Wiki-Induced Kognitive Insufficiency (WIKI), Enough Symptomatics! What Is The Cause? Options Rating

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, I know the dynamics of our own sweet Etopia well enough to know that nothing so meditative will compete with the Main Distraction on the Midway this week … or the next … but I thought I might leave this note to self, just in case things get dull toward the Ides.

P.S. I was going to call it Wiki-Induced Learning Disorder but the acronym WILD might have made it sound like a good thing.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

A simple answer could be that the software discourages a positive learning experience.

Productive learning requires an environment of patience, encouragement, confidence re-enforcement, room to breathe and so on.

In contrast, the mediawiki format fuels antagonism, competitiveness, impatience, anxiety. I'm not sure I fully understand why, much of this may be put down to superficial reasons right down to the use of font for example, but it does.

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings. Although I'm not sure I as yet support the idea that Wikipedia has failed.

A simple answer could be that the software discourages a positive learning experience.

Productive learning requires an environment of patience, encouragement, confidence re-enforcement, room to breathe and so on.

In contrast, the mediawiki format fuels antagonism, competitiveness, impatience, anxiety. I'm not sure I fully understand why, much of this may be put down to superficial reasons right down to the use of font for example, but it does.

I have been always been careful to distinguish the wiki software paradigm in general from the more specious spin-oof [sic] of Wikipedia, and I will continue to do that.

But I think I'm beginning to recognize a few "features" of the genus Wiki that were always bound to degenerate into bugs — at any rate, in any eviralment that involves post-critical masses of human users, especially the sort who are using technology as a crutch to flee their own humanity.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings. Although I'm not sure I as yet support the idea that Wikipedia has failed.

Sure, all of that goes with the territory of being human.

But the reason why we build tools is to leverage our strengths and compensate for our weaknesses. Of course we wouldn't want to cop out with the proverbial excuse of the poor workman and blame our tools for everything that goes wrong with the work. But it really is the case sometimes that we have to examine the bugs that bedevil our tools and try to build better ones.

I understand the wish of many to deny what's before their eyes, but I think it will just keep hitting us in the face that all our plans to turn this wiki-tool-thing to good purpose — to facilitate communication and learning and knowledge and all that — that all these plans have gang agley somehow.

So I think we need to look very carefully at the properties of the Soc-Tech Architecture that Jimbo et Larry et alia built on the infrastructure of the wiki software platform — with especial attention to the components that might be amplifying the negative more than the accentuating the positive in human nature.

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

Wikipedia doesn't define itself as a Learning Community.

Rather it defines itself as a Knowledge Dissemination Community.

That is, the participants on Wikipedia adopt the conceit that their beliefs already represent accurate knowledge and are thus worthy of publication without further ado.

But inevitably the participants encounter conflicting beliefs (or conflicting points of view).

Since Wikipedia is not a Learning Community, it lacks a Research Mode for resolving questions of incompatible beliefs. Instead, the conflict turns into unproductive political drama.

Wikipedia doesn't define itself as a Learning Community.

Rather it defines itself as a Knowledge Dissemination Community.

That is, the participants on Wikipedia adopt the conceit that their beliefs already represent accurate knowledge and are thus worthy of publication without further ado.

But inevitably the participants encounter conflicting beliefs (or conflicting points of view).

Since Wikipedia is not a Learning Community, it lacks a Research Mode for resolving questions of incompatible beliefs. Instead, the conflict turns into unproductive political drama.

Sure 'Nuff …

But in order for knowledge to be disseminated — don't go there, ya knuckleheads — there must be seminator and seminatee.

When you get too many editors — and especially too many administrators — who have become so content with what they already incline to think that they cannot permit another thought to break through the smug snugness of their Cognitive Immune System, well, then you have ceased to have a real encyclopedia at all.

Strictly speaking, we must distinguish between Learning Communities and Learning Organizations. The two ideas can be combined, but they don't always have to be. Sadly, all too sadly, Wikipedia is failing on both scores.

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

Yes, a Learning Organization (in the sense of Peter Senge) is one that does learn, even though learning is not its primary purpose. There is copious evidence that Wikipedia is not a Learning Organization, but rather one that exhibits classic patterns of Learning Resistance and Learning Disability.

Yes, a Learning Organization (in the sense of Peter Senge) is one that does learn, even though learning is not its primary purpose. There is copious evidence that Wikipedia is not a Learning Organization, but rather one that exhibits classic patterns of Learning Resistance and Learning Disability.

