The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[Happy drinker]

I could answer you with my own question: Why are there now three poorly-written happy-talk
fan books about Wikipedia, and hardly any outright criticisms of it in print? Why is Andrew Keen
all alone in the desert?

Because, despite what some people here seem to think, there is far more to praise than to criticise? Nobody (other than David Gerard) says Wikipedia is perfect and flawless, but I think at least 3 to 1 is right.

[Andrew Dalby]

I thought I'd look in ...

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover ... is enough reason for me not to pick it up.

We decided you'd be right! Hence, although those words appeared on a draft of the cover (maybe still visible on some websites), they don't appear on printed copies.

If the insinuation above is correct -- that Dalby authored his own bio on WP and maintained it with sockpuppets -- don't you think that might be relevant to the book? I haven't read it, but these types of issues are discussed, aren't they? Is Dalby writing objectively or from a self-interested point of view?

If he's playing games on WP and condemning the gameplayers in the book, it doesn't say much for his veracity. On the other hand, if he isn't pointing out that these types of things go on all the time on WP, he's leaving out a large part of the story.

It is relevant. The book discusses how important it is for anyone whose living depends on publicity to be on Wikipedia. I try to be honest about it, because of course this imperative applies to me as a writer:

‘Even in France,’ wrote Pierre Assouline (as if France is somehow less subject to such temptations), ‘certain specialists in self-promotion – artists and others – are clever enough to write for themselves, or have someone write for them, a long and favourable article out of proportion to their importance.’ How very true that is. I have to confess that I’ve edited the Andrew Dalby biography (to add references and to correct a name in the text: ‘Gonzalo Pizarro’, not a personal friend); and although I didn’t create the page, I have to admit that I wasn’t unaware of its creation; and all this happened even though I’m in France ...

I have a copy of Dalby's book. It's quite poorly written and organized, and very fanboyish.

I'm sorry you have that impression (especially because you write well). People tell me that I write well: if it's true at all, it's true when I write slowly. We wanted to get this book out fast, and the publishers managed it extremely well: it was being distributed less than eight weeks after I completed the final chapter. Believe me, that's rare. But not enough time devoted to re-reading, I guess.

I just can't take seriously a book that makes statements like this:

Durova and SlimVirgin, high-profile Wikipedians, brave enough to court all kinds of controversy, are among those who have achieved this fame and have withstood the pressure of scurrilous attacks from the shadows beyond the encyclopedia. I have already mentioned some others whose names are bandied about on the wikifringes and who go on working: Raul654, Eloquence and Danny, Anthere and David.Monniaux are among them. "

Knowing the histories of those "brave" people, this statement is either totally insane, or was intended to be satirical--and failed.

On this you're very wrong. I don't say that these or any Wikipedians do everything right. I say that these and some others, because of their work on the site, face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse -- over long periods -- that might well be more than you or I could stand up to.

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sat 7th November 2009, 4:36pm

[the fieryangel]

On this you're very wrong. I don't say that these or any Wikipedians do everything right. I say that these and some others, because of their work on the site, face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse -- over long periods -- that might well be more than you or I could stand up to.

Do you mention those who face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse and worse because of their efforts in criticizing Wikipedia?

For that matter, is Wikipedia Review (where the Essjay scandal started), Hivemind, Wikipedia Review and other criticism sites even mentioned in your book?

If they're not given significant coverage, I'd hardly call that an "objective" treatment....

[Andrew Dalby]

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

That's part of why that book is such a joke.

Some of the people on the list seem like peculiar choices to write about: J.delanoy, Johnbod, Keeper76, Aleta, Kelapstick, Kevin, Kingturtle and Pickles4u (who?).

Eric, how did those characters get cited? And why are they there?

I'll answer that one ahead of Eric. The book's real aim is to make non-Wikipedians think about how this resource, used by them every day, gets to be the way it is. All the 220 users in the index of usernames are in there as examples. They did something, good or bad, to an article whose history I want the reader to follow: created it, improved it, categorised it, vandalised it, unprotected it, added irrelevances to it, talked endlessly about it, etc.

I decided at the outset that when I discussed any Wikipedia contribution I should attribute it to its author. The book would have been written faster if I hadn't chosen to do that, but it would certainly have failed to make Wikipedia come alive to non-Wikipedians. (It may still have failed, of course!)

I never interacted with any of these 220 users before they went into the book. And yet ... I have to admit ... the choice isn't mathematically random. Most of the names are of people who made some contribution (whatever it is, good or bad) more than once: they typify an aspect of the site, or an aspect of their own work on the site. Their name passed in front of my eyes two or three times during my research, and I said to myself: go back, use that first example (where the hell was it?), it'll link in here and it gives me another (virtual) personality.

Do you mention those who face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse and worse because of their efforts in criticizing Wikipedia?

For that matter, is Wikipedia Review (where the Essjay scandal started), Hivemind, Wikipedia Review and other criticism sites even mentioned in your book?

