). Someone you heard of a long time ago.

A major theme in systems science is the duality between control and information, a theme whose names are legion, for example:

• control and observation,
• planning and explanation,
• power and knowledge,
• and many others.

This trade-off has a significant bearing on one of the discipline-defining problems of systems science, namely, System Identification (SI).

In order to control a system, you have to know something about it, and knowledge about a system comes mainly from two sources:

• You built the system to known specs, in other words, according to requirements that were specified in advance, and so you know the system to the degree that it fits those specs or satisfies those requirements.
• You get to know the system by watching what it does under controlled conditions, which may include conditions of "drift" where you gather information about the system while acting on it as little as possible.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I don't see much about Wikipedia that could be called democratic, non-elitist, or populist in the genuine sense of those words.

It might have had these things, though.

I am not sure what values you are talking about, or among whom they are supposed to be shared.

The over-riding value is 'maintaining control.' But the 'values' that are to be shared are whatever allow those who believe themselves to be in control to do what they want to do, when they are shared by enough of the population. They might be, in the real world, the belief that America has the right to kill lots of innocent people in order to secure its energy supplies, or to 'fight terrorism.

In Wikipedia, we see much of the same thing, wrought small. To an extent, it is only necessary to foist the 'shared values' onto Jimbo; these might include 'we're here to make an encyclopedia!' which of course segues into banning 'trolls' and otherwise controlling content. But a critical mass of control of Wikipedia, semi-independent of Jimbo, exists, such that it is generally necessary to work with this group in order to promote whatever you want to promote. Probably, however, a lot of these are up to the same sorts of things you are, whether for being up to the same thing you are or for their own personal reasons, so they might be easy to work with.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, nor considering it from a perspective novel to you, so I sort of wonder what the point of your feigned confusion is.

I don't see much about Wikipedia that could be called democratic, non-elitist, or populist in the genuine sense of those words.

It might have had these things, though.

I am not sure what values you are talking about, or among whom they are supposed to be shared.

The over-riding value is 'maintaining control.' But the 'values' that are to be shared are whatever allow those who believe themselves to be in control to do what they want to do, when they are shared by enough of the population. They might be, in the real world, the belief that America has the right to kill lots of innocent people in order to secure its energy supplies, or to 'fight terrorism'.

In Wikipedia, we see much of the same thing, wrought small. To an extent, it is only necessary to foist the 'shared values' onto Jimbo; these might include 'we're here to make an encyclopedia!' which of course segues into banning 'trolls' and otherwise controlling content. But a critical mass of control of Wikipedia, semi-independent of Jimbo, exists, such that it is generally necessary to work with this group in order to promote whatever you want to promote. Probably, however, a lot of these are up to the same sorts of things you are, whether for being up to the same thing you are or for their own personal reasons, so they might be easy to work with.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, nor considering it from a perspective novel to you, so I sort of wonder what the point of your feigned confusion is.

Believe me, I never have to feign confusion, and unless there are rather blatant marks of a rhetorical question, I normally ask a question because I want further information.

Indeed, I revived this thread because of some questions that other people asked on the recent ArbCom WP:NOR thread, and because I dimly remembered answering them, however dimly, on a previous occasion.

Taking both threads into account, we are really just asking —

Why would SlimVirgin & Company be so hell-bent to bend to their will what had been the character of Wikipedia's long-standing policy page on WP:NOR?

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: