Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ The decline of the WP "Community"

Posted by: Kato

Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21890

It was hard to know how seriously to take these statistics, but the other other day, I http://wikipediaweekly.org/2009/01/03/episode-68-wikipedias-nicotine-high/ of Wikipedia Weekly (Andrew Lih's well produced but difficult to stomach pro-Wikipedia radio show). Lih and his on-air "zoo" of cohorts, high on Jimbo-Juice, discuss the findings at some length.

Their comments make quite interesting listening. Through the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it is clear that they are concerned by this drop off. One Wiki-pundit asserts that if the community fails, the project dies. Lih himself compares WP to a shark that needs to keep moving, or it will die. Another pro-WP voice bemoans the statistics as "the most depressing thing I've read in all my time at WP" (which, given the hurtful strife and multi-layered defamation WP has unleashed on the world is galling in itself).

Interestingly, it is agreed that February-March 2007 was the peak of WP, and it has been downhill ever since. The statistical figures back that up, and this ties in with anecdotal evidence from pretty much all Wiki-watchers.

Lih noted that activity on all WP fronts declined from that time, including on mailing lists and so on. At the Review, we can confirm that the community began to eat itself around that time, and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16372&view=findpost&p=83876. Somey here has talked long and hard of the "Maintenance Phase", the inevitable period when new articles are hard to find, and where Wikipedios spend their time chasing their tails in an ever more meaningless tasks.

As noted by Greg Kohs and others here, February-March 2007 also coincides with the Essjay scandal. Greg http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_scandals#Essjay_is_not_a_professor

QUOTE(Greg Kohs)
The Essjay incident appeared to have an adverse impact on daily financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. The downward slide closely mirrored a number of ethically questionable decisions by key administrators of Wikipedia.


In 2007, the wool was removed from the eyes of some of the media, and it seems now that even the most pro-Wikipedia pieces are laced with negatives. And the public at large are much more skeptical of the site than they were 2 years ago.

So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously.

Is this it?

Posted by: Kato

Here are some old Somey posts about the "Maintenance Phase".

QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 8th September 2007, 5:49pm) *

Personally, I'm sticking to my "Five-Phase Lifecycle Theory," which suggests that there won't be a quick collapse at all, but rather a gradual process of attrition resulting in stagnation and ultimately, breakup.

Right now we're firmly in the "Maintenance Phase," which I believe started about a year ago. Just for the record, the phases are:

- Formation
- Growth
- Maintenance
- Attrition
- Breakup

I expect the maintenance phase to last at least five years, and to be characterized by increased authoritarianism and regimentation - mostly in the name of curbing the tendency towards infighting, which in turn is being caused by too many people wanting control of various "important" topic areas. This will result in an almost social-Darwinian "shakeout," which will end with firm control of all worthwhile territories by whichever of the various groups, cabals, cliques (or whatever you want to call them) should "win" them. That will bring on the attrition, which will be expressed as mass "forking" of entire topic areas to other websites.

Jimbo's increasing interest in "open source" web-crawling technology may suggest that he himself has realized this as a distinct, even likely possibility - there's no company better positioned to take advantage of the WP breakup than Wikia, and combining "encyclopedic" content with human-filtered search results may be his primary scheme at this point. I'm not sure I'd even call it a bad scheme, to be honest, though obviously I'd rather someone else was in charge.


(Bolding mine)

QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 30th December 2007, 8:26pm) *

QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sun 30th December 2007, 11:50am) *
So they waste it all spending hours of their lives every day reverting people and trying to get things deleted?

Why not, if they've already written everything they feel they can, and gotten the articles they're interested in well into shape, to last with minimal editorial maintenance over time? I'd imagine it's a lot more fun than participating in "policy discussions."

You mustn't oversimplify this issue, Lamont - these are not people just showing up out of nowhere and wanting to delete things just for the sake of deleting them, or because they're offended by "cruft" proliferation. For the most part, they're established users who have seen the problems of maintaining a 2-million page database first-hand. Every one of those 2 million articles is a potential problem that would, and often does, have to be solved by human intervention - in many cases, LOTS of human intervention.

Obviously in an ideal world, you could build a database of a zillion articles, and all of them would be consistently improved over time until they couldn't be improved any further, at which point nobody would touch them. But realistically that just doesn't happen, mostly because the perception of content-quality is always relative, and perfection is always unachievable. (And, of course, there are people who just like to "vandalize.")

WP has been firmly into its maintenance phase for well over a year now - in fact, I would say two years. As the ability of new users to stake out territory by writing new articles is diminished, WP will be left with a relatively small, and (due to burnout, etc.) shrinking, hard core of committed maintainers, fighting an ever-growing army of spammers and POV pushers. Over time, the database will have to be increasingly locked down to deal with it - there's almost no way to avoid that. Deletionism actually postpones the lockdown phase by making maintenance less of a drain on human resources.

This is also why it's so important that people like JzG, Durova, and other corrosive "black hat" personalities are "shown the door" - in the long term, the "white hat" Wikipedians can't allow anything that causes their core group of maintainers to shrink. On the contrary, they should actually reach out to people in business, government, and academia to help ensure that standards are maintained as long as possible, even if it means making a few concessions, such as opt-out for biographies, noindexing of specific pages or categories, and so on.

Will they actually do any of that, though? Of course not - these are not long-term thinkers we're dealing with here.


QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 16th October 2008, 4:34am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 15th October 2008, 9:54am) *
On top of everything else, the use of pseudonyms quickly issues in the circumstance that the pseuds in question have nothing else to talk about but pseudonyms.

I actually see this as a sort of "sub-phase" in the Wikipedia life cycle, one that impacts this website as well as other sites that are related to WP in some way, or that include significant portions of the WP community. Another term for it might be "Phase transition factor."

Essentially, I've always posited that the Maintenance Phase (which we're in now) would eventually give way to the "Lockdown Phase," and that this would occur over the course of roughly 5 years (we're now getting towards the end of Year 2). But the mechanism by which this will occur is interesting in itself. My assumption is that three main issues will drive the transition: Editor-gang politics, the leadership vacuum, and the destabilizing effects of anonymity.

