Durova, Wikitruth through Wikiorder Options

[Kato]

Durova

Wikitruth through Wikiorder

Browsing the Signpost today led to a scholarly study by two Temple University law scholars. The abstract looked intriguing enough that it overcame my natural antipathy toward PDF files and read the whole 45 page paper. Posting a few thoughts about it here.

[Moulton]

"The nature of disputes heard by the Committee was also changing substantially as the community adapted to handling simple and obvious cases, so by the end of the period under study the character of cases before the Arbitration Committee had shifted toward complex and intransigent disputes for which no easy solution was at hand."

My experience (which begins in August of 2007) is that trigger-happy admins who were involved in complex disputes were routinely and systematically abusing their power to summarily block rival editors rather than embrace and support functional conflict resolution processes.

There still does not exist a functional process for resolving content disputes, and ArbCom now has a daunting backlog of requests to address the burgeoning problem of ethically-challenged admins abusing their power to silence and marginalize adversaries with whom they have irreconcilable differences on the merits of long-festering content disputes.

[Jon Awbrey]

Durova

Wikitruth through Wikiorder

Browsing the Signpost today led to a scholarly study by two Temple University law scholars. The abstract looked intriguing enough that it overcame my natural antipathy toward PDF files and read the whole 45 page paper. Posting a few thoughts about it here.

Yet another symptom of the Review's continuing failure to make anything approaching a realistic picture of Wikipedia accessible to the Public @ Large.

Jon

[EricBarbour]

I've seen a lot of blogs. And a lot of repulsive or disgusting blogs.
But there are very few blogs that disgust me like Durova's blog.

[Somey]

Yet another symptom of the Review's continuing failure to make anything approaching a realistic picture of Wikipedia accessible to the Public @ Large.

Well, it's not like Mssrs. Hoffman and Mehra are succeeding in that regard either.

I won't go so far as to say these two people (both Law professors at Temple University) are "morons," but they are lawyers. It's to be expected that their perspective on Wikipedia and its "dispute resolution system" would be the sort of nonsense that glorifies a legalistic, crime-and-punishment approach, and completely ignores any issues of scholarship, quality of information, psychological effects on users, harm done to article subjects, or for that matter, anything resembling the truth.

What I get from this is that they've managed to convince themselves that WP's internal governance is effective because they've "successfully" banned some people, and in so doing created an environment that the non-banned can all be happily crushed beneath. So in that respect, yes, they're morons. But they did at least read a few web pages, though apparently they restricted themselves to Wikipedia-hosted content exclusively, before coming to their moronic conclusions. Some people don't even bother to do that much.

[LamontStormstar]

I don't think wikipedia has ever successfully banned anyone. They just pretend like they have.

[Moulton]

Nem zich a vaneh!

It's not like Mssrs. Hoffman and Mehra are succeeding in that regard either.

I won't go so far as to say these two people (both Law professors at Temple University) are "morons," but they are lawyers. It's to be expected that their perspective on Wikipedia and its "dispute resolution system" would be the sort of nonsense that glorifies a legalistic, crime-and-punishment approach, and completely ignores any issues of scholarship, quality of information, psychological effects on users, harm done to article subjects, or for that matter, anything resembling the truth.

What I get from this is that they've managed to convince themselves that WP's internal governance is effective because they've "successfully" banned some people, and in so doing created an environment that the non-banned can all be happily crushed beneath. So in that respect, yes, they're morons. But they did at least read a few web pages, though apparently they restricted themselves to Wikipedia-hosted content exclusively, before coming to their moronic conclusions. Some people don't even bother to do that much.

Doubleplusungood, I'd bet money they've never read Dostoevsky.

I don't think wikipedia has ever successfully banned anyone. They just pretend like they have.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I bet they never read the first four laws of Hammurabi, either.

[Jon Awbrey]

Yet another symptom of the Review's continuing failure to make anything approaching a realistic picture of Wikipedia accessible to the Public @ Large.

Well, it's not like Mssrs. Hoffman and Mehra are succeeding in that regard either.

That was my whole point. The fact that I can read Yet Another Bit Of Feuilleton About Wikipedia (YABOFAW), every sentence of which would make anyone with a couple months of hard knocks experience in the place wince with pain and despair … and then I think of trying to comment one more time and tell them that they really ought to read up on the experiences of people who have slogged through the trenches … and sometimes I invite them back to the Review … and then what? Have you ever tried to take an outside view of this place? Does it do anything at all to serve the Skeptical Inquirer from the outside world?

No, it doesn't do squat.

Jon Awbrey

[Jon Awbrey]

Hope Springs Infernal …

My comment on Dave Hoffman's blog post —

Just a data point for your next study:

Midnight Judgment

Based on several years observation, I think you will find that the above example is much more typical of how Wikipediot disputes get "resolved" — more by lynchings in the dead of night than anything resembling even so much as the pseudo-legalisms of that kangaroo court known as ArbCom.

All the best in your "further research" — it is indeed much needed.

Jon Awbrey, 21 March 2009, 11:02 PM

P.S. What do these TrackBack thingies do?

http://www.concurringopinions.com/movablet...5156.1438713876

[Milton Roe]

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I bet they never read the first four laws of Hammurabi, either.

