Poll: Should WR take over Wikiabuse.com?, This here be a poll! Options Rating

[Somey]

Speaking only for myself, I'm actually against the idea of having a blanket policy of any kind - each situation is different and requires us to recognize a different set of moral precepts. I'm just saying the bar should be higher, possibly much higher... and if not higher in general, then at least raised in accordance with WP's own efforts to respect the wishes of biography subjects. Assuming the relevant policy changes remain in effect, at least.

Blanket policies aren't even all that meaningful in this environment. Nobody's posts require advance moderator approval, so in theory someone could post something truly terrible one day when there are no moderators around, and it could be on the board for quite some time before it's dealt with. In that period of time it could be picked up by Google, Yahoo, and all sorts of other crawlers... and even if the post is edited/deleted/moved, it might be several more days before the crawlers come around again and update the index entry.

The same risk exists on Wikipedia, of course... They deal with it by having huge numbers of admins, we deal with it by requiring genuine e-mail addresses to register and trying to provide a reasonably non-contentious environment for member-interaction.

Both methods generally work, but it could still happen on either website, and no policy is really going to prevent it.

[blissyu2]

I like the idea of a poll on anything that there is significant disagreement about. I guess Wikipedia does the same thing really.

I do like to have rules, or at least foundations, though. At least ideals that you try to live up to.

[Jonny Cache]

Rootology was apparently a True Believer in the basic Wikipedia Policies — the Big Three and the Five Pillars. To some extent I used to be too, but only because they appeared — for a brief, shining moment — to echo the Way Of Inquiry (WOI) that I already knew. But Wikipedia is infected with something else entirely, something that overwhelms and undermines the norms that responsible people, reporters, and scholars live by. And WikiAbuse.Com inherited that terminal disease.

In a way Rootology did us the service of a initiating a very useful experiment, if only we know how to learn from it. He cloned the Wikipedia virus — in vitro — and thus afforded us a way to study its lifecycle in microcosm, in time-lapse speedup, and in relative, I say relative, safety.

The proper sort of post-mortem analysis could teach us a lot, if we have the scopes to pursue it.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 15th July 2007, 2:36am

[LamontStormstar]

I know of one Wikipedia administrator who has pictures of himself (with his family) on-line. He is a nice guy and has never made a personal attack on Wikipedia, has never blocked a good faith editor (because he has never blocked anything but 4 vandal IPs), and has made only constructive edits to the encyclopedia. He has written or co-written 17 Featured Articles.

I worry that a pro-outing policy will cause this user unneeded grief in the name of revenge against "the establishment", and I worry that pictures of his family will end up on an outting website, with cobbled-together details about their lives. Neither he nor his family deserve that.

I understand that there are abusive administrators on Wikipedia, but I think there are better ways than outting all (or even any) admins, and whatever sympathy WA had at WP will have been lost by such a move.

We need a list of abuses from the admin first...


Also, a blog is disorganized. We need a good old-fashioned webpage where there's a page about something and that's that. Just have people submit stuff to the site and then some people moderate it who would be good at judging abuses like WordBomb, Daniel Brandt, etc.

[Looch]

I think the name wikiabuse.com is kind of, well, harsh. I'm honestly surprised so many admins joined with a name like that because admins who don't "abuse" their powers could take offense to having an entry on a website called wikiabuse.com. Maybe wikiadminlogs.com or something like that. Wikiabuse.com just sounds too aggressive for the title of a web site.

[Somey]

...a blog is disorganized. We need a good old-fashioned webpage where there's a page about something and that's that.

Actually, what's needed is something even fancier than that - a fully custom-designed relational database, in which each subject has a main table entry and a group of child-table entries, like so:

Topic Areas
Incidents
Allies
Enemies

...And then meta-tables for diffs, non-wiki links, and general commentary. Each of the main child tables would have keywords associated with them, so if everything is properly encoded, you could select a word like "Mormons" or "Scientologists" and get back a list of every admin or high-profile editor associated with those subjects, and the associated diffs, etc.