It may be that the anonymity problem is the thing they try to deal with first, except that it's a veritable certainty that they won't "solve" it in the sense of making it either go away, or figuring out some magical means of ensuring that the system isn't abused by sock puppeteers, meat puppeteers, or members of the Boston Meat Sox. The only way to even allow for it is some degree of lockdown applied to the actual content - i.e., what I'm assuming will happen.

If they were like, super-smart, they'd deal with the leadership vacuum first, because that's at least theoretically solvable (even if, from a practical perspective, it isn't any more solvable than the rest of their problems). If they had effective leadership, they'd at least have something to help them deal with the other issues - otherwise, they might as well just go ahead and make the whole database read-only now, if only to save time.

Posted by: dtobias

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th March 2008, 3:30am) *

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007):
The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008):
The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.


Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

But since the project started in 2001, is there a phase zero before that?

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 7th February 2009, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th March 2008, 3:30am) *

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007):
The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008):
The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.


Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

Sorry Dan, but that was a year ago. The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Today, Giano's ally Geogre wrote during yet another Giano war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=269511007

QUOTE(Geogre)
Jimbo's reaction is unhelpful, if not hysterical. It is ill-advised, at best, and seems to prove again that the best label these days for Jimbo is less "god-king" and more Jimbo ðe unræd. That David Gerard or FT2 is all over the blog making a tangle of his argument and spitting bile at everyone who dares question him only ensures that he is unreadable and unbelievable...

blah... blah... blah (added by me)


A community dominated by individuals like Giano, Geogre, David Gerard and FT2 is bound to self-implode. Who would stick around if they were the people calling the shots? Is it any wonder editor numbers are tailing off?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Wut A Yuck — DT is a rebel like WAS is a rebel. Folks like that are the Jesters in Jimbo's Court. They are tolerated only because everyone knows they will never make any real dent on the overall warp of things.

Ja Ja boing.gif

Posted by: Random832

QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 9th February 2009, 2:38pm) *
QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 7th February 2009, 2:32pm) *
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th March 2008, 3:30am) *
Phase three (2007-2008)mad.gif/b] The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.
Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.
Sorry Dan, but that was a year ago. The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Really? For one thing, he doesn't really fit the "contribute little to content" part - and he's also more than willing to side with the "cabal" when it suits him (see e.g. his about-face on the Peter Damian issue). I think we may be seeing the beginnings of a phase four.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE
As the ability of new users to stake out territory by writing new articles is diminished...
I think the evidence is that something's happening (for exactly what, see Stills et al), but I can't buy the above as an explanation. At a guess, I'd say 95% of the articles on Wikipedia fit the following criteria:
i. could benefit from a complete overhaul, and
ii. do not have anybody "protecting" then who would interfere with a complete overhaul.

For example, I'm working mostly on biographies of the Premiers of Alberta these days - not a major subject, but still relatively high profile in a Wikipedia in which everybody who ever so much as sat in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta gets an article. These articles have all existed for some years, but in stubbish forms with the haphazardly arbitrary selection of information so familiar to us all. I have been rewriting them from scratch, in much expanded form - to all intents and purposes, what I am doing is writing new articles (and, in so doing, I suppose staking out territory, though that's not how I'd have characterized it). There's *plenty* of room to write new articles, and most of the places that you can do that won't run you afoul of any POV pushers or other nuisances. The shrinking contributor base and increased infighting (I'm taking the latter as a given; I haven't seen any quantifiable data, any don't have any strong impressions of my own) must come from elsewhere.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Mon 9th February 2009, 10:05am) *

sleep.gif


So you say you're trying to put the Premiers of Alberta in a can?

Ja Ja boing.gif

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 9th February 2009, 9:26am) *
So you say you're trying to put the Premiers of Alberta in a can?
Well, somebody has to; I've called all the druggists in the area, and none of them have Arthur Sifton in a can.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 9th February 2009, 2:38pm) *
The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Today, Giano's ally Geogre wrote during yet another Giano war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=269511007

QUOTE(Geogre)
Jimbo's reaction is unhelpful, if not hysterical. It is ill-advised, at best, and seems to prove again that the best label these days for Jimbo is less "god-king" and more Jimbo ðe unræd. That David Gerard or FT2 is all over the blog making a tangle of his argument and spitting bile at everyone who dares question him only ensures that he is unreadable and unbelievable...

Geogre's way off target in comparing Jimbo to Ethelred the Unready. I've always thought of him as a sort of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cromwell with staying power. Like a turd that won't flush.

Posted by: Cla68

QUOTE(Kato @ Mon 9th February 2009, 2:38pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 7th February 2009, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 6th March 2008, 3:30am) *

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007):
The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008):
The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.


Hmm... I'm not sure I saw this when it was first posted last year... I'm touched to be made the exemplar of a phase.

Sorry Dan, but that was a year ago. The editor who best exemplifies the "rebels", and is the embodiment of a community eating itself, is, of course, Giano. You've been usurped.

Today, Giano's ally Geogre wrote during yet another Giano war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=269511007

QUOTE(Geogre)
Jimbo's reaction is unhelpful, if not hysterical. It is ill-advised, at best, and seems to prove again that the best label these days for Jimbo is less "god-king" and more Jimbo ðe unræd. That David Gerard or FT2 is all over the blog making a tangle of his argument and spitting bile at everyone who dares question him only ensures that he is unreadable and unbelievable...

blah... blah... blah (added by me)


A community dominated by individuals like Giano, Geogre, David Gerard and FT2 is bound to self-implode. Who would stick around if they were the people calling the shots? Is it any wonder editor numbers are tailing off?


Most of the editors who contribute to Wikipedia I can't imagine are that familiar with the ongoing wiki-political power games. I think the situation with Wikipedia and it's future are more complex.

The MilitaryHistory project, for example, is still plowing ahead at seemingly the same pace. Although the number of editors involved in building military history articles hasn't increased greatly, they also don't seem to have decreased. The editors attracted to writing complete military history articles, like me, I believe are drawn to Wikipedia because we really enjoy having a forum to explore our subject of interest. The fact that the military history project is fairly well organized and led makes it work even better. The Japan wiki-project is also well organized and led, with many highly motivated and helpful editors.

