Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jonny Cache

In my struggles to comprehend what we have called the Wikipedia Ideology, I realize that, whatever it is, it is something bigger and older and likely to be a lot longer lasting than Wikipedia itself, indeed, we can trace its devolution from DMOZ and Nupedia, and it has already undergone a mutant mitosis in the form of Citizendium.

So what is this stuff? -- this condition of mind that seeks a hive?

To bee or not to bee -- that is the question.

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

It really is difficult to think about this Stuff -- something about it just turns my brain to Wik'n'Chil -- and so by way of stars to steer by I tried to stuff as many Jonny Mnemonics as I could muster into the successive sub*titles of the piece.

Thus I can begin by explaining the elements of the title:

• Cyc-Borg Idiology
• Cybernetic Opacity
• Fear Of Uncertainty
• Assistance Is Futile

I will expand these codes in stages.

For future reference, I will store some additional mnemonics here:

• Infantile Narcissism (IN)
• Mutually Assured Devotion (MAD)
• Differentially Extended Narcissism (DEN)
• Irrational Revolt Against Experience (IRAE)
• Regressed Infant Point Of View (RIPOV)
• Virtual Illiterate Point Of View (VIPOV)
• Self-Love Of The Hive (SLOTH)

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Cyc-Borg Idiology

Sometimes a typo is just a typo -- but not this time. An idiology is a lot like an ideology only far more idiosyncratic and singular in its character -- singular in the sense of a catastrophic force-field collapse. Now, one will naturally guess that borg derives from cyborg, which in turn is short for cybernetic organism, and of course that's one element of the associative complex in question. But it also derives from Old English and Old German words like barow, beorg, berg, burg, and so on, suggesting the connection of our modern cities with fortified, heaped up, mounded places, all of them ultimately from the Sanskrit brhant for high. If you are starting to recall that Bible Babel Story (BBS), then you are beginning to get the picture.

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Cybernetic Opacity

Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης), do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors? (Plato, Alcibiades, 135A, cf. "http://www.wikipediareview.com/Cybernetics", Wikipedia Review).

One of the things that took me a long time to tumble to — such is the power of words over wits — is that the Star Trek picture of 'Borg'Ville — y'know, Cubic Zirconia (CZ) — is really completely backwards from the way that Cybernetics is supposed to work in reality.

The term Cybernetics is still used these days to refer to the science of control systems. The main thing about a control system is that it has (1) an actual state, (2) a desired state, (3) various ways of detecting the differences that may happen to exist between its actual state and its desired state, and (4) various ways of effecting changes of state, in particular, changes that move it from its actual state toward its desired state.

It is possible to distinguish two types of goals, or desired states, that a given cybernetic system may have. The desired state may be a state that the system has passed through before, and even spends the majority of its time in the neighborhood of, or it may be a state that the system has yet to achieve even once.

Now, there is nothing that says that a Hive Mind cannot be an adaptive, goal-directed system. Indeed, the capacity to adapt and to move relentlessly toward certain types of goals is always a part of the hackneyed science fiction story about the Borg.

But that is not the kind of Hive that we know in Wikipedia, which is more like a Hive Of Ostriches (HOO). Oddly enough, the danger of becoming a HOO is not unknown to at least some members of the wikipopulace — there is even a little known and less often invoked essay called http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_an_ostrich&oldid=87885490 that speaks to this very issue. Not too surprisingly, I see that it has been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_an_ostrich since the last time I looked.

Horton hears a HOO …
But the HOO does not hear Horton …
BOO HOO …

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Epigraph or Epitaph, I'm Not Sure Which, But It Seems To Fit

For the most part, real behavior proceeds at the subconscious or inarticulate conscious level of its subjective meaning. The person behaving in a certain way "feels" this vaguely, rather than being explicitly aware of the source of his behavior. Mostly his behavior is governed by habit or instinct. Only occasionally, and in the uniform behavior of great masses often only in the case of a few individuals, is the subjective meaning of such behavior, be it rational or irrational, raised to the level of true consciousness. Really effective, that is, truly conscious and clearly meaningful behavior, is in reality always a marginal case. (Weber 1925/1993, p. 54).

Reference. Weber, Max (1925/1993), Basic Concepts in Sociology, H.P. Secher (trans.), Citadel Press, New York, NY, 1993. First published as Chapter 1 of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Economics and Society), J.C.B. Mohr Verlag, Tübingen, Germany, 1925.

Jonny

Posted by: Somey

I'm sure that's true to a large extent, but in Wikiland, I'd have to say that a lot of what we see as "herd mentality" is actually due to fear of stepping on someone else's toes, putting one's head on the chopping block, or generally rocking the boat, if you don't mind my overuse of common clichés. One person can make an enormous difference simply by having the authority to push their agenda without fear of consequences, and by being loud enough to drown out anyone who might object on moral or ethical grounds. (Much more so than in "real life," anyway.)