Check.

I think we're all too familiar with the human frailties afoot here, but my aim is to focus on the features of this particular Soc-Tech Architecture that were supposedly crafted to serve as social prosthetics and yet have somehow done little more than rub more salt in our ♣-footed heroic flaws.

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

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, if by uncritical you mean amoral, then...

The belief that the worth of a person is determined by
how much they help or harm 'the encyclopaedia'. They
dehumanise themselves by reducing their worth as a
human being to how much they help the encyclopaedia,
have little empathy for those who only help the
encyclopaedia a bit, no empathy for those who don't
help, and scorn for those they see as harmful. They
have no respect for anyone's worth as a human being,
whether it be a question of human feelings or human
life.

Note that I am talking about an extremist position -
many may display milder variants of that philosophy.

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, if by uncritical you mean amoral, then …

The belief that the worth of a person is determined by how much they help or harm 'the encyclopaedia'. They dehumanise themselves by reducing their worth as a human being to how much they help the encyclopaedia, have little empathy for those who only help the encyclopaedia a bit, no empathy for those who don't help, and scorn for those they see as harmful. They have no respect for anyone's worth as a human being, whether it be a question of human feelings or human life.

Note that I am talking about an extremist position — many may display milder variants of that philosophy.

I probably wouldn't take the primary sense of uncritical to be amoral, but I do sense some sort of relation, perhaps because ethics is a normative science having to do with the conceivable goodness of conduct, and that in turn implies a conception of prudent decision-making and considerate judgment in action toward an end. Or something like that.

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

Supposing smearing, defamation, privacy violations,
and cutting people's fingers off did help their
encyclopaedia. That still wouldn't make those
actions right.

As for the rest, it is not so much the moral fallacy of the end justifying the means as the cognitive defect of thinking — uncritically — that their means achieve those ends.

Supposing smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off did help their encyclopædia. That still wouldn't make those actions right.

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny B)

I don't actually care if it helps their
encyclopaedia or not. Still wrong.

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

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

I don't actually care if it helps their encyclopædia or not. Still wrong.

Good. Now that we have that settled, let's all return to supposing things that might actually have a chance of being true.

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

Supposing that smearing, defamation, privacy violations, and cutting people's fingers off were right. That still wouldn't make those actions help their encyclopædia.

Jonny B)

I don't actually care if it helps their encyclopædia or not. Still wrong.

Good. Now that we have that settled, let's all return to supposing things that might actually have a chance of being true.

Jonny B)

Do you believe there is some relationship between right and
wrong and what helps and harms their 'encyclopaedia'?

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

I understand the wish of many to deny what's before their eyes, but I think it will just keep hitting us in the face that all our plans to turn this wiki-tool-thing to good purpose — to facilitate communication and learning and knowledge and all that — that all these plans have gang agley somehow.

So I think we need to look very carefully at the properties of the Soc-Tech Architecture that Jimbo et Larry et alia built on the infrastructure of the wiki software platform — with especial attention to the components that might be amplifying the negative more than the accentuating the positive in human nature.

I might be misreading you again but I'll have another stab.

There are issues with allowing anonymous and ip editing, and there are problems with allowing people to have multiple accounts. It will be interesting to see how citizendium plays out because they have closed down those run-a-rounds. But does closing down those run-a-rounds mean you lose appeal and so lose the ability to build a critical mass?

There are also issues with allowing pages to always be editable, not allowing a stable version to sit in front and also allowing people unlimited editing. Page protection does not work as well as limiting editors would. If you could technologically enforce a one edit per editor rule on a disputed page, say one edit per editor to the disputed article a day, and then if that doesn't slow down the edit war, one edit a week, to enforce consensus editing.

Create or adopt a manual of style first, and make that something people have to sign up to. That will solve a large number of disputes.

Ban user bots. If someone wants a bot to do something, get the developers to instigate it through a developer controlled bot account. A lot of disputes centre around bot actions. Make a bot which edits articles inline with the manual of style. That will stop a lot of issues.

Trust your editors. Implement stages through which an editor will grow. For every 1000 edits above a certain kilobyte, grant access to a tool. Avoid voting.

Automate tagging tasks.

Establish a deletion process which is transparent, open and mandates discussion. Perhaps jury led deletion, or possibly even a two tier system of the "published" encyclopedia and the "draft"encyclopedia, so nothing needs to be deleted, it is simply subject to constant revision.

