"Ich Bin Ein Wikipedischer — Nicht!", Power And The Misrep Of Knowledge (PATMOK) Options Rating

[Angela Kennedy]

I've decided to put up my wikipedia user page on WR, basically just to add to the ongoing debate about Wikipedia as a domain of knowledge production, and also to set out a little more where I am coming from:

User:Angela Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I will make it quite clear immediately that I have a number of serious problems with the concept of Wikipedia, and the way Wikipedia is run. My particular concerns are the representation or misrepresentation of 'knowledge', power relationships within the set-up, and claims of 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' followed by partisan behaviour. This is a general concern I have with many aspects of political and social systems and domains of ‘knowledge‘ production, and is not limited to Wikipedia.

I also am sceptical of the Jimbo Wales claim to make Wikipedia "The sum of all knowledge", for all sorts of reasons related to the contested concept of what is 'knowledge' and the logical fallacy of claiming (a) that knowledge is finite and ( one entity can possess the whole lot.
I have a social science academic background.

I have joined because I advocate for the ME/CFS and Lyme communities. I am concerned to ensure that those groups, and those people supporting them such as myself, are not misrepresented or subject to unsubstantiated accusations, something which has happened with monotonous and demoralising regularity in various discourses and arenas. Sadly, this has also already happened on Wikipedia pages.

Like many others in patient political advocacy and academic circles, I wish to be able to make relevant and legitimate critique of the claims of others (in my own case the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS, my field of current study as well as political advocacy) without being subject to ad hominem attacks in order to discredit my work, or be misrepresented as deviant, unreasonable and irrational, or as an emotional, extremist thug. It's a reasonable wish. Sadly, this sort of misrepresentation has gone on with impunity on some parts of Wikipedia.

Here we have a situation where inherent problems of Wikipedia (which might not otherwise cross my radar)are in danger of impinging in an extremely damaging fashion on a situation outside of Wikipedia (in other words, the outside world), because of an apparent determination by some to publish inflammatory, unsubstantiated claims about the above communities on Wikipedia .

I have joined in an effort to be as transparent as possible, as I endeavour to engage with Wikipedia in a fair and reasonable manner. I am hoping that the current problems (highlighted on the Simon Wessely talk pages, including the archives) will be reconciled in a fair manner and prove my misgivings wrong, though events so far have only strenghtened those misgivings.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela_Kennedy"

It's not the ME/CFS/Lyme discussion I'm highlighting here (though of course I've come into the problems of Wikipedia through those broad subjects), or even my own experience of defamation.

Rather, I'm seeking to establish that I think there are serious problems with Wikipedia per se, and that, rather than try and fix them as a 'citizen' of WP, some of us here are instead critical outsiders. I'm interested if anyone identifies as such.

I feel some discomfort at having to engage with, discuss and 'know' so much about WP, ironically(!) in order to be able to critique it, and I'm sure that is due to lots of issues already highlighted at WR. Again- wondering if anyone else feels similar.

[Casliber]

I tried looking but my head started to swim in the rabbit warren of archives. Can you sum up concisely what the issue is - WRT article in current form vs what you think it should say?

[Angela Kennedy]

I tried looking but my head started to swim in the rabbit warren of archives. Can you sum up concisely what the issue is - WRT article in current form vs what you think it should say?

Hi Casliber,

I'm sorry- I don't understand quite what you mean.

I've put my userpage (now blanked under Jim Wales's orders? Or possibly Guy Chapman) only to set out my problem with Wikipedia as a domain of knowledge production.

What else was it you wanted to know?

[One]

I think her problem is likely that she advocates for a disorder that many scientists (and therefore some Wikipedians) think is psychological. In spite of years of explaining to the public that psychological illness is real illness, some people hate having their disease given the "psychological" label. This leads to predictable holy wars. At least that's what I gather. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...2FCFS_community

Also, it appears she was trying to include negative information about a living person which she criticizes publically. I'm not a COI hardliner, but that seems at least a little questionable.

But I've an open mind. Perhaps my cursory negative inferences will spur Angela into explaining.

[Robert Roberts]

I'm familiar with the Lyme's disease debate - the wikipedia article has been overrun for a while by cranks who want to insert all sorts of bizzare statements into the article.


Some of those people are straight forward dangerous and many medical scientists who work in this area have their mail screened for mailbombs and the like.

Those are dangerous dangerous people.

Opps! need to go - more later.

[Kelly Martin]

One of the running problems on Wikipedia is that so many topics are being written not by dispassionate historians and writers, but instead by competing ideologues. Ultimately in such situations, everyone loses: the ideologues, who eventually burn out in frustration over fighting with their opponents, and everyone else, who burn out in frustration fighting with the ideologues.