Every once in a while you see someone who stands up to the agenda-pushers, gets in their face, or whatever, and we see this as principled and courageous. Often it is, but in many cases the person has simply become so exasperated and angry, they feel like they have nothing to lose by, in effect, lashing out. But it's also a form of giving up, and while it looks like the person has finally managed to attain a consciousness independent of the herd, the fact is that this consciousness was there all along - and the system was just trying to "shame" the person into conforming to its needs by supplying an artificial and anti-individualist standard of behavior, and enforcing it with various artificial rules, committees, punishments, and the occasional lynch mob.

Unfortunately, I don't have a citation for that...

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Cliches can be dangerous -- a whole clique of cliches is even more perilous -- it's been the ruin of many a poor boy to buy the farm and reap the root of all evil that was sown by that very same Lack Of Original Thought (LOOT). Not that it stops anyone from being a smashing succass in Wikipedia.

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

If it comes after a sufficient number of old college tries, speaking of cliches, then I would not call it giving up so much as growing up -- realizing that the game you're in is not the only game in town, that the town you're in is not the only place to be.


That's okay, I would be the last to invoke the Wikipedia rule of No Independent Thought (WP:NIT).

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Continuing here from another thread, but sticking to the cybernetic issues ---

This Must B The Place !!!

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Just by way of restarting this inquiry, the first couple of problems that we encounter are these:

1. To recognize the distinction in concept between e-norms (explicit or expressed norms) and i-norms (implicit or inarticulate norms).
2. How to tell what norms are really driving the dynamics of the system in question.

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Let me now try to address Elara's points 1 by 1:

Wikipedia management culture exhibits a definite failure of critical examination, to be sure. But the exact nature of the repression -- (1) politically deliberate denial and dissimulation or (2) psychologically dynamic dissociation and dysfunctionality -- that is another question. Chances are -- a whole lot of both.

Jonny

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Here's the groove I was looking for —
Dedicated to all the Wired Systers —

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

It occurs to me that the pervasive dysfunctionality arises for the reasons I set forth in my general purpose http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/error.html on the inherent dysfunctionality of rule-based systems in general.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

I scanned that essay a couple of times — it might help if you pointed to more specific points in it — but just off hand I think the problem is elsewhere, as Wikipedia is far from being a Rule-Based System (RBS) in anything but the WP:BS ¬sense of the words.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Moulton

One problem is the conflation of unrelated goal states. The overarching goal state is to compile a high-quality encyclopedia. But many players treat it more like a chess game, where the objective is to clear opposing editors off the board. This latter subtext suggests that the goal of achieving a neutral point of view is being subverted.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Could you flesh this out with some illustrations drawn from WP decision making/rule application?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

We need to recognize the distinction between "espoused values" and "enacted values". This is a difference that I learned about, in a way that was hard-knocks enough to make me fully conscious of it, during my brief, not brief enough tenure in a military school at the age of 17. But more or less the same concepts were later written up in the above terms by Argyris and Schon, whom I last had occasion to mention in connection with our discussion of the Wikidashboard "Ediot Light" here.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Moulton

The example I am most familiar with on Wikipedia is the recent example where I was caught in the maelstrom of that very dynamic. I wrote an http://aggieblue.blogspot.com/2007/08/wikipedia-and-ethics-in-online.html on the experience which was picked up and http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/opinion/083107_wikipedia.html in a university publication.

Most of the energy in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Moulton went into finding sufficient cause to justify flipping the switch. Ironically enough, when KillerChihuaha finally did flip the switch, she cited as her cause of action her personal theory of mind about my intent. It was trivial to http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/wiki.html#Aftermath that her belief about my intent was laughably in error, but neither Mike Godwin nor ArbCom responded to my requests for a review.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Hold on, hold on, I know I was bedevilled by doorbells in my head and buzzed by Xcess sugar in my blood last night, so maybe I'm the last to be caching on, but correct if I'm guessing wrong here:

• Moulton is Barry Kort ?
• KillerChihuahua is a Bitch ?

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

My http://underground.musenet.org:8080/bkort/ has never been a secret. I've been using the online handle of Moulton for 17 years. To learn how I adopted that name, read http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/MontanaMouse.html.

I have no idea who KillerChihuaha is in real life.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Okay, thanks for the cache up, I guess you were just using the generic she.

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, KillerChihuaha is a female residing in the Bahamas.

Posted by: Moulton

GBG, there is http://www.hardnewscafe.usu.edu/artlife/features/110107_kort.html, published by a journalist who visited me last week, on the subject at hand...

Posted by: Jonny Cache

We have discussed all of these points many times before. Perhaps we can get a bit clearer this time around.

1. Publishing, er, Service-Providing A High-Quality Encyclopedia (SPAHQE) is the espoused goal.
2. We all know the kinds of activities that a Sensible Professional Organization Desirous Of Success (SPODOS) would undertake if its real goal were SPAHQE.
3. Wikipediots are deliberately shying away from doing any of the things that a SPODOS would do in order to SPAHQE.
4. Consequently, Wikipediots must be under the influence of some hidden agenda, some overriding goal, some undermining value, some ulterior motive that constitutes the active ingredient in their mix of values.
5. What is the active ingredient that subverts the espoused product and catalyzes the enacted product?