Own the content. Don't duck the legal issues, embrace them. This will enforce better practises. Make the published encyclopedia accountable, the workshop one the bulletin board.

Just flying kites. Not sure how practical they all are and whether they create more issues than they purport to solve.

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Well, I'm thinking you, Jonny, and Herschel probably wouldn't get
along with Jimmy. Where that would go would depend on who
held the power.

You probably should've used Persons A, B, C, and D, where none
of them have ever heard of each other.

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Let me inject a little realism. I have scene enough real scenarios — in all kinds of collaborations, in all manner of media, with all sorts of software tools in the mix, in and out of wikis, with a passing nod to Wikipedia — that I hardly have to rely on hokey hypotheticals.

I could tell you the kinds of players that I saw play a part over a large number of scenes, acts, stages, and theatres of Wikipandemonia. And I could tell you the sorts of scenarios that I witnessed actually develop there over time.

So who needs imagination?

Doesn't the reality of Wikipedia constantly exceed the range of our outgunned imaginations? Doesn't the absurdity that Wikipedia cranks out on a daily basis put to shame our puny capacities for parody?

I think the answer is clear.

So let me arrange a modest repertory of real scenarios I've scene.

But tomorrow …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Well, I'm thinking you, Jonny, and Herschel probably wouldn't get
along with Jimmy. Where that would go would depend on who
held the power.

You probably should've used Persons A, B, C, and D, where none
of them have ever heard of each other.

Actually, the analysis has more legs because of it.

Let's imagine Jimbo as the practical golfer, who is a little bit casual about the rules: what's the problem with moving the ball to a better position? Can't find the ball, I'll use this one. That was nearly in. He might be less than keen on a detailed analysis. Oh, and he is good friends with Mr Ping.

On the other hand Jon might be the detailed theoretician who has never seen a golf club in his life, but has a tonne of source material, who insists on sticking by the sources in spite of the practical knowledge of the other three. Kato might be the irritating one who can never take anything seriously and is disrupting the editing by harmless but irrelevant witticisms.* It may be that H has already written the definitive work and does not take kindly to being corrected, hell, he wrote the rule book.

Just because they are few in number, does not mean that they are isolated from the problems of a larger wiki. The major issue on any collaborative venture, even with a common goal, seems to be personality.

*Always wanted an excuse to quote my school report.

As soon as you have two or more characters, you have the makings of a drama.

Some character combinations yield better dramas than others.

As soon as you have two or more characters, you have the makings of a drama.

Some character combinations yield better dramas than others.

In our 4 person drama, Jimbo would be behaving badly, I'd be blaming him for ruining it, Jonny would be blaming both of us for ruining it, and Hersch would be blaming the Austrian School of Economics for ruining it.

See? Just another variation on the generic vexagonistic lunatic scapegoat psychodrama.

Before I recount a few real life, er, wiki-½-life scenarios that were scene by me before I was so obscenely split from the scene and scendicated in manifold reruns, let me emphasize the following take on the scene.

Genuine wikis and pretenders to the paradigm like Wikipedia are products of Social-Technical Engineering, which means that we have to examine their entire Social-Technical Architecture in order to make any sense of them at all.

In the case of Wikipedia, this means that we have to consider the Essays, Guidelines, And Policies (EGAP's) that record the Doctrines of its "Culture" or its "Social Contract" or whatever you want to call it. Of course it doesn't mean that we have to take those doctrines literally — dont be silly — we have to adopt what sociologists call the "functional" point of view, and ask ourselves what ends those doctrines serve. In the case of Wikipedia, I think it's clear to most unindoctrinated outside observers that its EGAP's serve far less often as guides to considered future conduct than as a Liturgy Of Ritual Recitations (LORR) to pronounce over actions that were always 4gone conclusions. In short, the whole corpus of WP:EGAP is semantically and pragmatically equivalent to the use of such cachepharses as King's X, Landru Be Praised, or Amen.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I understand the wish of many to deny what's before their eyes, but I think it will just keep hitting us in the face that all our plans to turn this wiki-tool-thing to good purpose — to facilitate communication and learning and knowledge and all that — that all these plans have gang agley somehow.

So I think we need to look very carefully at the properties of the Soc-Tech Architecture that Jimbo et Larry et alia built on the infrastructure of the wiki software platform — with especial attention to the components that might be amplifying the negative more than the accentuating the positive in human nature.