How this process is supposed to generate a "neutral point of view" is beyond me; it seems to me that it would instead produce an article that represents the point of view of whoever in the dispute is the most flame-resistant, and nothing more.

[Maju]

One of the running problems on Wikipedia is that so many topics are being written not by dispassionate historians and writers, but instead by competing ideologues. Ultimately in such situations, everyone loses: the ideologues, who eventually burn out in frustration over fighting with their opponents, and everyone else, who burn out in frustration fighting with the ideologues.

How this process is supposed to generate a "neutral point of view" is beyond me; it seems to me that it would instead produce an article that represents the point of view of whoever in the dispute is the most flame-resistant, and nothing more.

Totally agree. The only remedy would be that contributors, whichever their ideas, were able to see the whole picture and cooperate with diverging viewpoints into creating comprehensive articles. That's what WP:NPOV and WP:CON are about (consensus is not majority but agreement). This may have been a rather common practice in the past, when Wikipedia was less popular and massified, but nowadays it's way too influential for people with an agenda to come to terms with others (with another agenda sometimes too but not necesarily). The NPOV-concerned (honest, open-minded) editors are being burnt out, and the most stubborn in each area are often those who do have a strong POV and tend to practice article ownership, POV-pushing and disruptive editing. They are after all the ones that have the strongest vested interest (and you never know if their biased and disruptive contribution may be even part of their unknown jobs). Administration (much less mediation) is generally late and weak in front of this phenomenon.

[Mr. Mystery]

I never could see WP as a domain of "knowledge production" per se, except about itself. More of an "anything goes as long as it's sourced in some way knowledge mixer."

One of the the things I hate about WP is that, through the NOR policy, it is deliberately designed to keep out anything that would seem to be written from an analytical framework. It can't in itself, (fortunately, actually) be seen as a subsitute for real scholarship in peer-reviewed journals. And, you can't critique their practices on site because they'll ban you, so serious intellectual engagement there is impossible.

That whole "citizen of WP," "Wikipedian" identity construct lends itself to this "inside/outside" us vs. them nationalist mentality that also keeps them from having to relate to the real world.

This post has been edited by Mr. Mystery: Thu 31st July 2008, 4:20pm

[Adam Smithee]

One of the running problems on Wikipedia is that so many topics are being written not by dispassionate historians and writers, but instead by competing ideologues. Ultimately in such situations, everyone loses: the ideologues, who eventually burn out in frustration over fighting with their opponents, and everyone else, who burn out in frustration fighting with the ideologues.

How this process is supposed to generate a "neutral point of view" is beyond me; it seems to me that it would instead produce an article that represents the point of view of whoever in the dispute is the most flame-resistant, and nothing more.

Wow, did you ever hit the nail on the head there. In fact this is the reason I stopped participating in the project. More often than not, trying to broker a peace between two entrenched sides falls upon deaf ears. Trying to solve the dispute with "the tools" just leaves one side to continue agenda pushing, or leaves both sides howling for your head on ANI when the blocks expire. Pointing out that both sides are behaving badly earns you a report for "personal attacks", or being called a troll if your account is fairly new and the edit warriors think they can get away with it. Unfortunately, the type of person that would be most useful to the project in mediating or providing editorial oversight to POV battleground articles is exactly the type of person who quite smartly wipes the dirt off their hands and walks away, and the handful who don't are not nearly numerous enough to handle all the crap that is being fought over.

[Sarcasticidealist]

One of the running problems on Wikipedia is that so many topics are being written not by dispassionate historians and writers, but instead by competing ideologues. Ultimately in such situations, everyone loses: the ideologues, who eventually burn out in frustration over fighting with their opponents, and everyone else, who burn out in frustration fighting with the ideologues.

How this process is supposed to generate a "neutral point of view" is beyond me; it seems to me that it would instead produce an article that represents the point of view of whoever in the dispute is the most flame-resistant, and nothing more.

I completely agree with this as well, with the caveat that these articles are probably a small minority (even in places as contentious as articles about U.S. senators, it's generally possible to overcome the ideological POV-pushing). But I naively thought I could do some good on the Homeopathy talk page a few months ago, and was fast relieved of that belief. That article is essentially locked into its current form, because absent a consensus to change, nothing can change.

In keeping with my belief that pleasure is the only good reason to edit Wikipedia, I edit mostly on articles with inactive talk pages and very infrequent participation by other editors. That's fun. Homeopathy/global warming/ethnic politics in the Balkans - somewhat less so.