There is much less support for other editors in other topics. The A-class review forum in the Biography project, for example, has an article listed there which has been waiting for someone to review it for about eight months now. Clearly, that project is disfunctional. That is probably the case with most of the other topic areas in Wikipedia. The editors working in those topics realize after awhile that they have no support from anyone. If they have a question or issue, they're on their own. Thus, I can imagine that editing Wikipedia will cease to be fun or fulfilling for them after awhile and they'll get bored or disillusioned and leave. If they encounter a POV pusher and take their issue to ANI, they'll then watch in disgust or confusion as their concern gets ignored, or else several admins will argue amongst themselves about it without ultimately taking any action.

So, certain areas of Wikipedia will continue to function well for the foreseeable future, like military history. Others are falling apart. Will the disfunctional areas eventually torpedo the entire project? Perhaps so. That's why I save the articles I've written to my hard drive.

Posted by: thekohser

It looks like Jimbo is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=395341541&oldid=395309602 to a more nervous outlook on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 8th November 2010, 10:43am) *

It looks like Jimbo is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=395341541&oldid=395309602 to a more nervous outlook on Wikipedia.


Let me cut to the chase for ya —

Mumbai Jumbai

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: anklet with the pom-pom

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 7th February 2009, 5:43am) *

Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board.

...

So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously.

Is this it?


Having been here long enough to know that posts like yours usually invite a combination of over-analysis as well as sarcasm that usually goes quite off-topic, I'd like to add my take on why Wikipedia is in the decline it is.

(1) It's a generally unfriendly place. Newbies are often met with scorn and immediate reverts as well as suspicion. In short, if you've never edited before and happen upon an article that's popular, you will likely be told to go away (even if not that bluntly) by those who watch that article and have taken ownership of it. The encyclopedia anyone can edit has become an encyclopedia no one new can edit.

(2) There's no consistency. Admins, rules, standards, etc...none of these things have consistency. And that inconsistency is completely out of control. Hypocrisy in administrative action and behavior is rampant. Long time editors are leaving by the handfuls because of the lack of consistency in how things are run. New editors are quickly discouraged by the lack of consistency. If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care.

(3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing.

(4) The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that.

(5) Banning and blocking are out of control and only serve to create a bigger problem because editors are getting pissed off at unjust blocks and bans and just return as socks. Socks then create a bigger problem and hassle and time-waster for admins and C/Us. I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that?

That's all I have for now - anyone here is welcome to build on this synopsis.

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(anklet with the pom-pom @ Mon 8th November 2010, 6:09pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 7th February 2009, 5:43am) *

Back in December, we briefly touched upon some statistics which showed a decline in the number of new Wikipedia users, and a tailing off of editors with all number of edits -- basically, a decline in the community across the board.

...

So, we've discussed the demise of WP many times before here, but now, Wiki-evangelists and Cultists like those on Wikipedia Weekly are beginning to take the decline seriously.

Is this it?


Having been here long enough to know that posts like yours usually invite a combination of over-analysis as well as sarcasm that usually goes quite off-topic, I'd like to add my take on why Wikipedia is in the decline it is.

(1) It's a generally unfriendly place. Newbies are often met with scorn and immediate reverts as well as suspicion. In short, if you've never edited before and happen upon an article that's popular, you will likely be told to go away (even if not that bluntly) by those who watch that article and have taken ownership of it. The encyclopedia anyone can edit has become an encyclopedia no one new can edit.

(2) There's no consistency. Admins, rules, standards, etc...none of these things have consistency. And that inconsistency is completely out of control. Hypocrisy in administrative action and behavior is rampant. Long time editors are leaving by the handfuls because of the lack of consistency in how things are run. New editors are quickly discouraged by the lack of consistency. If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care.

(3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing.

(4) The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that.

(5) Banning and blocking are out of control and only serve to create a bigger problem because editors are getting pissed off at unjust blocks and bans and just return as socks. Socks then create a bigger problem and hassle and time-waster for admins and C/Us. I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that?

That's all I have for now - anyone here is welcome to build on this synopsis.


1. "It's a generally unfriendly place."

I agree with that, and it's largely to do with the Machiavellian quality of people involved. When you find charm on Wikipedia, is usually means someone wants something. They are happy with it being a kind of Facebook, but they don't want floods of quiet, politely academic people involved as they would try and finish the thing, and have genuine grounds to complain when they see the slapdash way their specialist subjects are being treated.

2. "If Wikipedia were a corporation, they would have been out of business long ago. It's chaos run amok and no one at the top seems to care."

Wikipedia is part of a corporation, and the business model involves chaos. They care allright - they profit from all the confusion. It's just a balancing act to them, and their main concern is to make Wikipedia less finanically reliable on a continuing stream of 'gratitude' donations that are largely due to the convenience factor supplied by Google's favourable page ranking.

3. "The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) "

Aside from those little cabals, there is The Cabal. How many of them understand the top level motivations and how many of them just want to kiss their arses doesn't matter: they slyly club together for the good of the sinister Project, and to achieve each other's aims.

4. The admins and places like AN/I and the so-called process of "consensus" are a joke and serve no purpose other than to feed egos and build mini-kingdoms. 'Nuf said about that.

The admin(+) class is certainly full of self-serving egos. If you ask all of them individually to explain Wikipedia, or answer a prepared set of questions, they would all give seriously different answers. In fact, that would really show what a bunch of fuckwits they all are. Rlevse, though an extreme example of ineptitude, is just the tip of the iceberg.

5. " I would be willing to wager that more time is spent by admins and self-appointed wiki-cops on chasing socks than editing the encyclopedia to make it better. What's the point in that?"

It's just not meant to be a great encyclopedia. Do you think they want 'finished' articles (or as good as complete) ? It's a fucking business.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

It looks like The Wikipedia Review has passed into the Non-Maintenance Phase.

Fold up your pumpkins and go home …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:00pm) *

It looks like The Wikipedia Review has passed into the Non-Maintenance Phase.

Fold up your pumpkins and go home …

Jon dry.gif


What are you doing here? Why are you at the Wikipedia Review?