I might be misreading you again but I'll have another stab.

There are issues with allowing anonymous and ip editing, and there are problems with allowing people to have multiple accounts. It will be interesting to see how Citizendium plays out because they have closed down those run-a-rounds. But does closing down those run-a-rounds mean you lose appeal and so lose the ability to build a critical mass?

There are also issues with allowing pages to always be editable, not allowing a stable version to sit in front and also allowing people unlimited editing. Page protection does not work as well as limiting editors would. If you could technologically enforce a one edit per editor rule on a disputed page, say one edit per editor to the disputed article a day, and then if that doesn't slow down the edit war, one edit a week, to enforce consensus editing.

Create or adopt a manual of style first, and make that something people have to sign up to. That will solve a large number of disputes.

Ban user bots. If someone wants a bot to do something, get the developers to instigate it through a developer controlled bot account. A lot of disputes centre around bot actions. Make a bot which edits articles inline with the manual of style. That will stop a lot of issues.

Trust your editors. Implement stages through which an editor will grow. For every 1000 edits above a certain kilobyte, grant access to a tool. Avoid voting.

Automate tagging tasks.

Establish a deletion process which is transparent, open and mandates discussion. Perhaps jury led deletion, or possibly even a two tier system of the "published" encyclopedia and the "draft"encyclopedia, so nothing needs to be deleted, it is simply subject to constant revision.

Own the content. Don't duck the legal issues, embrace them. This will enforce better practises. Make the published encyclopedia accountable, the workshop one the bulletin board.

Just flying kites. Not sure how practical they all are and whether they create more issues than they purport to solve.

I asked a question about the causes of certain symptoms and you skipped ahead to suggest various remedies and therapies. I think that it might be a good idea to identify the causes of the condition before we even think of applying bandages and salves.

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

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings.

It's more than human standard failing. Wikipedia select the worst in humanity.

People don't collaborate well. Especially not when working towards an ill-defined goal. Ulterior motives creep in, politicking occurs. Pretty much the standard human failings.

It's more than human standard failing. Wikipedia selects the worst in humanity.

Yes, but what are the specific features of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture that enable or invite people to do that more than they would in a better-engineered system of social and technical means?

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

1. Anonymity.

2. Lack of a functional social contract.

Yes, but what are the specific features of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture that enable or invite people to do that more than they would in a better-engineered system of social and technical means?

Jonny B)

A Death-Bed

This is the State above the Law.
"The State exists for the State alone."
[This is a gland at the back of the jaw,
And an answering lump by the collar-bone.]

Some die shouting in gas or fire;
Some die silent, by shell and shot.
Some die desperate, caught on the wire -
Some die suddenly. This will not.

"Regis suprema voluntas Lex"
[It will follow the regular course of--throats.]
Some die pinned by the broken decks,
Some die sobbing between the boats.

Some die eloquent, pressed to death
By the sliding trench as their friends can hear
Some die wholly in half a breath.
Some--give trouble for half a year.

"There is neither Evil nor Good in life
Except as the needs of the State ordain."
[Since it is rather too late for the knife,
All we can do is to mask the pain.]

Some die saintly in faith and hope--
One died thus in a prison-yard--
Some die broken by rape or the rope;
Some die easily. This dies hard.

"I will dash to pieces who bar my way.
Woe to the traitor! Woe to the weak! "
[Let him write what he wishes to say.
It tires him out if he tries to speak.]

Some die quietly. Some abound
In loud self-pity. Others spread
Bad morale through the cots around .
This is a type that is better dead.

"The war was forced on me by my foes.
All that I sought was the right to live."
[Don't be afraid of a triple dose;
The pain will neutralize all we give.

Here are the needles. See that he dies
While the effects of the drug endure. . . .
What is the question he asks with his eyes?--
Yes, All-Highest, to God, be sure.]

This is the State above the Law.
If WP is 'The State', then the first line could be
taken to mean either that WP is above external
law, that is, immune by section 230, and general
ignorance of international law; or it could be
taken to mean that high ranking persons on WP
are above their own rules.

"The State exists for the State alone."
WP has lost the sense of purpose of being
around to help people. Rather, it exists to be an
encyclopaedia, or in other words, to perpetuate
itself. WP exists for WP.

"Regis suprema voluntas Lex"
Latin for, 'The pleasure of the king is the supreme
law.' WP's rules can be twisted and ignored to
serve the desires of it's highest ranking members,
e.g. the ArbCom.