If they're not given significant coverage, I'd hardly call that an "objective" treatment....

Tell me who you mean and I might tell you whether they are in. Here's the first mention of Wikipedia Review. This comes in a survey of criticism sites:

"Wikipedia Review is a forum populated by Wikipedia editors, whose attitudes range from fairly happy to extremely disgruntled. Like all forums you aren't involved in, the Review is penetratingly boring; which must be why I scan it and, as you'll see, cite it."

[Andrew Dalby]

And of course the Review is mentioned at the crucial moment in the Essjay story:

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

[Peter Damian]

Hello Andrew. I am intrigued to learn that there is at least one other person who reads medieval Latin (Andrew claims to read it in bed). Welcome, Andrew. I am puzzled our paths never crossed. I made considerable contributions to the medieval philosophy and theology sections of Wikipedia. You specialise in Medieval history, yes?

I was impressed by the quality of your contributions to the Latin Wikipedia.

[Cedric]

I thought I'd look in ...

The fact that "unauthorized and objective" are the first words that appear on the cover ... is enough reason for me not to pick it up.

We decided you'd be right! Hence, although those words appeared on a draft of the cover (maybe still visible on some websites), they don't appear on printed copies.

I see. Further research suggests it was changed to "confessions of a contributor".

You may want to call your publisher-- it would appear that theirs is among the "some websites" that are still displaying the earlier draft image.

[Jon Awbrey]

As long as you're Reviewing The Situation, Mister Wiki-Φagin, you might think of changing the title, too, to something like this:

• The World OR Wikipedia — Can You Choose Wisely?
• The World OR Wikipedia — Take Your Pick, Jimli …

Maybe the Review should start a Name That Book contest?

Jon

[Andrew Dalby]

You may want to call your publisher-- it would appear that theirs is among the "some websites" that are still displaying the earlier draft image.

Ha!

Hello Andrew. I am intrigued to learn that there is at least one other person who reads medieval Latin (Andrew claims to read it in bed). Welcome, Andrew. I am puzzled our paths never crossed ... I was impressed by the quality of your contributions to the Latin Wikipedia.

I'm puzzled too. I haven't yet explored the full story of your struggles on Wikipedia, but I've made a start.

I usually avoid philosophy, though I encounter occasional marginal figures, such as John of Garland. I'm trying to improve Vicipaedia, and my Latin, at the same time. There's plenty to do, and fewer content disputes ...

[Milton Roe]

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

That's part of why that book is such a joke.

Some of the people on the list seem like peculiar choices to write about: J.delanoy, Johnbod, Keeper76, Aleta, Kelapstick, Kevin, Kingturtle and Pickles4u (who?).

Eric, how did those characters get cited? And why are they there?

I'll answer that one ahead of Eric. The book's real aim is to make non-Wikipedians think about how this resource, used by them every day, gets to be the way it is. All the 220 users in the index of usernames are in there as examples. They did something, good or bad, to an article whose history I want the reader to follow: created it, improved it, categorised it, vandalised it, unprotected it, added irrelevances to it, talked endlessly about it, etc.

COMMENT:
And yet, in your mention of 220 users there is no mention of Kintetsubuffalo (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a fellow English sinophile and orientalist like yourself, who shares your passion for Burma and who collaborated so notably with you on the bio of James George Scott. And who was busy editing your own BLP within a day of you starting it. Now, that's personal attention.

I'll bet poor Kintetsu's heart is downcast. He has contributed 10 times your content in the time you've both been on WP since the end of 2005, and typifies the kind of editor who actually builds WP rather than participates in its drahma. His userpage says:

I don't want to be an admin and I'm not everybody's buddy. I work well with those actually working, I revert vandals, and I check edits by anonymous users just on general principle. I'm right more often than I am not, and I am a positive force on Wikipedia. I am proud of what I do here, I have learned much along the way, and it's one of the things that have kept me sane.

Good for him. He shares an amazing number of mainspace articles with you in editing, mainly due to your shared interests. So this is one of the better examples of how WP actually works correctly-- the shared work between yourself and him, with no bickering and no edit wars going to RfC and ArbCom. But it doesn't make it into your book.

SlimVirgin, Durova, and Essjay do.

You do see where I'm coming from with this criticism, do you not? If your editor choices are meant to be illustrative, you missed one of your better chances to illustrate something. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.


-- Milton

[Jon Awbrey]

sinophile

ewwwww ¤ yuck ¤

[Milton Roe]

sinophile

ewwwww ¤ yuck ¤

Glad you have learnt a new word, Jon.

Mine was "vatic." I try to pick up at least one each day.

Yours With Alterity,

MR

[Jon Awbrey]

sinophile

ewwwww ¤ yuck ¤

Glad you have learnt a new word, Jon.

Mine was "vatic". I try to pick up at least one each day.