Jonny

Posted by: Moulton

My random theory du jour is that anonymous players are exploiting the opportunity to work out various and sundry unresolved issues in their personal lives by transferring instances of those unresolved issues to other editors chosen for their likelihood to respond with innovative solutions. If there is any merit to that theory, it would explain the ubiquity of WikiDrama in the encounters among the embattled and embroiled editors.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Moulton: Ok, now I understand the curve and the step. The imagery is suggestive. How does this relate to digital vs. analog information?

Posted by: Moulton

The main feature of analog curves is that they possess a mathematical feature known as a gradient (or derivative). When riding up or down such a curve, the gradient provides a useful piece of information that makes it possible to construct graceful regulatory systems. Step functions (especially when the steps are coarse) lack this gradient and thus are ill-suited as a basis for crafting a functional regulatory mechanism. Nature makes extensive use of gradients. Even a lowly worm can follow an olfactory gradient to find food. The alternative is random search, looking for a needle in a haystack.

Digital representations, if you allow for enough decimal places, can approximate analog curves, but you lose out on the elegance of the calculus if curves are only given by their digital approximations.

Posted by: Jonny Cache

One of the themes that occurred to most participants in the many abortive Expert Rebellion Movements (ERMs) that were all the rage in Wikipedia last year was that there was a large population of let us say down-trodden students who found in Wikipedia a place where they could derive fast temporary relief from their academic frustrations by lobbing Wikispitballs to their ♥'s content at Wikiprofessor surrogates, a place where they could gang up and lord it over their non-plussed transference objects with complete Wikimpunity.

The question that few of these experts got as far as asking — not being experts in those fields for which its asking would have been dictated next — is this:

Why does Wikipedia Management pander to the demographic that seeks this form of relief at the expense of the demographic that has the greater portion of the sum of human knowedge and is trying to contribute it to the encyclopedia project?

Ay, there's the n00b …

Jonny

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Perhaps inelegant, but isn't the recent history of technology the domination of digital over analog information? Does that matter in understand the human interactions on systems like WP?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Looking back over the history of AI, hill-climbing methods of problem space search failed, where they failed, for reasons of complexity in the topography of hills and dales, not for any lack of differentiability in the terrain.

Still, it is possible to define analogues of differential calculus over wholly discrete domains like propositional calculus, in picturesque terms, the world of venn diagrams.

See my paper on http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/Papers/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems for a hint of how this goes.

Jon Awbrey

Posted by: Moulton

In the transmission, storage, and reproduction of audio signals, digital encoding offers some efficiencies over analog technology. In technology systems, the quantization noise can be minimized by increasing the number of bits in the signal. But quantizing human behavior into a relatively small number of graded steps, with dramatically different consequences for each step, forfeits the benefits of both analog and digital representations.

Posted by: Moulton

Your question assumes that Wikipedia management is aware of the subtext between these two factions and concerned about managing it. There is little or no evidence that Wikipedia management has the slightest clue of the range of socio-cultural dynamics arising as a function of the demographics of those playing the game. But one thing does stand out -- Jimbo seems fixated on the total number of articles, without regard to their quality. To achieve a large number of articles, many of them must be on minutiae of popular culture rather than on timeless subjects typical of more traditional encyclopedias. Out of some 2 million articles, a quarter million of them are biographical. Indeed it has become a status symbol to have a Wikipedia biography.

Posted by: Yehudi

That's not how I play chess, Do you mean draughts?

Posted by: Jonny Cache

Question —

Objections —


Replies —

1. On Intentionality (Awareness and Concern). The fact that a population P carries out actions Q to the effect R in a context S does not necessarily mean that any member of P is aware and concerned about managing every aspect of Q, R, S, or that every member of P is equally aware and equally concerned about managing every aspect of Q, R, S. Or, to translate it from the abstract formacular to the concrete vernacular — not everyone who panders is a pimp, and not everyone who panders is aware of being a pander, but people pander a peck o' pediots none the less for a' that.
2. On Evidence. I have the evidence of my senses. I have the evidence of my experience as a participant observer in the English Wikipedia, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Jon_Awbrey&site=en.wikipedia.org and for almost 2 years now as a participant observer. I was there when choices were made. I saw local choices get made by the few. I saw global choices get made by both the few and the many. I saw the immediate effects of those choices and I have seen the longer-term consequences of those choices. I considered and tested in active inquiry a sufficient number and variety of hypotheses as to why the agents involved might be making those choices. Many hypotheses did not survive testing. Some hypotheses currently remain in my favour as appearing to explain the explananda.
3. Hypothesis. I can sum up the gist of those remaining hypotheses as follows — skipping the formal song and dance and going straight to the vernacular — Wikipedia Is A Pimp-Job.
4. Status Symbol? Do you believe everything you read on Da Web?

Jonny

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Random Bump

Jon