"I will dash to pieces who bar my way.
Woe to the traitor! Woe to the weak!"
WP's general brutality toward discontented BLP
subjects, those who break even minor rules but
aren't high-ranking members, those who speak
out against high-ranking members, banned users,
critics, not to mention people who just fail at
encyclopaedia-writing.

"The war was forced on me by my foes.
All that I sought was the right to live."
The 'I' here isn't WP, but WP's victims.


This post has been edited by AB:

1. Anonymity.

2. Lack of a functional social contract.

Good, something munchable before dinner.

1. Wikipartisans would say they have pseudonymity not anonymity. I think a careful examination would show that it's a distinction without a difference for all practical purposes that outside observers really care about.
2. Wikipartisans would probably say they have a social contract in the form of WP:Policies And Guidelines. I suppose that "functional" is the operative word here.

Another big feature that is standardly implemented on the Technical side of the Soc-Tech Architecture, but that finds itself so radically abused on the Social side of Wikipdia life, would have to be the Erasability or the Non-Monotonicity of contributions to the Tabula Rasa. In genuine wikis this is compensated by the Indelibility or the Monotoncity of the system history, but that transparency safety net has been pulled out from under the paradigmatic perversion that we find in Wikipedia.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Overshadowing those two factors is a lamentable lack of an ethical value system.

1. Anonymity.

2. Lack of a functional social contract.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failing to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurdity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

2. Wikipartisans would probably say they have a social contract in the form of WP:Policies And Guidelines. I suppose that "functional" is the operative word here.

It's a social contract, but it is as you say not functional, it has a function but obviously does not work. The social contract (policies and guidelines) contradict with the interest of a very significant number of Wikipedians. Those will survive as long as they manipulate the system in a way that it appears that they adhere to the social contruct.

In real life there are those who manipulate the system too, but Wikipedia attract those sort of people, it has some affinity.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failling to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurbity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

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

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

*Exchange of information, anonymity is OK

*Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonimity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, I know the dynamics of our own sweet Etopia well enough to know that nothing so meditative will compete with the Main Distraction on the Midway this week … or the next … but I thought I might leave this note to self, just in case things get dull toward the Ides.

P.S. I was going to call it Wiki-Induced Learning Disorder but the acronym WILD might have made it sound like a good thing.

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

I agree. Wikipedia is brain poison. To any reasonable reader with any experience of WP, the only useful things there are the source sections. A collective system of world research may do better by having standardized titles (e.g, something like; Sourced definitions, science description, practitioner description, sourced science view on efficacy/concepts, sourced practitioner view on efficacy/concepts, peer reviewed scholarly sources, non peer reviewed etc).

If it were as cold as ice, of course not many people would contribute, but thats because they wouldn't be able to bullshit.

It would cease to be an encyclopedia. That'd be a good thing for starters. It could be a good collection/aggregation of sources, without most of the nonsense though.

If the reader were presented with zero distortions of sources, then they could do all the learning themselves without all the overload.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failing to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurdity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

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

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

* Exchange of information, anonymity is OK.

* Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonymity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

Where have you been?

You are talking like one of those first-year librarian bloggers who just heard about Wikipedia and thinks it sounds like a really hyper-cool idea but hasn't actually registered a full-blooded account yet.

There's nothing even half-way reality-based to respond to in your remarks.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

I don't think you carefully read to what you have replied. What I have presented doesn't look like Wikipedia at all.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failling to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurbity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

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

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

* Exchange of information, anonymity is OK

* Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonimity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

Where have you been?

You are talking like one of those first-year librarian bloggers who just heard about Wikipedia and think it sounds like a really hyper-cool idea but haven't actually registered a full-blooded account yet.

There's nothing even half-way reality-based to respond to in your remarks.

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

Blue-skying may be fine in the early years, but anyone who's been paying any attention at all has seen all the ways that anonymity begets immunity begets irresponsibility, and anything more than a trace amount of those ingredients anywhere in the system will poison the whole culture faster than you can say Jimbonny Quickie.

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

There is no question that the erratic governance architecture of WP is toxic.

Blue-skying may be fine in the early years, but anyone who's been paying any attention at all has seen all the ways that anonymity begets immunity begets irresponsibility, and anything more than a trace amount of those ingredients anywhere in the system will poison the whole culture faster than you can say Jimbonny Quickie.