Admittedly, this will never actually happen, nor should it, but that would be the ideal setup, FWIW.

I think the name wikiabuse.com is kind of, well, harsh.

I think it should be "badwikis.com," but now that I've suggested it, someone will probably grab it.

"Wikiholes.com" and "wikitrocities.com" are also still available... Or if you prefer, "wikicircles.com" and "wikisalad.com," which I suppose have potential as non-connotative names.

[GlassBeadGame]

Just a couple of thoughts:

• I think if WR takes on WA's mission it is only fitting and proper that we keep the name the the same, as a tribute or at least attribution to Root's work.
  
• I never liked the idea of basing the decision of which admins to collect IRL identifying information ( i.e, outing) on the conduct of the individual admin. This seems to smack of at least punishment and maybe even extortion. I still believe the correct path is to collect IRL identifying information on all admins based on their status as such. I discuss the types of controls and conditions I think this would take here.

[norsemoose]

Actually, what's needed is something even fancier than that - a fully custom-designed relational database, in which each subject has a main table entry and a group of child-table entries, like so:

Topic Areas
Incidents
Allies
Enemies

...And then meta-tables for diffs, non-wiki links, and general commentary. Each of the main child tables would have keywords associated with them, so if everything is properly encoded, you could select a word like "Mormons" or "Scientologists" and get back a list of every admin or high-profile editor associated with those subjects, and the associated diffs, etc.

Admittedly, this will never actually happen, nor should it, but that would be the ideal setup, FWIW.

We think alike. I was considering the merits of something like that the other day. Of course, MediaWiki wouldn't work for it, and the time invested in actually setting up a software package that could manage something like this would be best devoted to doing something else.

[Looch]

I think if WR takes on WA's mission it is only fitting and proper that we keep the name the the same, as a tribute or at least attribution to Root's work.

I can see where you're coming from with that. I think if that's the case, WR should also keep it a Wiki if WR takes over WA, as that what it began was, and that's what allowed such a wide-range of abuses to be reported because anybody with an account could submit information.

[blissyu2]

A wiki doesn't need to be open.

Think about one element - we (whoever hosts it) doesn't want it to have 1 billion articles like Wikipedia has, with a $25,000 per month service fee. If we have just 10 or 15 users, then we can keep the overheads small. Less disruption. We can each invite people in. Or sort things out as we go along.

Its better to make it hard to get in, then don't ban people etc, than to have it open and then ban lots. I'd rather not have bans to begin with.

[Kato]

...and that's what allowed such a wide-range of abuses to be reported because anybody with an account could submit information.

Unfortunately there was also so much bullcrap on there that it became impossible to identify the actual abuse from the durge added by people who simply had an axe to grind.

[Marci]

can't hang out here -- the stench of Wikipedia cult members is too strong...

This post has been edited by Marci: Mon 23rd July 2007, 6:01pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Welcome to WR Marci.

[Cedric]

A wiki doesn't need to be open.

Think about one element - we (whoever hosts it) doesn't want it to have 1 billion articles like Wikipedia has, with a $25,000 per month service fee. If we have just 10 or 15 users, then we can keep the overheads small. Less disruption. We can each invite people in. Or sort things out as we go along.

Its better to make it hard to get in, then don't ban people etc, than to have it open and then ban lots. I'd rather not have bans to begin with.

The Voice of Reason.

[JohnA]

Don't use a Wiki. Its the wrong tool for the job.

[Marci]

can't hang out here -- the stench of Wikipedia cult members is too strong...

This post has been edited by Marci: Mon 23rd July 2007, 6:01pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Don't use a Wiki. Its the wrong tool for the job.

A network interface that lets approved members easily update both the content and form of a page, or to create new pages, is a very powerful tool. Wiki-style collaborative databases were in use under other names in publishing houses long before the method was applied in PHP and HTML. "Wiki" tends to convey social connotations about who can use such a network and how, often including an idealogical notion that access should be open to most people.

