QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 13th October 2009, 4:17am)
Fundamentally, in any system where the rules do not reflect the reality of the input the outputs are going to be garbage - the system cannot possibly work.
That's correct. Inputs will be biased, by nature, so a functional system can compensate or factor for that.
QUOTE
Wikipedia is hobbled by its pretence that its users are well-meaning co-operative people who just want what is best for the collective effort.
That's not exactly how I'd put it. Probably most editors are "well-meaning," and intend to be "co-operative," within limits. Would you expect them to be cooperative with those POV-pushing fanatics in that other group? The problem is a failure to understand the nature of communication breakdown and how to move beyond it, and the tricky part is how to do this efficiently, because it must be efficient or it won't work in a volunteer community, except during the expansion phase of a Ponzi scheme.
QUOTE
A more pragmatic view on life, which does not require the belief that black is white, and allows for the fact that black is not white to be admitted without this being heresy or the tide of evidence finally becomes so obvious and embarrassing would go a long way to making the place sane.
I think something was missing here. However, acknowledging, straight-out, the existing situation, is the beginning of possible reform. There is an unfortunate tendency to blame what are structural defects on individual participants or groups of them. It's true that participants resist change, but that's natural and to be expected; it's a remarkable phenomenon to watch that people who will bitterly complain about the status quo will, at the same time, strongly resist the changes that might improve it. Part of that is this habit of blaming individuals. I mean, how would restructuring ArbComm fix the Jimbo problem, huh? Answer me that! We all know that things can't change unless Jimbo goes!
(Jimbo is largely irrelevant. It's possible he could change things, for better or for worse, but his power is highly limited, in fact, for Wikipedia is heavily dependent on large-scale volunteer labor, and attempting to control that could kill the golden goose. If he could do anything, it would be to lead the community, he might still have the power to do that, or not. The real problem is a lack of functional structure, and that cannot be blamed on any specific individual, and getting rid of individuals, even many individuals, cannot fix the problem, it's irrelevant and only distracts from the solutions. I'm sure Jimbo has made mistakes, even some quite harmful ones, but he is no more to blame for the routine stupidity on Wikipedia than he is laudible for the routine good work done. He, too, is human, big surprise.)
QUOTE
It shouldn't be a problem to recognise that Wikipedians are human, should it?
One would think. However, humans seem to have this difficulty in recognizing this humanity in others, or the opposite problem: they see it in others and not in themselves.
I'm neutral, of course. My opponents are the ones who are biased. It's easy to fix Wikipedia, just get rid of all the biased administrators and editors and a neutral project will be guaranteed, right?
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