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

There's no doubt that is a major contributory factor. But I believe you would soon find problems whether the participants are using names associated with their real life identity or not. The anonymity amplifies deeper problems with online collaboration.

These deeper problems you'd find would be related to Somey's blog post

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080117/w...has-not-scaled/

...compromise, power gaming, disillusionment. In the unreal world of online collaboration, the human ties just aren't strong enough. We are presented with Xeroxed versions of real human relationships. Visible, but lacking in essential detail. There is simply not enough to bind the collaborators to the task in hand. And too many distractions. Associations aren't natural online, and they quickly become corrupted it seems. Communication isn't lucid, collaboration is a genuine struggle.

Blue-skying may be fine in the early years, but anyone who's been paying any attention at all has seen all the ways that anonymity begets immunity begets irresponsibility, and anything more than a trace amount of those ingredients anywhere in the system will poison the whole culture faster than you can say Jimbonny Quickie.

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

There's no doubt that is a major contributory factor. But I believe you would soon find problems whether the participants are using names associated with their real life identity or not. The anonymity amplifies deeper problems with online collaboration.

These deeper problems you'd find would be related to Somey's blog post

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080117/w...has-not-scaled/

… compromise, power gaming, disillusionment. In the unreal world of online collaboration, the human ties just aren't strong enough. We are presented with Xeroxed versions of real human relationships. Visible, but lacking in essential detail. There is simply not enough to bind the collaborators to the task in hand. And too many distractions. Associations aren't natural online, and they quickly become corrupted it seems. Communication isn't lucid, collaboration is a genuine struggle.

I am right in the middle of moving this Anonymity-related sideshow to its own thread, as I feel like most of it is very old hat, and I really want to focus on the Causes of a specific Effect on the Human Psyche.

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

Worrying About Wheel-Warring in Our WikiWoe

Wheel-Warring in WikiDrama, like political give and take everywhere, follows an oft-observed model. The model presented here applies in general to all WikiDrama at any level of intensity, from a simple reversion to clamorous kerfuffle and brouhaha. It has 5 stages.

1. Mimetic Desire for One's Point of View
One editorial clique establishes their Point of View as an editorial objective and other editors react with a countervailing drive for their complementary Point of View.

2. Mimetic Rivalry for More Prominence
Now the editorial cliques begin competing for prominence. Whatever winning strategies emerge, the less experienced editors copy them. To survive in Wikipedia, an editor must become deft at gaming the labyrinthine rules of the system.

3. Skandalon
Skandalon is a Greek word that means "taking the bait." It's the root of "slander" and "scandal." In the rivalry for editorial dominance, if one side can goad the other into committing a foul, the opposing editor can be neutralized or even eliminated from the game. Thus begins a Wiki-War, fought on the editorial battlefield, in which the goal is to demolish and disempower the other side. Skandalon is what makes it so hard not to take the bait, so hard just to walk away. It's so easy to bicker and goad. The give and take escalates.

4. Scapegoating and Alienation
Eventually one editor crosses some arbitrary threshold of civility where another Admin feels compelled to intervene. It's essentially random which side crosses first, but often it's the more disgruntled minority, which uses harsher language to maintain parity. Whichever side goes over the arbitrary line becomes singled out, and the others who kept their trolling below threshold are sorely offended. They rudely chastise the miscreant, sending him or her to the Oblivion of Time Out.

5. Consensual, Irrevocable, and Sanctioned Banishment
To appease the rabble, the ArbCom determines the standards of civility and visits banishment and page-blanking on the outcast. Then everyone issues a sigh of relief. This escalates the polarization to the next higher level of examination in online culture.

The 5-stage pattern repeats at all levels of Wikidrama and for all rivalries and editorial competitions. The most vicious attacks are reserved for people highest up in the power structure. Jimbo Wales, ArbCom, and Wikipedia Review all follow this model. Well, actually, almost everyone follows it.

At every point in a battle of WikiWits, the dynamic is somewhere in the 5-stage model, which repeats endlessly.

The only way to arrest the Wikidrama is to adopt the conscious goal of de-escalation and run the model backwards toward constructive dialogue. Giving up the desire to be dominant, avoiding the temptation of skandalon, avoiding Requests for Comments, avoiding authorized and sanctioned banishment.

A common type of outcast is a person who bears witness and speaks the truth to power.

Wikidrama, left to itself tends to escalate over time.