Posted by: anklet with the pom-pom

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 8th November 2010, 12:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:00pm) *

It looks like The Wikipedia Review has passed into the Non-Maintenance Phase.

Fold up your pumpkins and go home …

Jon dry.gif


What are you doing here? Why are you at the Wikipedia Review?


Interesting question. I've wondered that about him numerous times.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 8th November 2010, 3:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:00pm) *

It looks like The Wikipedia Review has passed into the Non-Maintenance Phase.

Fold up your pumpkins and go home …

Jon dry.gif


What are you doing here? Why are you at the Wikipedia Review?


That should be obvious to anyone who actually reads a moderate sample of my substantive posts over the last 4 years.

That it isn't obvious to some people is probably a reflection of the fact that some people have lost the capacity to read.

Me, I blame Wikipedia for that …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 12:18pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 8th November 2010, 3:08pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:00pm) *

It looks like The Wikipedia Review has passed into the Non-Maintenance Phase.

Fold up your pumpkins and go home …

Jon dry.gif


What are you doing here? Why are you at the Wikipedia Review?


That should be obvious to anyone who actually reads a moderate sample of my substantive posts over the last 4 years.

That it isn't obvious to some people is probably a reflection of the fact that some people have lost the capacity to read.

Me, I blame Wikipedia for that …

Jon dry.gif

So, your response is, "Go back and read the last four years of my posts, you post-literate swine..."

I've looked at your posts. You're a scholar, a critic, and have elevated criticism of Wikipedia to a level so riddled with obscure symbolism, initialisms, necroed threads, and arrogant dismissals of newcomers that your purpose has become obscure.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 8th November 2010, 10:43am) *
It looks like Jimbo is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=395341541&oldid=395309602 to a more nervous outlook on Wikipedia.
Yeah. Over the years, Jimbo has written a great deal of cogent analysis. Unfortunately, it's been mixed with other than that, and when he gets personally involved, he can screw up as badly as anyone else, and he doesn't seem to be able to quickly notice when he's involved and act accordingly.

He's not come to the point of recognizing the basic structural deficiencies of what was set up. He's trying to tweak it. While it's possible that it might be fixed with some tweaks, unless the basic problems are recognized, the needed tweaks probably won't be recognized.

He's correct that making it easier to remove sysop privileges would make it easier, in theory, to approve sysops. I've argued, instead, for easy suspension of privileges pending review, and that such suspension, if voluntary, could be quite focused. I.e., like a topic ban. And only if such a ban were violated would actual lifting of the bit be necessary.

It should not take an ArbComm decision for a 'crat to order an "administrative topic ban." Basically, it's a decision like any other, and under the existing structure, all decisions begin as ad hoc individual decisions, only escalating when it's necessary due to conflict.

A good admin will recuse when involved -- which should include "strongly opinionated" -- anyway. So a 'crat would essentially only be ordering what a good admin would do in any case. I argued, in fact, that any admin should recuse upon a request to do so, from anyone, and this was opposed as preposterous, but it was clearly not understood how it would work. It was interpreted preposterously, it was a straw man rejection. A recusal request would not require the admin to undo what the admin had already done....

If the admin does not comply with the 'crat request, the 'crat may lift ("suspend") the bit. Pending review.

The review starts with discussion between the admin and the 'crat. Low-level. Relatively efficient. Only if they cannot agree does it escalate.

This is only one of many examples of where wikitheory was actually ignored, in favor of building a structure of privileged power.

(With present software, the 'crat cannot remove the bit, I think, it must be a steward. So, fine. The 'crat requests it at meta, documenting the request to abstain, and the violation, and the relevant guideline. That provides a level of safeguard.)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 8th November 2010, 3:41pm) *

So, your response is, "Go back and read the last four years of my posts, you post-literate swine …"

I've looked at your posts. You're a scholar, a critic, and have elevated criticism of Wikipedia to a level so riddled with obscure symbolism, initialisms, necroed threads, and arrogant dismissals of newcomers that your purpose has become obscure.


“post-literate swine”

pigs who can actually read posts?

wouldn't it be nice if some people could?

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 1:00pm) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 8th November 2010, 3:41pm) *

So, your response is, "Go back and read the last four years of my posts, you post-literate swine …"

I've looked at your posts. You're a scholar, a critic, and have elevated criticism of Wikipedia to a level so riddled with obscure symbolism, initialisms, necroed threads, and arrogant dismissals of newcomers that your purpose has become obscure.


“post-literate swine”

pigs who can actually read posts?

wouldn't it be nice if some people could?

Jon tongue.gif

You do serve an important role - you are the best example of a vested contributor I've seen in quite a while.

*ponders*

*places JATVC on 'ignore'*

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:18pm) *

That should be obvious to anyone who actually reads a moderate sample of my substantive posts over the last 4 years.


Most of your posts are completely incoherent. If you take the problem to decipher one or two, they are just excruciatingl-E bad puns, or stupid and pointless plays on the word 'E'. So it's not obvious at all.

Posted by: EricBarbour

fool.gif offtopic.gif

Would you rather put up with Awbrey's puns, or SlimVirgin and David Gerard shitting on your collective heads every day?
Every community has to put up with its share of smartasses, trolls, backstabbers, and crazies.
WR isn't very bad at all, compared to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard.

Now, back to the "communi-dioty". Allow me to post that blubber from Jimbo's talkpage, in case it
'gets mysteriously lost'.

QUOTE
Adminship and RfA

There is a long discussion up above, but rather than extending that long thread (I am hoping it will be archived soon), I want to start a new thread here. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month is the cornerstone of this particular discussion; please try to stay on topic and very philosophical, rather than getting into specific debates about specific incidents at RfA (though of course examples might be needed).

1. Should we actively seek to recruit more candidates to RfA? In 2007 there were 920, in 2009 there were only 355 - despite site traffic having increased substantially. Presumably, candidates respond more or less rationally to incentives... it being harder to pass RfA meant that only more-qualified candidates applied in the first place.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons do actual people give (i.e. not speculation) for not applying in the first place?

2. Should we actively seek to change the standards for passing RfA, to make it easier again? I think it clear that many active admins today, the cohort created as admins in 2005-2007, would not pass RfA today.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons are there for the increased level of scrutiny, and are we scrutinizing for the right things?

