Jacques Derrida, Article rot Options

[Peter Damian]

I wrote about this here. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/someone-...ng-note-on.html . Is there something fundamental in the very structure of Wikipedia itself that prevents it from reaching even basic levels of competence about topics such as this?

The discussion on Jimbo's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...da_talk_page.29 is totally predictable.

Now, at this stage you would hope s/he could fall back on our large admin community to help. But as I've already explained, the "algorithm" that creates this administrative body also ensures that it is badly suited to helping. Wikipedia admins, who mostly have no expertise in anything, tend to favour heuristics that promote social order over ones that resolve disputes in favour of the most informed and knowledgeable. The classic one is WP:EW/WP:3RR. This began as a desire to reduce conflict among editors of equal value, but it has morphed so much that today it is essentially a mechanism for reinforcing the existing number-centric disposition of Wikipedia. Any reverting is simply "wrong" while, by contrast, adding nonsense to an article is not really a big deal, and indeed is positively good if the right people turn up at the place it's being discussed.

This comes back to the badly qualified admin-class point. They are not capable, in general, of solving disputes in favour of the "right" side, but they are capable of looking at reverts and talk pages. The admin class has gravitated over time from being the guardians of good content, to a class that institutionally demean the importance of good content. This can be substantiated by comparing the enforcement of WP:3RR and WP:Civility with WP:NPOV ... the latter has become almost impossible to enforce. Besides the fact that admins are not in general capable of enforcing it, WP:INVOLVED in practice ensures that all but the most well-connected admins cannot enforce WP:NPOV without being regarded as somehow 'corrupt'. The absurdity of WP:INVOLVED is that it actually ensures that anyone with any interest in any area cannot bring superior power to solve a dispute; i.e. everyone with knowledge of an area is excluded from acting in it unless s/he actively conceals the interest.

I could go on, But the worst of it is--and this is why I'm pessimistic--actually changing the 'Pedia will be impossible because the bulk of power on Wikipedia lies in the hands of people with an interest in preventing change; it is, after all, the system that favoured them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right, but why are you wasting time on Wikipedia?

Someone is bound to say, at some point, that Citizendium had experts but Citizendium failed, ergo etc.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 11th May 2011, 6:39pm

[EricBarbour]

Well....you could always go around and insert small sentences of utter drivel into philosophy articles like this one, complete with phony references. Given that philosophy is "boring" to Wiki-Nerds, the drivel will sit there for years. And if you're really lucky, it will be repeated verbatim in "serious textbooks", simply because some editor down the line was lazy.

The real harm that Wikipedia is capable of is still unrealized. Give it more years, and more lazy textbook authors. The embarrassment to Jimbo's "reputation" is just beginning to be evident.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim overlooks the fact that often the admin has a dog in the fight and goes with his prejudice.

[radek]

The comment by Deacon of Pndapetzim overlooks the fact that often the admin has a dog in the fight and goes with his prejudice.

Which is particularly true if you're familiar with Deacon - while I agree with what he's saying (per my comment), I also know damn well what he means: "I should be able to do whatever I want cuz I'm an "expert" (i.e. a graduate student ) and anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong but also a clueless idiot and probably a "nationalist"", whether they actually have any expertise in a particular topic area or not". Sort of like he often complaints about "abusive admins" but doesn't shy away from using his admin tools in abusive ways himself against... let's say "peoples he doesn't like".

But the responses to his statement from Geni and JaGa almost make me feel for him.

[Peter Damian]

Someone is bound to say, at some point, that Citizendium had experts but Citizendium failed, ergo etc.

And behold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428653031

[KD Tries Again]

I seem to recall that this article was sort of adequate a year or so ago when I contributed some odds and ends. I must go and survey the damage.

And back I come with...

Work
[edit] Introduction

On multiple occasions, Derrida referred to himself as an historian...

Yes, that is absolutely the first point to be made in the first sentence of the section dealing with the work of someone who is not a historian. Spectacular.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again: Thu 26th May 2011, 9:52pm

[Abd]

Is there something fundamental in the very structure of Wikipedia itself that prevents it from reaching even basic levels of competence about topics such as this?

Yes. Next question?

Looking at Deacon's comment on Jimbo Talk, come on guys, give the guy a break. Brilliant comment. Some of the response here is like responding to a commentator who points out real social problems with a structure, by saying "It's you, jerkface!" Of course Deacon may be part of the problem. But he's described it well and if, in fact, he were to have some possibility of improvement, he took the first step.