It can't in itself, (fortunately, actually) be seen as a subsitute for real scholarship in peer-reviewed journals.

I'm not sure if you were intending to imply otherwise, but it's not intended to be, even by its most starry-eyed/delusional idealists. As somebody with a nuanced but on balance positive view of the project, I am routinely frustrated when people sniff haughtily at how Wikipedia's practices are inconsistent with serious scholarship. It's not intended as serious scholarship (not that there isn't still plenty wrong with Wikipedia's practices, mind you).

And, you can't critique their practices on site because they'll ban you, so serious intellectual engagement there is impossible.

No, it's easy to critique practices on-site without being banned. Plenty of editors having been doing it, some quite tendentiously, for years. The problem isn't that on-site critiques are forbidden, it's that, absent any actual means of changing policy, they're pointless. Which is also why I don't post here much, actually - I'm very much on the "fix Wikipedia" end of the "fix-burn with flames" axis, and most of the ideas shared here, even if they would fix Wikipedia if implemented, have no chance of being implemented.

[Kelly Martin]

I completely agree with this as well, with the caveat that these articles are probably a small minority (even in places as contentious as articles about U.S. senators, it's generally possible to overcome the ideological POV-pushing).

Well, when there is only one ideologue, and s/he can be readily identified as such, and s/he doesn't have a support network, that person can just be blocked or otherwise dissuaded, usually with some success. It's when there are multiple ideologues that you get into trouble. If there's ideologues on both sides, dissuading/blocking one leads to the other going wild, and if there's multiples on one side (especially if they're wikipolitically savvy) then you'll get a hue and cry if you do anything to remove the bias. Quite a few topics on Wikipedia are hopelessly slanted because of these problems -- anything related to Zionism, animal rights, evolution, most "pseudosciences", well, there's a long list. And most WR readers will probably be able to name the parties responsible, too.

Basically, Wikipedia is a war zone, where competing epistemologies duke it out to establish truth. This is what defines "wikiality". Wikiality has nothing to do with neutrality, as Stephen Colbert has been quite happy to demonstrate -- ask anybody about trends in elephant populations. The problem with being a warrior is that it's hard work with a high mortality rate.

And one never knows when a seemingly innocuous article will become part of the battle. I seem to recall that "cheese" spent nearly two years in a long-running dispute over something completely stupid. One of the few articles I created on Wikipedia, about a fraternal organization, became the center of a giant dispute over whether or not that organization had secret rituals. It took that edit war months to go away. Virtually anything you can write an article about has people who love and hate it, and if any of them happen to find Wikipedia, then whee, you're off to the races. That article that you lovingly crafted over the course of days, months, weeks, will never look the same again.

[Random832]

One of the few articles I created on Wikipedia, about a fraternal organization, became the center of a giant dispute over whether or not that organization had secret rituals. It took that edit war months to go away.

Is it sad that I thought that I knew exactly what article you were talking about; checked; and as it turns out the one I was thinking of wasn't created by you? I.e. "article, about a fraternal organisation, which has been the center of a giant dispute over whether or not that organization had secret rituals" is not a sufficiently unique identifier.

[Mr. Mystery]

It can't in itself, (fortunately, actually) be seen as a subsitute for real scholarship in peer-reviewed journals.

I'm not sure if you were intending to imply otherwise, but it's not intended to be, even by its most starry-eyed/delusional idealists. As somebody with a nuanced but on balance positive view of the project, I am routinely frustrated when people sniff haughtily at how Wikipedia's practices are inconsistent with serious scholarship. It's not intended as serious scholarship (not that there isn't still plenty wrong with Wikipedia's practices, mind you).

And, you can't critique their practices on site because they'll ban you, so serious intellectual engagement there is impossible.

No, it's easy to critique practices on-site without being banned. Plenty of editors having been doing it, some quite tendentiously, for years. The problem isn't that on-site critiques are forbidden, it's that, absent any actual means of changing policy, they're pointless. Which is also why I don't post here much, actually - I'm very much on the "fix Wikipedia" end of the "fix-burn with flames" axis, and most of the ideas shared here, even if they would fix Wikipedia if implemented, have no chance of being implemented.

I agree with everything you are saying. I was saying earlier in another thread that WP needs to get over its adversion to management, and that by viewing their interactions with the wiki software as "content management," and by viewing Wikipedia itself as a "content managment system," with an objective of producing an encyclopedia, rather than as an encyclopedia itself, they could eliminate the adversion of they have to anything that seems like government, and start developing ways to reduce the influence of cabals and personality cults that currently infest vast sections of the place.