3. In order to make it more comfortable to create more admins, should we make it easier to lose the admin bit in case things don't work out well? Currently, making it to adminship is not unlike making it into the House of Lords in the UK - pretty hard to get kicked out. There are some good reasons for this: we want admins to have the ability to withstand a certain amount of populist pressure, so that we can preserve a culture with diversity of viewpoint and active debate around key issues.

There are multiple ways to go about this: one concern people have raised is that ArbCom, being elected by the admin community for the most part (everyone can vote, but admin votes are easily the swing vote), may not have the political independence to take tough decisions against popular admins who have not been behaving well. I am not sure I share that concern, but it is an empirical question.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: how have voluntary admin recall processes tended to work out in practice? Do ArbCom members, present and past, feel politically empowered to take action against popular admins who need discipline?

4. What is the right number of admins, anyway? Or, more in line with the big picture philosophical questions about which I am seeking to encourage more discussion: what are the right metrics for determining whether we have enough admins?

I have a feeling this is going to be a long-ish discussion. Please do try, therefore, to stay directly on-topic as much as we can. smile.gif--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you bloody dolt. Your creation has a problem---you.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 8th November 2010, 2:11pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 8th November 2010, 8:18pm) *

That should be obvious to anyone who actually reads a moderate sample of my substantive posts over the last 4 years.


Most of your posts are completely incoherent. If you take the problem to decipher one or two, they are just excruciatingl-E bad puns, or stupid and pointless plays on the word 'E'. So it's not obvious at all.

My theory is that he's here to stroke his own ego and prove to others how brilliant he is, while expressing his disapproval with WP for not recognizing and deferring to his brilliance. I'm waiting for the day he proves me wrong, but his typical condescension whenever he's faced with questions just continues to strengthen the theory.

One thing WP did right was ban him, as he's made it very clear that sharing whatever information/insights he may have is not in his interests. Like Moulton, I sometimes wonder what, if anything, he actually does know.

Posted by: Text

QUOTE
My theory is that he's here to stroke his own ego and prove to others how brilliant he is


99% of Web 2.0 users seem to do that, they just show off, but don't have the experience in life that Awbrey has, so he's on a slightly higher ground. Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Text @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:04pm) *

Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.

The Johnny Cache Code-O-Graph badge was offered by Ovaltine. Collector's item today. I don't have one. unhappy.gif

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:59pm) *

QUOTE(Text @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:04pm) *

Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.

The Johnny Cache Code-O-Graph badge was offered by Ovaltine. Collector's item today. I don't have one. unhappy.gif

Too much diaeresis, it's all Grëëk to me. Once a person reaches a certain noise/signal ratio, I go elsewhere for enlightenment.

I'm not an awbrephrenologist, poring over hieroglyphics and interpreting diacritical snarks in hope of achieving perfect stool.

Posted by: Somey

If we could just take a short break from playing Bash-a-Cache for a moment, I'm glad Mr. Kohs resurrected this thread. Reading back on what Kato posted originally, I contradicted myself fairly badly when I started off saying that WP's Maintenance Phase would lead to an Attrition Phase and finally a Breakup Phase, and then not long after, saying the Maintenance Phase would be followed by a "Lockdown Phase."

I realize now that I was trying to oversimplify an extremely complex set of factors and determinants which, if people can handle the complexity, are actually all going on at once. In other words, the Maintenance Phase doesn't necessarily resolve itself into some sort of neat little "fifth stage" that features a predictable or consistent decline - in fact, in some areas Wikipedia may actually improve as the ongoing shakeout continues.

In some ways, the future of Wikipedia really depends on how they handle the lockdown process. I wanted to believe, and to some extent I still do believe, that if handled correctly, fairly, and consistently, the locking-down of content could actually extend Wikipedia's life-cycle by several years, even decades, until the inevitable paradigm shift that leads the world away from screens and keyboards and into whatever comes after, be it wetware or A.I. constructs or Big Brother or being continually punched in the testicles by an angry dwarf that you can't actually see because he isn't really there, he's just a hologram beamed into your head by the CIA or whoever ultimately takes over.

So far, what we're seeing is that if Wikipedia does handle the lockdown process with any intelligence or cleverness at all, they're going to implement it so slowly (mostly because of reactionary "frei-kultur-kinder" resistance) that well over half the regular "community" will be gone by the time it starts to pay off.

If I had to apply a single word to the next (and probably final) phase of the life-cycle, it would probably be "dissolution," but that's so vague as to what will actually happen, it's almost meaningless. (We can still hope the next phase will be more like "Extirpation," but that's never been all that realistic, unfortunately.)

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

The Dicktatorship of the Wiki-Proletariat and the Withering Away of the Brains

Wither Away, Jimbo —

Puh-leaze —

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

People who focus on the content of Wikipedia are like people who focus on the shells of a shell game.

The real product of Wikipedia is the character of the people who are trained to operate within the system.

Wikipediots and Teapediots are a lot alike — they are basically people who have asked for everything that will happen to them, and I wouldn't care a whit about them if it weren't for the fact that The Rest Of Us will have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

In itself, the content of Wikipedia is like all the other bits on the Web — like all the stuff that Teapediot twits are no doubt happily twitting to each other somewhere or other in UseNewt 2.0 even as I write — that I couldn't care less about looking up and no one forces me to look at.

Ay, there's the rub —

None of that would be a problem if it were, like the rest of the Web, take it or leave it. You could just leave it, like you leave all the rest where it lies. It wouldn't even matter that Wikipediots pretend Wikipedia is something it's not — who would care what they say?

But no.

Google decided to shove the whole mess in the face of folks who know better, and Wikipediots are bound and determined to keep folks who know better from fixing it.

But there's more.

There is the massive investment in false advertising and just plan lies that its Real Funders use to maintain the pretense that it's something it's not.

A society can inculcate stupidity in its people just so long before it … well … withers away.

Jon Image

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(anklet with the pom-pom @ Mon 8th November 2010, 6:09pm) *

(3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing.