We need to think our way out of verbal vendettas by mindfully running the model backward, de-escalating editorial power struggles and moving toward open dialogue.

At every stage of the model, we need to be mindful of the dynamic we are caught up in, and consciously elect to run the model in reverse.

With this Systems Theoretic Model of the dynamic structure of argument, debate and dialogue, we can discover the optimal strategy to drive the system in reverse toward better practices and more accurate articles.

It's pure science, pure reason, and pure common sense. These methods of thought all reach the same insightful solution to getting along.

It's time we learned it so that we can discontinue the mindless practice of Wiki-flogging ourselves to death. It's time we learned, reviewed, reflected, and meditated on the Mimetic Reconciliation Model.

Good post Moulton

Good post Moulton

Yup, it's such a good post that it probably ought to be the anchor of it's own thread.

Maybe someone could explain to Moulton how to use the <New Topic> button?

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

That 5-stage model is due to Professor Rene Girard, Emeritus of Stanford University.

I've adapted it on several occasions to specific contexts.

That 5-stage model is due to Professor Rene Girard, Emeritus of Stanford University.

I've adapted it on several occasions to specific contexts.

What you are not doing with your canned re*printings of old blog postings is adapting them to the specific question e-nunciated above. The mission — and nothing says you have to accept it — is to seek out first and debug later specific features of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture that are causally implicated in its debilitating effect on people's desire to learn. As indicated by the subtitle, this demands something more than yet another dramatic description of symptomology — something that we've all been quite capable of doing till we laugh or cry or throw up — it requires plausible hypotheses about which actual features of the system are primarily responsible for the Induced Learning Lesions (ILL's).

I am sorry if I evince a certain urgency about this, but I feel pressed to get down to the brass tacks of identifying root causes, before we end up with too many more Wiki-Crack Babies on our hands.

No one wants to see that …

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

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

Your call for causes of an effect on the human psyche is what prompted me to pull out Girard's Model, since that's a core feature of his model.

Your call for causes of an effect on the human psyche is what prompted me to pull out Girard's Model, since that's a core feature of his model.

Fair enough, and maybe my brain is just blurred over today, but the model seems to be describing human universals that would manifest themselves in all climes and seasons. What I'm looking for are differential factors, marks of the social policy + software design that are amplifying the noise at the expense of the signal, so to speak.

Some of us already accept the idea that anonymity is one of those factors. My own experience with Citizendium tells me that you can fix that bug and still not touch many other fundamental flaws of the Sanger-Wales confoundation.

Pointing to the poor excuse for a social contract that Wikipedia trots out on ritual occasions is certainly another good lead. But it debouches on a very wide field of investigation where we have but turned over one or three pebbles here and there.

So I'm just not getting that epiphany yet —

Maybe I'll go watch the Simpsons movie again …

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

The mission — and nothing says you have to accept it — is to seek out first and debug later specific features of Wikipedia's Social-Technical Architecture that are causally implicated in its debilitating effect on people's desire to learn.

WP:No original research ?

Learning often involves 'original research'. And then some
WP members have a strange tendency of trying to apply
WP rules such as WP:NOR outside of WP.

And there's the question of how people become so
convinced that that rule is so great.

Some of us already accept the idea that anonymity is one of those factors. My own experience with Citizendium tells me that you can fix that bug and still not touch many other fundamental flaws of the Sanger-Wales confoundation.

Pointing to the poor excuse for a social contract that Wikipedia trots out on ritual occasions is certainly another good lead. But it debouches on a very wide field of investigation where we have but turned over one or three pebbles here and there.

So I'm just not getting that epiphany yet —
Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Maybe there's nothing more to get. We all know the problems of email fora from the monumental fights on Usenet (internet newsgroups). They are indeed brought on by anonymity, the ease of hitting the "enter" key when you'd better off thinking it over for 30 minutes, and finally (and not least) the real problems that enter in, when two people face off in "public" and this causes a situation where neither can lose face by giving ground. This is how murder happens in the ghetto. It's not generally private one-on-one fights without witnesses that are deadly-- it's fights in front of groups where the weaker guy can't just walk away, and so is forced to do something drastic, like pull a deadly weapon.