However, I don't think he understands the solution. Or a solution, there might be more than one possible. I don't think that giving "power" to experts will do anything but corrupt them. Rather, experts should be respected and protected as advisors. I would actually create an editor class, "expert," and that class would be strictly prohibited from things like revert warring, incivillity, etc., rigorously (but supportively, i.e., very graduated sanctions, with supportive comment and encouragement, encouraging advising the community in non-disruptive ways). For the same causes of their expertise, experts are expected to have strong POV!

It's the job of the experts advising the community, just as that of those who advise the editors of any encyclopedia, to convince the editors that their advice is sound; in the case of Wikipedia, that it is verifiable, or, in some cases, that it, at least is not contrary to what is in reliable sources. Sometimes text can convey subtle misunderstandings that only an expert will recognize, and the opinion of an expert might be enough to suggest that, even though the text can be sourced, it is, as presented, an error. If there is conflicting testimony from multiple experts, then, there is a conflict to be resolved.

Experts, as well, should be encouraged to create educational resources on Wikiversity, where an expert can actually, roughly, own a page (which might be a subpage). And Wikiversity pages should routinely be linked from related Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a place where, in theory, you can ask an expert a question. It really works that way, sometimes, and as cross-wiki linking (which is advised in theory, but I've seen it opposed by POV-pushers who were able to dominate the WP article) becomes common, Wikiversity will grow and become more of a resource.

There is a question of how to determine expertise. One idea is that it is simply self-declared. By declaring yourself an expert, you become, I've suggested, COI on the topic and would conduct yourself accordingly. This covers "amateur experts," who are often as knowledgeable or sometimes more knowledgeable than academics, and does allow them to write on the topic, but not contentiously (in the article), and a whole new set of guidelines on expert editor behavior on Talk pages would need to reflect this new policy. Does the expert tell Randy from Boise that he's got his head wedged in a dark place? (No, it's unprofessional, and we expect experts to act professionally. An expert offers advice and does not demand to be heard. Or obeyed.)

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 27th May 2011, 12:01am

[KD Tries Again]

Offering experts a position from which they can give sound advice on content which can then be overruled, ignored or rewritten by the usual idiots is a good way not to get experts.

It's why experts tend to abandon Wikipedia.

[Maunus]

Is there something fundamental in the very structure of Wikipedia itself that prevents it from reaching even basic levels of competence about topics such as this?

Yes. Next question?

Looking at Deacon's comment on Jimbo Talk, come on guys, give the guy a break. Brilliant comment. Some of the response here is like responding to a commentator who points out real social problems with a structure, by saying "It's you, jerkface!" Of course Deacon may be part of the problem. But he's described it well and if, in fact, he were to have some possibility of improvement, he took the first step.

However, I don't think he understands the solution. Or a solution, there might be more than one possible. I don't think that giving "power" to experts will do anything but corrupt them. Rather, experts should be respected and protected as advisors. I would actually create an editor class, "expert," and that class would be strictly prohibited from things like revert warring, incivillity, etc., rigorously (but supportively, i.e., very graduated sanctions, with supportive comment and encouragement, encouraging advising the community in non-disruptive ways). For the same causes of their expertise, experts are expected to have strong POV!

It's the job of the experts advising the community, just as that of those who advise the editors of any encyclopedia, to convince the editors that their advice is sound; in the case of Wikipedia, that it is verifiable, or, in some cases, that it, at least is not contrary to what is in reliable sources. Sometimes text can convey subtle misunderstandings that only an expert will recognize, and the opinion of an expert might be enough to suggest that, even though the text can be sourced, it is, as presented, an error. If there is conflicting testimony from multiple experts, then, there is a conflict to be resolved.

Experts, as well, should be encouraged to create educational resources on Wikiversity, where an expert can actually, roughly, own a page (which might be a subpage). And Wikiversity pages should routinely be linked from related Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a place where, in theory, you can ask an expert a question. It really works that way, sometimes, and as cross-wiki linking (which is advised in theory, but I've seen it opposed by POV-pushers who were able to dominate the WP article) becomes common, Wikiversity will grow and become more of a resource.

There is a question of how to determine expertise. One idea is that it is simply self-declared. By declaring yourself an expert, you become, I've suggested, COI on the topic and would conduct yourself accordingly. This covers "amateur experts," who are often as knowledgeable or sometimes more knowledgeable than academics, and does allow them to write on the topic, but not contentiously (in the article), and a whole new set of guidelines on expert editor behavior on Talk pages would need to reflect this new policy. Does the expert tell Randy from Boise that he's got his head wedged in a dark place? (No, it's unprofessional, and we expect experts to act professionally. An expert offers advice and does not demand to be heard. Or obeyed.)

And why do you think anyone would want to be a member of that expert class - if all it entails is that your voice counts less not more and you're not allowed to do any of the actual editing, and you can't answer back in kind when confronted with verbal abuse or incivilty? I think you are confusing "saints" with "experts".