It is no coincidence that several high ranking Wikipediots are ex-USENET people. Even phrases like "Cabal" and "TINC" are old USENET idioms. Wikipedia can be viewed in some sense as USENET 2.0, where the principal feature is that the kill-files for a small set of people are the kill-files for everyone. This was long a wet-dream of many in USENET land.

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 9th November 2010, 2:55am) *
I realize now that I was trying to oversimplify an extremely complex set of factors and determinants which, if people can handle the complexity, are actually all going on at once. In other words, the Maintenance Phase doesn't necessarily resolve itself into some sort of neat little "fifth stage" that features a predictable or consistent decline - in fact, in some areas Wikipedia may actually improve as the ongoing shakeout continues.
To me, the interesting possibilities will come up when a fork actually starts to get some participation.

In my view, to be practical, a fork must copy or link to all the standing Wikipedia content. Then it reviews it, and, for the long run, it could do so slowly. The form must be operated such that someone looking up a topic in it will get the Wikipedia content or better.

Yeah, there is this BLP problem. However, trying to keep harmful material off of Wikipedia is pretty useless if the material can be hosted by any nutjob anywhwere. A fork might blank unapproved BLPs. It might even delete them routinely if wikipedia deletes them, which would be an exception to the normal Keep that I'd suggest as the default. The fork would have its own policy and procedures, and, this is important, there could be many forks with differing policies. Only one or a few would survive for long.

There is also the Wikiversity approach. Imagine Wikipedia with subpages in mainspace. Notability standards for the top level would be high, for the next level, low, and there might even be what I called a "junkyard" space.

The key for each fork is decision-making process. Exactly what is decided will be up to those who work on it -- or fund it. It is possible for a fork to pay for the work, if it gets enough momentum. Or to pay for the supervision, the high-level management.

It's open. If we could design a quasi-governmental process, what would we design? There are traditional models that were neglected when Wikipedia was begun, that work. There are improvements on these models.

As to the process of Wikipedia "dying," it won't happen completely. The model would change. Some form of lockdown is inevitable, Flagged Revisions is clearly coming, and it is clearly necessary, and not just for BLP. It's the hybrid between open and closed.

I think that the most serious initial error was to allow anonymous editing on article pages, other than something like flagged revisions, and even there, I'm not sure that it was worth the hazards and huge inefficiency. (It was efficient in one way only: it meant that casual readers could make small corrections. But, in the end, in practice, *most* of these corrections are reviewed anyway by RCPers, it's just that the process isn't efficient: one change might be read by a dozen editors, while another is completely missed in the flood. Flagged revisions, among other things, organizes the review, so that anyone can see what's been reviewed and what has not. The reviewer who approves or allows becomes the "responsible editor.")

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Text @ Tue 9th November 2010, 2:04am) *

QUOTE
My theory is that he's here to stroke his own ego and prove to others how brilliant he is


99% of Web 2.0 users seem to do that, they just show off, but don't have the experience in life that Awbrey has, so he's on a slightly higher ground. Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.


Are you in the Awbrey One then? I always wonder with these type of posts.

Talking of communication empathy, I really do wish you'd stop deleting the 'quote names' from your quotes. This one can be immediately followed, but some of them take checking.

Posted by: Emperor

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 9th November 2010, 8:20am) *

People who focus on the content of Wikipedia are like people who focus on the shells of a shell game.

The real product of Wikipedia is the character of the people who are trained to operate within the system.

Wikipediots and Teapediots are a lot alike — they are basically people who have asked for everything that will happen to them, and I wouldn't care a whit about them if it weren't for the fact that The Rest Of Us will have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

In itself, the content of Wikipedia is like all the other bits on the Web — like all the stuff that Teapediot twits are no doubt happily twitting to each other somewhere or other in UseNewt 2.0 even as I write — that I couldn't care less about looking up and no one forces me to look at.

Ay, there's the rub —

None of that would be a problem if it were, like the rest of the Web, take it or leave it. You could just leave it, like you leave all the rest where it lies. It wouldn't even matter that Wikipediots pretend Wikipedia is something it's not — who would care what they say?

But no.

Google decided to shove the whole mess in the face of folks who know better, and Wikipediots are bound and determined to keep folks who know better from fixing it.

But there's more.

There is the massive investment in false advertising and just plan lies that its Real Funders use to maintain the pretense that it's something it's not.

A society can inculcate stupidity in its people just so long before it … well … withers away.

Jon Image



This post seems pretty plainly written to me, and I agree on the broader points not relating to "Teapediots".

I would have no problem with Wikipedia if it stopped taking public money, stayed out of public schools, and marketed itself as a nifty adults-only fancruft collection that could occasionally be useful for other things. It would also be nice if Google took into account the tremendous amount of plagiarized content on Wikipedia and penalized it in the search rankings accordingly. (i.e. if Google stopped profiting off of plagiarism.)

As for the Awbrey-haters, you might find that you enjoy his posts more if you learn the Greek alphabet. It doesn't take all that long, and it clears up a lot of the gobbledygook.

Posted by: Sxeptomaniac

QUOTE(Text @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:04pm) *

99% of Web 2.0 users seem to do that, they just show off, but don't have the experience in life that Awbrey has, so he's on a slightly higher ground. Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.

I can generally read his posts, except for the self referential acronyms, which I often just don't care enough to track down in longer threads. What I find grating is his condescending attitude towards those who attempt dialogue. I really don't mind if he wants to be obscure, but it's more than a little annoying when his response to other opinions is typically reminiscent of a stereotypical PMSing woman on a bad sitcom ("If you don't know then I'm not going to tell you, you idiot").


QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 9th November 2010, 12:55am) *

I realize now that I was trying to oversimplify an extremely complex set of factors and determinants which, if people can handle the complexity, are actually all going on at once. In other words, the Maintenance Phase doesn't necessarily resolve itself into some sort of neat little "fifth stage" that features a predictable or consistent decline - in fact, in some areas Wikipedia may actually improve as the ongoing shakeout continues.