I'm amazed you haven't yet done a riff on the delightful Kipling Code of Morals

The subject is topical, and the last verse hardly needs changing:

All honour to admins, for ne'er did Reviewers after guess
By word or act official who read WR's bad press.
But the word is on the internet, and from Milton to Moultan
They know the worthy God-King as "that most immoral man."

[Moulton]

Oh Dear!

[Kato]

Durova writes a follow up blog post on this

Why arbitration enforcement usually fails

A central responsibility of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is to identify individual disruptive smoke-blowers and remove them from the conversation. If the Committee fails to do that when they enact discretionary sanctions on a case, then those same disruptive smoke-blowers proceed to arbitration enforcement and employ the same tactic there. Usually those disruptive editors succeed in their efforts to stymie arbitration enforcement because noticeboard format is less formal, and therefore easier to misdirect than arbitration formats. In these situations, implementing sensible structure is not 'bureaucracy' but a defense against trolling.

Yet Durova herself is just one of numerous "smoke-blowers" who arrive at these Arbitration gatherings uninvited to add their "opinions".

The clear problem with "Arbitration" is that anyone with a grudge, or even a passing interest, can add their worthless opinions to the poisoned soup, and claim it is "evidence". Durova is such a regular at this, she forms part of our "Arbcom bingo". (This is when reviewers get credits for guessing which interfering Wiki-politico is going to comment on an arbitration case next.)

I haven't seen this much lack-of-selfawareness or unintended irony from Durova since this infamous report in Wikipedia's Signpost Newspaper was published, in August 2007:

Durova, who works extensively with sleuthing "the dark side" of Wikipedia, has implied that many more major stories await tech-savvy reporters who know how to comb Wikipedia's logs efficiently. The next generation of Wikipedia manipulation stories may be more than just "minor public relations disasters".

A few months later, the next generation of Wikipedia manipulation stories certainly were more than just "minor public relations disasters"!

[LaraLove]

<snip>

Yet Durova herself is just one of numerous "smoke-blowers" who arrive at these Arbitration gatherings uninvited to add their "opinions".

</snp>

Durova shows up everywhere to drop her opinion and fuel the drama.

[Kelly Martin]

Honestly, the best thing we could do with respect to Durova is ignore her entirely. She adds nothing of value to any discussion; her only reason for participating is so she can be noticed.

If we ignore her long enough, she might resort to setting herself on fire and running through the town square; this being typically an act that one gets to do exactly once, it should ensure that we are spared further repetitions.

[gomi]

Have you ever tried to take an outside view of this place? Does it do anything at all to serve the Skeptical Inquirer from the outside world?

No, it doesn't do squat.

Then why are you here, Jon? As the voice of our collective unconscious reminding us how much time we're wasting? My own conscious does a serviceable job of that, thank you.

[Jon Awbrey]

Have you ever tried to take an outside view of this place? Does it do anything at all to serve the Skeptical Inquirer from the outside world?

No, it doesn't do squat.

Then why are you here, Jon? As the voice of our collective unconscious reminding us how much time we're wasting? My own conscious does a serviceable job of that, thank you.

No doubt Wikipediots imagine that their auto-critique is adequate, too.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Honestly, the best thing we could do with respect to Durova is ignore her entirely. She adds nothing of value to any discussion; her only reason for participating is so she can be noticed.

If we ignore her long enough, she might resort to setting herself on fire and running through the town square; this being typically an act that one gets to do exactly once, it should ensure that we are spared further repetitions.

Didn't Durova already do something almost like that? (Charge!). I thought now that she wasn't admin we'd be done with her.

The problem with Trolls is that they sometimes go out in ways that keep them "alive." Consider Socrates. Professional chain-jerker if ever there was one. Not so much interested in general deep questions (boring things like: what are the charactistics of how an object falls?), as the deep questions that got the authorities pissed off, such as "what is the good, and who decides?" So in the end, they sentenced him to banning (just to stop the chain-jerking) or death. Socrates, being the guy he was, could NOT pass up the opportunity for death with maximal drahhma.

Of course we have only Plato's account of this, and Plato loved a lot of the same things Socrates did. But it's all very dramatic, all the way down the end, with the little bit of care, to repay debts finishing the whole process off, like a chocolate on your hotel pillow.

That's entertainment!

When I die, I want you to dress me in straight-laced shoes
Box-back coat and a Stetson hat
Put a twenty- dollar gold piece on my watch chain,
So the boys will know that I died standin' pat.

[Digwuren the Grey]

A central responsibility of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is to identify individual disruptive smoke-blowers and remove them from the conversation. If the Committee fails to do that when they enact discretionary sanctions on a case, then those same disruptive smoke-blowers proceed to arbitration enforcement and employ the same tactic there. Usually those disruptive editors succeed in their efforts to stymie arbitration enforcement because noticeboard format is less formal, and therefore easier to misdirect than arbitration formats. In these situations, implementing sensible structure is not 'bureaucracy' but a defense against trolling.

Yet Durova herself is just one of numerous "smoke-blowers" who arrive at these Arbitration gatherings uninvited to add their "opinions".

Experience is the best teacher.

The clear problem with "Arbitration" is that anyone with a grudge, or even a passing interest, can add their worthless opinions to the poisoned soup, and claim it is "evidence".

That's not just a problem with ArbCom, that's a problem with using MediaWiki for threaded discussion. It's like trying to make sense of the Usenet by using a newsreader that doesn't do killfiles.