It would only be one step, but it would be a big step for them, and one of the first ones they would have to make, I think.

[Angela Kennedy]

I think her problem is likely that she advocates for a disorder that many scientists (and therefore some Wikipedians) think is psychological. In spite of years of explaining to the public that psychological illness is real illness, some people hate having their disease given the "psychological" label. This leads to predictable holy wars. At least that's what I gather. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...2FCFS_community

Also, it appears she was trying to include negative information about a living person which she criticizes publically. I'm not a COI hardliner, but that seems at least a little questionable.

But I've an open mind. Perhaps my cursory negative inferences will spur Angela into explaining.

Right- sorry, One- who is 'she'? Is that me?

I wasn't posting my ex-user page to discuss the fallacies of the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS- frankly, with respect, there are people far more knowledgeable than you I can debate the subject with. Your comment about 'many scientists' for example is just not accurate- many scientists- it might appear the majority from the international evidence available- think the opposite, and I suspect from your words you have your own partisan position on this- which I don't need to discuss with you on WR- if only because I do not want to monopolise the board. Anyone genuinely wanting to know more about the issue- contact me!

One- again, not meaning to be disrespectful- but your understanding of what happened is mistaken- a full reading of the whole Simon Wessely talk archives will reveal that - especially about the way I tried to deal with the COI ethically (of which it would appear you are not aware). One big problem was that various WP admins who waded in to the situation were ill-prepared to understand the complexities of the situation- and just took the easy way out (support the admins waging the POV war). WP doesn't do complexity very well.

But - none of this was why I put up my post! I was asking about other people's feelings of being critical friends, or critical outsiders (by choice), and about WP as a domain of knowledge production. It was a generic WR meta-discussion issue.

Now people are talking about 'idealogues' - another WP type problem where everybody thinks everyone else who has a position on anything is an 'idealogue', but they couldn't possibly be! It's another problem associated with the Wiki way.

Forget the ME/CFS issue - even though it's my area of specialist knowledge, and an area where I have a position on- like anyone else on loads of subjects here! What do people feel about themselves in relation to WP- are they critical friends, critical outsiders? What do people understand about social constructions of what is to claim status as 'knowledge' etc. They are esoteric questions- but with specific relevance to the meta-discussion of WP by WR. I was hoping people would consider that issue.

[Kelly Martin]

One of the few articles I created on Wikipedia, about a fraternal organization, became the center of a giant dispute over whether or not that organization had secret rituals. It took that edit war months to go away.

Is it sad that I thought that I knew exactly what article you were talking about; checked; and as it turns out the one I was thinking of wasn't created by you? I.e. "article, about a fraternal organisation, which has been the center of a giant dispute over whether or not that organization had secret rituals" is not a sufficiently unique identifier.

Hah. I wasn't aware of that, but yes, that is sad.

[Adam Smithee]

Now people are talking about 'idealogues' - another WP type problem where everybody thinks everyone else who has a position on anything is an 'idealogue', but they couldn't possibly be! It's another problem associated with the Wiki way.

Forget the ME/CFS issue - even though it's my area of specialist knowledge, and an area where I have a position on- like anyone else on loads of subjects here! What do people feel about themselves in relation to WP- are they critical friends, critical outsiders? What do people understand about social constructions of what is to claim status as 'knowledge' etc. They are esoteric questions- but with specific relevance to the meta-discussion of WP by WR. I was hoping people would consider that issue.

It's not about having a position, it's about editing with an express purpose of advancing that position in disregard to the spirit of creating a neutral, factual article that would be useful to the public at large. There is no dearth of editors there that could be held up as an example of this kind of behavior. Too many editors are more interested in issue advocacy than in creating encyclopedia articles. Those who have a strong point-of-view and actually recognize/admit this are in dwindling supply these days.

As for your other question, personally I wouldn't necessarily classify myself as either a friend or outsider. I'm an (inactive) admin there, so I can't say I'm really an outsider, but I've seen enough core problems with the way things are being done that I'm no longer active at the project, and I'm not convinced it can be fixed under the current structure. Wikipedia is a bit like Communism; sounds like a nice idea on paper ("hey, everyone gets to share harmoniously"), but when put into action it never quite seems to work out they way it was described.

[Milton Roe]

It's not about having a position, it's about editing with an express purpose of advancing that position in disregard to the spirit of creating a neutral, factual article that would be useful to the public at large. There is no dearth of editors there that could be held up as an example of this kind of behavior. Too many editors are more interested in issue advocacy than in creating encyclopedia articles. Those who have a strong point-of-view and actually recognize/admit this are in dwindling supply these days.