In some ways, the future of Wikipedia really depends on how they handle the lockdown process. I wanted to believe, and to some extent I still do believe, that if handled correctly, fairly, and consistently, the locking-down of content could actually extend Wikipedia's life-cycle by several years, even decades, until the inevitable paradigm shift that leads the world away from screens and keyboards and into whatever comes after, be it wetware or A.I. constructs or Big Brother or being continually punched in the testicles by an angry dwarf that you can't actually see because he isn't really there, he's just a hologram beamed into your head by the CIA or whoever ultimately takes over.

I agree there will need to be some sort of "lockdown", or perhaps more of just systems to slow down editing on older pages (such as the reviewing edits process). However, it could be that WP might find a way to shift into what ever medium comes next, though perhaps (hopefully) leaving the current bureaucracy/leadership behind as it's forked into a new project. WP has gained far too much weight behind its current trajectory to likely be ready for whatever comes next, as there are too many ready and waiting to shoot down any significant ideas these days.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 9th November 2010, 1:59am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:59pm) *

QUOTE(Text @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:04pm) *

Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.

The Johnny Cache Code-O-Graph badge was offered by Ovaltine. Collector's item today. I don't have one. unhappy.gif

Too much diaeresis, it's all Grëëk to me. Once a person reaches a certain noise/signal ratio, I go elsewhere for enlightenment.

I'm not an awbrephrenologist, poring over hieroglyphics and interpreting diacritical snarks in hope of achieving perfect stool.


You're the type of person that thinks up a clever response to another's witticism hours after the fact, right?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 9th November 2010, 10:26am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 9th November 2010, 8:20am) *

People who focus on the content of Wikipedia are like people who focus on the shells of a shell game.

The real product of Wikipedia is the character of the people who are trained to operate within the system.

Wikipediots and Teapediots are a lot alike — they are basically people who have asked for everything that will happen to them, and I wouldn't care a whit about them if it weren't for the fact that The Rest Of Us will have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

In itself, the content of Wikipedia is like all the other bits on the Web — like all the stuff that Teapediot twits are no doubt happily twitting to each other somewhere or other in UseNewt 2.0 even as I write — that I couldn't care less about looking up and no one forces me to look at.

Ay, there's the rub —

None of that would be a problem if it were, like the rest of the Web, take it or leave it. You could just leave it, like you leave all the rest where it lies. It wouldn't even matter that Wikipediots pretend Wikipedia is something it's not — who would care what they say?

But no.

Google decided to shove the whole mess in the face of folks who know better, and Wikipediots are bound and determined to keep folks who know better from fixing it.

But there's more.

There is the massive investment in false advertising and just plan lies that its Real Funders use to maintain the pretense that it's something it's not.

A society can inculcate stupidity in its people just so long before it … well … withers away.

Jon Image


This post seems pretty plainly written to me, and I agree on the broader points not relating to “Teapediots”.

I would have no problem with Wikipedia if it stopped taking public money, stayed out of public schools, and marketed itself as a nifty adults-only fancruft collection that could occasionally be useful for other things. It would also be nice if Google took into account the tremendous amount of plagiarized content on Wikipedia and penalized it in the search rankings accordingly. (i.e. if Google stopped profiting off of plagiarism.)

As for the Awbrey-haters, you might find that you enjoy his posts more if you learn the Greek alphabet. It doesn't take all that long, and it clears up a lot of the gobbledygook.


I just read a http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/9/918757/-GOP-offers-billion-dollar-bribe-to-woo-Manchin-across-aisle shared on Facebook that calls them “Teahadists” — that works, too.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: powercorrupts

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 9th November 2010, 1:20pm) *

People who focus on the content of Wikipedia are like people who focus on the shells of a shell game.

The real product of Wikipedia is the character of the people who are trained to operate within the system.

Wikipediots and Teapediots are a lot alike — they are basically people who have asked for everything that will happen to them, and I wouldn't care a whit about them if it weren't for the fact that The Rest Of Us will have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

In itself, the content of Wikipedia is like all the other bits on the Web — like all the stuff that Teapediot twits are no doubt happily twitting to each other somewhere or other in UseNewt 2.0 even as I write — that I couldn't care less about looking up and no one forces me to look at.

Ay, there's the rub —

None of that would be a problem if it were, like the rest of the Web, take it or leave it. You could just leave it, like you leave all the rest where it lies. It wouldn't even matter that Wikipediots pretend Wikipedia is something it's not — who would care what they say?

But no.

Google decided to shove the whole mess in the face of folks who know better, and Wikipediots are bound and determined to keep folks who know better from fixing it.

But there's more.

There is the massive investment in false advertising and just plan lies that its Real Funders use to maintain the pretense that it's something it's not.

A society can inculcate stupidity in its people just so long before it, well, withers away.

Jon Image


"Google decided to shove the whole mess in the face of folks who know better, and Wikipediots are bound and determined to keep folks who know better from fixing it. - But there's more. - There is the massive investment in false advertising and just plan lies that its Real Funders use to maintain the pretense that it's something it's not."

You got a touch of the abd'ees for minute there, but A-star for that.

I would add that Wikimedia's prime concern isn't its encyclopedia at all (which they just want to keep relatively-balanced in that controllable area of POPULAR, NEEDY and INCOMPLETE) - their principle objective to find ways of expanding into territories where they can generate enough legal income (not-for-profit of course) to become financially self-reliant, and not almost completely reliant on Google - or more specifically, the donations from people that are more based-on the 'convenience-factor' supplied by Google, than on Wikipedia content itself. Down the road, Wikipedia is popular enough to rely on its internal search engine (and internal links of course), but without the millions of 'donation dollars' that are based-upon the Google-centred “convenience factor” (many of them possibly repeat donations), their finances will struggle to sustain them.

Chapters are Wikimedia's biggest long-term threat in my opinion: people get budgets to start them up, can profit in the usual non-explicit ways, and are not even expected to be WP contributors - ie they can be proven dodgy Wikipedians, but as long as they are willing to do the Chapter-creation groundwork, and bow down to The Project, then it's all roses. It's the physical land-based element that really makes me shudder.