Yours With Alterity,

MR

I thought it was some kinda new wiki-perversion.

But now I see it'snot.

Ja Ja

[Andrew Dalby]

If your editor choices are meant to be illustrative, you missed one of your better chances to illustrate something. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Your point's well taken. Wikipedia itself talks far too much about its own dramas; so does this forum; so do I.

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sat 7th November 2009, 9:02pm

[Jon Awbrey]

In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

We're saving that story for The Godfounder : Part 11.

Ja Ja

[Milton Roe]

If your editor choices are meant to be illustrative, you missed one of your better chances to illustrate something. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all,I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

We HAVE done some of that, although doing so was understandably a bit inhibited in the bad old days when we were a BADSITE, where anything we said in praise of anybody on WP marked them as a target animal for the pack of jackals who held power on WP.

One of my own favs is Carcharoth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , mentioned here on WR several times. He has since made it to arbcom (through no help on WR, for sure). But the fact is, that there are far too many good editors, and even far too many good administrators, to discuss here, except as contrasts to the crappy ones who somehow made it into the circle of people protected by Jimbo, or the people who know Jimbo, or who have "correct" views about the middle east, etc. We note high-value contributors like Neutrality (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Antandrus (T-C-L-K-R-D) when they cross our radar screens, but that's about it. This is a Wikipedia criticism site, not a booster site, you know. It gets enough unfocused boosterism from itself to serve BOTH sites.

There is a spectrum of opinion on WR, and even among the people here from day-to-day. Some people think WP is inherently unfixable. I'm not so sure. When I see the kinds of things the good editors and admins do, I think it actually might work much better, if it wasn't for the small percentage of bullies, syncophants, true believers who don't care a damn about BLP, and so on. People who have asskissed their way into favor, after which they can do no wrong-- even when they do wrong (Essjay is posterboy for this, but there are others who never had his huge downfall, or else not as large as his).

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh good, another n00b to splain it all to from scratch again …

The fact is that Wikipedia is such a corrupting influence on so many educational, ethical, and scholarly fronts that any contribution to it does nothing but lend aid and comfort to an enemy of education, ethics, and scholarship.

Jon Awbrey

[GlassBeadGame]

If your editor choices are meant to be illustrative, you missed one of your better chances to illustrate something. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Your point's well taken. Wikipedia itself talks far too much about its own dramas; so does this forum; so do I.

Your book seems of little interest to me because you focus on the the on-wiki personalities for there own sake and not illustrations of significant aspects such as editing standards, article development, POV pushing, MMORPG aspects, identity games, internet addiction, BLP issues, and external concerns. You might touch on the first two topics as fodder for stroking your intended audience but not any of the latter Because of this your work is shallow and has only a very limited audience and only among Wikipedians.

Such a thread as you suggest would be drivel. Enjoy your brave new world that has such people in it.

[Cedric]

If your editor choices are meant to be illustrative, you missed one of your better chances to illustrate something. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Actually, I think Uncle Milty may have already done just that. In any event, we already have a number of such threads. Unfortunately, they usually come about when such a constructive editor is being set upon by an abusive admin or a howling wiki-mob (often, a "wiki project"). For instance, The Bang-Bang ("!!") Affair, which was an absolutely HUGE deal on WP at the time. No mention of poor old Bang-Bang either, I see.

And yet, in your mention of 220 users there is no mention of Kintetsubuffalo (T-C-L-K-R-D) , a fellow English sinophile and orientalist like yourself, who shares your passion for Burma and who collaborated so notably with you on the bio of James George Scott. And who was busy editing your own BLP within a day of you starting it. Now, that's personal attention.

I'll bet poor Kintetsu's heart is downcast. He has contributed 10 times your content in the time you've both been on WP since the end of 2005, and typifies the kind of editor who actually builds WP rather than participates in its drahma. His userpage says:

I don't want to be an admin and I'm not everybody's buddy. I work well with those actually working, I revert vandals, and I check edits by anonymous users just on general principle. I'm right more often than I am not, and I am a positive force on Wikipedia. I am proud of what I do here, I have learned much along the way, and it's one of the things that have kept me sane.

The Kintetsubuffalo quote interests me in that I could have said the same for myself; all except for the last bit. When I contemplated the natural implications of the Essjay "controversy", I knew I had to leave for good for sanity's sake.

[Peter Damian]

I'm puzzled too. I haven't yet explored the full story of your struggles on Wikipedia, but I've made a start.

There is a brief summary of my concerns about Wikipedia here

http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:The_Wik...about_Wikipedia

Namely, the plague of cruft and fanboy material that afflicts Wikipedia, particularly (for me) in the area of pseudo-psychology, pop philosophy, pedophilia and other areas. If you have been involved in those battlegrounds, which I suspect you haven't, Andrew, it is impossible to have a 'neutral point of view' about Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 7th November 2009, 9:46pm