The only thing Wikipedia adds to all this, that I can see, is to add the power to be Judge Dred. People slurp their way up the brown snowcone until they finally become anon admins, and from that moment on, they have power without accountability, and that corrupts all but the most saintly and old souls. Certainly it totally destroys the character of the average young-male-nerd who typically become an admin. For women with any paranoia at all, it plays into their primal fears of being raped or stalked or something, but you'll notice that their hot-button killing activities as admins, are for totally different reasons. Male admins typically tromp on others for insults, as in a bar. Women for "outing" another editor, which amounts to fears of being followed home in the dark.

Does this theory need to be more complicated? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

--- Milt

Some of us already accept the idea that anonymity is one of those factors. My own experience with Citizendium tells me that you can fix that bug and still not touch many other fundamental flaws of the Sanger-Wales confoundation.

Pointing to the poor excuse for a social contract that Wikipedia trots out on ritual occasions is certainly another good lead. But it debouches on a very wide field of investigation where we have but turned over one or three pebbles here and there.

So I'm just not getting that epiphany yet —

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

Maybe there's nothing more to get. We all know the problems of email fora from the monumental fights on Usenet (internet newsgroups). They are indeed brought on by anonymity, the ease of hitting the "enter" key when you'd better off thinking it over for 30 minutes, and finally (and not least) the real problems that enter in, when two people face off in "public" and this causes a situation where neither can lose face by giving ground. This is how murder happens in the ghetto. It's not generally private one-on-one fights without witnesses that are deadly — it's fights in front of groups where the weaker guy can't just walk away, and so is forced to do something drastic, like pull a deadly weapon.

The only thing Wikipedia adds to all this, that I can see, is to add the power to be Judge Dred. People slurp their way up the brown snowcone until they finally become anon admins, and from that moment on, they have power without accountability, and that corrupts all but the most saintly and old souls. Certainly it totally destroys the character of the average young-male-nerd who typically become an admin. For women with any paranoia at all, it plays into their primal fears of being raped or stalked or something, but you'll notice that their hot-button killing activities as admins, are for totally different reasons. Male admins typically tromp on others for insults, as in a bar. Women for "outing" another editor, which amounts to fears of being followed home in the dark.

Does this theory need to be more complicated? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

— Milt

Nah, Boss, works for me …

Jonny "Da Jet" Cache (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

For women with any paranoia at all, it plays into their primal fears of being raped or stalked or something [...] Women for "outing" another editor, which amounts to fears of being followed home in the dark.

Erm - assault, sexual assault, rape, literal
following-behind-from-just-within-sight-stalking -
those things still happen, quite frequently in
some places, and often in broad daylight.

I don't know how often that sort of thing
follows from online activity, but it only takes
one creep to ruin everything.


This post has been edited by AB:

I just don't picture WP as a learning community in any way. With WP, everyone considers themselves the experts, and they find anyone disagreeing with them to be a nuisance. Learning means often confronting something new that goes against what you thought you knew. I don't really see Wikipedians going "Wow, I never knew that! I should add that to my memory!" Instead, they conspire against you for challenging their assumptions.

There's just a basic assumption that everyone has an equal voice and everyone is equally right... which is wrong! I think that's one of the deeper neuroses.

I just don't picture WP as a learning community in any way. With WP, everyone considers themselves the experts, and they find anyone disagreeing with them to be a nuisance. Learning means often confronting something new that goes against what you thought you knew. I don't really see Wikipedians going "Wow, I never knew that! I should add that to my memory!" Instead, they conspire against you for challenging their assumptions.

There's just a basic assumption that everyone has an equal voice and everyone is equally right... which is wrong! I think that's one of the deeper neuroses.

Well, you can learn stuff because it gets added. But yes I see no examples of people deep learning or adapting their learning.

The sort of learning that WP is excellent for is:

Learning to bully

Learning to brown-nose

Learning to distort via trumping conclusion with opinion, hiding facts in a mess, and otherwise NLPing the article for their own gratification.

Learning to insult people within civility regs

Learning to waste the time of any well meaning newcomer


Basically, its super for - sociopath skills training

Wikipedia is a wonderful place to make the acquaintance of people inhabiting the Axis II section of DSM IV.

This blog posting deals with this topic somewhat

What Motivates Online Social Participation?

http://www.hopperanalytical.com/blog/what-...l-participation

(dammit I really think we need a "crows nest" forum for these kinds of threads. Its becoming more and more and more difficult to locate them on this forum as the scandals pile up)

The drive to punish transgressors is one of those curious characteristics of our species that defies logical analysis. I suppose there is an emotional satisfaction in Schadenfreude that operates on a different dimension than other (rational) measures of system gain.