Posted by: Zoloft

QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 9th November 2010, 7:40am) *
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 9th November 2010, 1:59am) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:59pm) *
QUOTE(Text @ Mon 8th November 2010, 7:04pm) *
Just get the Jonny Cache-English decoder and there will be something fairly interesting to read in his posts.
The Johnny Cache Code-O-Graph badge was offered by Ovaltine. Collector's item today. I don't have one. unhappy.gif
Too much diaeresis, it's all Grëëk to me. Once a person reaches a certain noise/signal ratio, I go elsewhere for enlightenment.
I'm not an awbrephrenologist, poring over hieroglyphics and interpreting diacritical snarks in hope of achieving perfect stool.
You're the type of person that thinks up a clever response to another's witticism hours after the fact, right?

At parties, I just smile and offer to refill the speaker's drink. I'm not a big conversationalist. I do appreciate a well-played bon mot even if (especially if) it is directed at me.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Tue 9th November 2010, 1:32pm) *

QUOTE(anklet with the pom-pom @ Mon 8th November 2010, 6:09pm) *

(3) The cabal definitely exists (even if in little sub-groups) and has turned WP into a social network and a fancier version of Usenet. Social networks and Usenet are okay when they are identified as such, but in an environment such as WP when the stated mission is to "build an encyclopedia", then the social networking will eventually bring it down like a cancer that refuses to stop growing.


It is no coincidence that several high ranking Wikipediots are ex-USENET people. Even phrases like "Cabal" and "TINC" are old USENET idioms. Wikipedia can be viewed in some sense as USENET 2.0, where the principal feature is that the kill-files for a small set of people are the kill-files for everyone. This was long a wet-dream of many in USENET land.

It is a wet-dream of most discourse communities; most implement something similar.
Is the overlap between USENET and Wikipedia any greater than the overlap between Wikipedia and hams?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Tue 9th November 2010, 8:39pm) *
Is the overlap between USENET and Wikipedia any greater than the overlap between Wikipedia and hams?
Almost certainly. First of all, a lot of hams still yet eschew the Internet, being some sort of perverse Luddites who only embrace technologies that are older than they are. Secondly, many of the hams who do use the Internet have learned that Wikipedia's hovercraft is full of eels, and avoid it on that basis. (I can't count the number of times I've seen hams advised to avoid Wikipedia as a source, because it's so unreliable.) Thirdly, and most importantly: being a ham isn't about being argumentative. It's about tinkering with radio technology. The motivational intersect just isn't there.

Yes, some hams go onto 75 meters at night and argue politics. But they're a small part of the hobby; it's a small fraction of hams that even operate on 75 meter phone, let alone do so to discuss politics. On the other hand, virtually everyone on USENET went onto USENET to argue about something or another, to show off their knowledge, to put down others, to attempt to publish their own writings, or to troll. Wikipedia serves all of these motivations, to degrees comparable to how USENET did. Ham radio, not so much.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 9th November 2010, 6:53pm) *
Yes, some hams go onto 75 meters at night and argue politics. But they're a small part of the hobby; it's a small fraction of hams that even operate on 75 meter phone, let alone do so to discuss politics. On the other hand, virtually everyone on USENET went onto USENET to argue about something or another, to show off their knowledge, to put down others, to attempt to publish their own writings, or to troll. Wikipedia serves all of these motivations, to degrees comparable to how USENET did. Ham radio, not so much.

I have to disagree, at least to a limited extent. The ham bands are nowadays carrying trollery,
abuse, obscene epithets, and idiocy to an extent previously unseen. (Okay, unheard.)

Anyone remember my http://ericsaysfuckyou.blogspot.com/2009/09/extra-tight-vibrating-sphincter.html about the infamous http://www.435online.com/ in LA?
Sometimes, hams have to share the 2-meter band http://www.theindychannel.com/news/18778493/detail.html.
How about http://www.angelfire.com/mn/AA0BY/14313pg.html? That's been going on for a long time, too.
How about the http://k1manthefool.blogspot.com/ who run http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_1x.html? The FCC and ARRL have been trying to http://www.ve7kfm.com/k1man.html for 20+ years.....
You could try reading http://www.eham.net/articles/14252 and http://www.eham.net/articles/6311.
(And the comments below them, which are even more informative.)

Now there's even a http://lidlist.com/, or ham operators who are famous for incompetence, abuse, etc.

So, amateur radio is suffering the same loss of civility as other parts of society.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(jayvdb @ Wed 10th November 2010, 2:39am) *

the overlap between Wikipedia and hams?


Is that as in need to be hung for 12 months to cure, or overblown drama queens?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 10th November 2010, 2:17am) *
I have to disagree, at least to a limited extent. The ham bands are nowadays carrying trollery,
abuse, obscene epithets, and idiocy to an extent previously unseen. (Okay, unheard.)

Anyone remember my http://ericsaysfuckyou.blogspot.com/2009/09/extra-tight-vibrating-sphincter.html about the infamous http://www.435online.com/ in LA?
Sometimes, hams have to share the 2-meter band http://www.theindychannel.com/news/18778493/detail.html.
How about http://www.angelfire.com/mn/AA0BY/14313pg.html? That's been going on for a long time, too.
How about the http://k1manthefool.blogspot.com/ who run http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_1x.html? The FCC and ARRL have been trying to http://www.ve7kfm.com/k1man.html for 20+ years.....
You could try reading http://www.eham.net/articles/14252 and http://www.eham.net/articles/6311.
(And the comments below them, which are even more informative.)

Now there's even a http://lidlist.com/, or ham operators who are famous for incompetence, abuse, etc.

So, amateur radio is suffering the same loss of civility as other parts of society.
I'm not convinced of this. I suspect that the "lid rate" is about the same as it has always been; it's just that we're more aware of it because of the facility with which the Internet enables gossiping. The eham and QRZ forums do not, in my opinion, offer a representative sample of amateur radio operators; that's almost as bad as claiming that Wikipedia Review, or perhaps more appropriately Encyclopedia Dramatica, is representative of Wikipedians.

(And at least some of your recitations are wrong: the Indianapolis police were not using amateur radio frequencies; they were using modified Part 97 radios to operate on marine VHF frequencies. No amateur radio frequencies were involved, and hams are only involved insofar as it was scanner enthusiasts who also happened to be hams who reported the activity. And the "435 repeater" incident you mention involves the illegal misuse of an amateur radio repeater by unlicensed operators: again, not hams.)