Any tool that systematically analyzes the entire WP database would tend to be better than any user-report-based tool for most purposes, except when the situations to be analyzed can only be described in very subjective terms. Arbitrary administrative behavior is such a subjective subject it probably requires some subjective data collection.

Several wikipedia-based tools are available for systematic analysis. For the careful tool buyer, a reasonably comprehensive list of available tools would be useful. There's things like Pathway and some older wares sleuths here probably already know about. There are systematic visual tracking tools, along the lines of what Cambidge Visual Communications Lab has produced.

The SQL query offered above is based on parameters suggested in this thread related to collecting subjective individual reports of admin activities. The nature of much abuse or activity can be described in the codes created to populate the database, and some activities are associated with particular fields, for easy counting. As with most relational databases, the magic is in the software that updates and extracts data, while the database itself is no more than a well organized closet. Without documentation, it might be more like a closet with the lights off.

The tables created by this query provide a place for member registration, permissions management, version logging, IP logging, affiliate tracking, topic monitoring, incident logging and admin tracking. The page and page text tables at the bottom of the query imply the capacity to log content of pages used for collaboration among project users or to develop draft versions of pages developed for presentation of project findings. A PHP interface can manage publication/draft/public/private status.

When your earlier post consisted almost entirely of SQL commands I wondered if you could write. Now we know you can. You're not a easy read, but after a few rereads many significant ideas are contained in your post. Do you think software exists, or could be developed within our capacities, that could to some extent manipulate the information found in the en.wp SQL tables (e.g. the content of Wp) without the need to hand sift the information available concerning admin conduct?

That would be a godsend.

[Marci]

can't hang out here -- the stench of Wikipedia cult members is too strong...

This post has been edited by Marci: Mon 23rd July 2007, 6:01pm

[JohnA]

Don't use a Wiki. Its the wrong tool for the job.

A network interface that lets approved members easily create pages or update the content of a page is a very powerful tool. Publishing houses used Wiki-style collaborative databases under other names for production workflow long before the method was applied in PHP and HTML. Production software usually has administrative auditing tools built in. Groups that use such workflow software more often have organizational provisions to supervise administrative performance.

"Wiki" renditions of widely used workflow software tend to convey social connotations about who can use such a network and how, often including an idealogical notion that access should be open to most people. The development of collaborative editing networks in a mass communication context has sparked interest in new tools for auditing administrative activity in large collaborative networks. Interest in network-scale administrative auditing tools results from the public nature of reading and writing in new editorial networks.

Because of the large scale and scope of Wikipedia, a tool that systematically analyzes the entire WP database would tend to be better than any user-report-based tool for most purposes, except when the situations to be analyzed can only be described in very subjective terms. Arbitrary administrative behavior is such a subjective subject it probably requires some subjective data collection.

I don't care if it can rear up on its hind legs and bark at the moon.

I have no idea what use a wiki would have cataloging and cross-referencing supposed abusive acts by Wikipedia admins and editors. Is this a make-work project for autistic and obsessive-compulsive editors banned from Wikipedia?

Who is the audience for this extravaganza? Does anyone actually give a shit whether the records of abuse, sorry, subjective data collection, are collected and stored in such a manner? Are these records more accessible than some other form?

Will it be useful in five or ten years, or will it die a death as the original impetus by a dedicated few gives way to lethargy and apathy? I know which way I'm betting.

The entire point of a wiki, any wiki, is that it must be self-sustaining and stand on its own merits. This one won't ever, because its wholly derivative. As such it will inevitably run into the sand as people realise that there are better uses of their precious lifespan than cataloguing the minor activities of a bunch of non-entities and no-hopers.

You'll excuse me if I don't sign up for this. I really, really, have better things to do.

[Marci]

can't hang out here -- the stench of Wikipedia cult members is too strong...

This post has been edited by Marci: Mon 23rd July 2007, 6:01pm