Umm, did they ever exist? In University the classic lecture series in econ or polysci or philosophy goes something like this:

"Hi, I'm professor Smith. I'm a Marxist (or free market capitalist or whatever) and/or practicing Roman Catholic (or atheist or whatever), and/or scientific realist (or instrumentalist or social constructionist or whatever). We'll be surveying economics (or religion or philosophy or whatever). I will try to give you sympathetic views of the systems I don't believe or like, but I also won't spare you the places where they have problems. I'll give problems also when I get to the views closest to my heart, but you'll notice that there will be fewer of them, or they won't be as serious. If I thought my favorite beliefs had as many problems as their rivals, I wouldn't favor them! That said, if you want the real sympathetic treatment of classical Marxism, see Professor Miller, and if you want to learn about Aquinas I suggest Father Ahern, who is adjunct and a Jesuit. Okay? Now for questions about exams and grades...."

Needless to say, they don't do this on Wikipedia. As I've pointed out, they won't permit certain forks so that various views can be sympathetically rendered in different clearly biased articles, with due consideration to the alternatives, in other articles (but with summaries and links to all, in all). They all pretend to be good Wikipedians because Big Brother is watching. And that doesn't include admiting any POV. If you do, it will only be turned as a weapon against you, come the next purge.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Thu 31st July 2008, 11:22pm

[Maju]

I was saying earlier in another thread that WP needs to get over its adversion to management, and that by viewing their interactions with the wiki software as "content management," and by viewing Wikipedia itself as a "content managment system," with an objective of producing an encyclopedia, rather than as an encyclopedia itself, they could eliminate the adversion of they have to anything that seems like government, and start developing ways to reduce the influence of cabals and personality cults that currently infest vast sections of the place.

It would only be one step, but it would be a big step for them, and one of the first ones they would have to make, I think.

More than a government it'd need a judiciary. Obviously mediation is very limited in front of such content wars and admins tend to inhibit from getting involved unless there's some other stuff going on or they are ideologically involved themselves.

An array of content tribunals (not one that would be overwhelmed and could become another focus of power fights) could be an alternative. Just thinking as I write, of course, not any elaborated opinion yet. These courts would be made up of common editors (with some experience) selected randomly, like US tribunals, and presided by an admin (also chosen randomly, to prevent vested interests) just to help and to be able to execute whichever measures necesary. The court's decission would become consensus re. the content dispute to which the editors should abide by.

Nowadays Wikipedia does have a government, even if a diffuse one. What it does not have is a judiciary (not counting ArbCom), much less for content disputes.

[Adam Smithee]

Umm, did they ever exist?

This is completely anecdotal, but it seems to me that when I started editing at wikipedia several years ago, I tended to run across more editors that would either admit bias in discussions, or at least make a good faith attempt to work with opposing editors on what content to display and/or how to word it. Of course, this could be skewed by the articles I was working on (which were not all that contentious), and admittedly "consensus wording" sometimes results in completely crap articles that gloss over facts in the name of keeping everyone happy. I can't pinpoint exactly where I noticed it, but it seems at some point I was seeing quite a bit more combative agenda pushing and system gaming, but maybe it was just the articles I was observing or working on at that time. Personally, I can say that I never worked on an article where I felt I had too strong a bias. I wouldn't even copyedit the James Dobson article, because I think the guy is human excrement, even though in my mind the Wikipedia article about him is a complete puff piece.

Needless to say, they don't do this on Wikipedia. As I've pointed out, they won't permit certain forks so that various views can be sympathetically rendered in different clearly biased articles, with due consideration to the alternatives, in other articles (but with summaries and links to all, in all). They all pretend to be good Wikipedians because Big Brother is watching. And that doesn't include admiting any POV. If you do, it will only be turned as a weapon against you, come the next purge.

I've personally never been a big fan of the point/counterpoint (or "POV Fork") concept of article display, but maybe it would be better than the current system. I expect though it would just generate 2 articles with no oversight on what constitutes reliable information than just one.

[JoseClutch]

[snip]
I've personally never been a big fan of the point/counterpoint (or "POV Fork") concept of article display, but maybe it would be better than the current system. I expect though it would just generate 2 articles with no oversight on what constitutes reliable information than just one.

2? Try 10-10 000.

Knol plans on doing this, so watch and see how it works (my guess is it will be a complete disaster, but we will see.) Wikinfo also had the crazy idea that there are two points of view, rather than 6.5e9, which is the true case.