How to utterly destroy Wikipedia, Idea needed Options Rating

[Peter Damian]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Nerd]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

[GlassBeadGame]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

I don't think Peter intended to kill anyone, just cause the demise of a dysfunctional website. Even at that his language is conditional and he will probably be back to work "building the encyclopedia" in no time flat.

[aeon]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

For all your destructive designs, your userpage says you're "in retirement [–] until October 3 2009." (dash my own for obvious effect). Seriously PD, what the hell? I find your labelling of the community as "not normal" a bit ironic; I don't think a person who has retired and then returned and then bitterly left again saying "wah wah, I want to destroy Wikipedia!" and who is so obviously in a love-hate affair with Wikipedia can be called "normal" either. You can't even retire properly (..."until October 3 2009").

Get out of limbo land. Make up your mind to either stay or leave. The pitifulness of the situation is reaching sickening heights, and no-one's fooled by this latest proclamation of anti-Wikipedianism.

And before anyone points out to me that I'm making a nuisance of myself, this is part of my 35%.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[gomi]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

[Nerd]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

[carbuncle]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

[Nerd]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

It's true that, given its location in the sentence, "the place" could be taken to refer to the hospital. Contextually, I have a hard time seeing how one could not realize that he meant Wikipedia.

[Jon Awbrey]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

How Do You Stop The Pusher, Man?

Stop Buying, Dope!

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

That sounds like destroying lives to me. Perhaps not to you though.

Considering the "place" in question is an online community of sorts, I don't see that as desire to physically harm anyone. Do you think that Peter is suggesting some real building be blown up?

Sounds like it to me. I got the impression he wanted to blow up the hospital all the Wikipedians were in. Clearly it was some sick sort of metaphor for something else.

Always remember, "Nerd" is "Nerd" spelled forwards.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Guido den Broeder]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

They don't need to be moved.

With all the barking mad people safely locked inside the luny hospital named Wikipedia, we can simply start anew elsewhere.

[wikiwhistle]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Eh? He said heal their lives- that they be given the mental health care they need. Unless you mean wikipedia is some people's lives (which could be right lol)

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[dtobias]

"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"

[Milton Roe]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

Are you joking? This would be returning their lives. Like discovering a risk-free antidote to heroin addiction.

The solution here is embedded in the question: the problem is not the (flawed, rife with error) database of Wikipedia, but the community itself. How do you destroy a (volunteer) community? Make it deeply unpopular, or provide a compelling alternative. One of the reasons WP won't implement flagged revisions is that it would create a strong disincentive to drive-by editing, the source of much of the "community". I'd start there.

Good, because you're already past the bounds of what is known or even reasonable. How do we know the requirements of simple user account registration (have a paid email account which you probably have anyway, and put in the gigantic mental effort to select a username and password) are such a horrible disincentive to drive-by editing? Particularly when they get you out of having to do the stupid CAPTCHA anytime you add a weblink, which you're often doing anyway if you're doing any editing of any value (which will include some weblinks surely in your cites). The time you lose creating a username is paid back almost immediately in CAPTCHAs not seen.

Same for the extra stuff you get like ability to send email to others and upload images. And if you want to edit protected Wikis (a larger and larger fraction) you have to register and wait out the confirmation time. Okay, so you have to wait 4 days-- again big deal. In 4 days, you're going to be the same place you are now, except 4 days older and without the ability to edit sprotected stuff if you didn't make the necessary application 4 days ago. This is not NOT a good argument. It's been made by the WMF for years and there's NOTHING logical behind it. If you ask them, their evidence consists of some francophone fr.wikis where the IP vandalism doesn't remotely resemble en.wiki's, which find that most of the good editing (for a very small group of editors with very few edits) is done by IPs. In France and Belgium. So what? Most of the IP-vandalism done here, isn't done by ANYBODY over there, because they aren't big vandals even when they ARE IP-users. What does that tell you?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Nothing! It tells you that, for over here, you don't know. Which, as Socrates reminds us, is sometimes a good place to start.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I feel the same way about Scotland. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[victim of censorship]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Wikipedia should be closed down, the Domain sold, the data base purged and the servers sold and monies realized, be given to a worth charity.

[Somey]

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

It probably depends on whether they're to be treated as addicts, criminals, cult-brainwashing victims, abuse victims, or ordinary lunatics. Being a charitable sort myself, I'd prefer to think of them as victims of some sort or other, but of course that's hard cheese on the people they've victimized. From a psychological perspective I'd say "cult-brainwashing victims" is the closest to what the really hardcore ones are, but that's a small minority. Another possibility is to create a whole new category for them, but then someone would have to come up with a name for the category, and "Wikipediots" is too silly-sounding to bring in any serious public-health money.

Anyhoo, this is all theoretical, right?

[Sarcasticidealist]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

[Kelly Martin]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.

[Somey]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm thinking this is more a reference to the way non-emergency hospitalization tends to do the patient more harm than good. Plus being formally diagnosed with a mental disorder will limit one's employment opportunities regardless whether it is accurate or whether the symptoms are anything to worry about.

But once you're checked into the Fourth Floor (because the symptoms are something to worry about, or because they can't make up their fucking minds) you'd better just hope there isn't a fire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.

I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.

Q:How to utterly destroy Wikipedia
A:Leave/Put Jimbo in charge

[Peter Damian]

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

I had always thought the way to correct this problem is to work from inside and try to change people's perceptions from inside Wikipedia. I have always had a belief that this is the best way to change things.

I now think that this is like going into a crack house and persuading the inhabitants to leave. This is a mistake. They should be gently but firmly led out, put into a hospital and allowed to withdraw from their addiction, and the crack house utterly destroyed without trace. (I hope that makes my metaphor clear).

But again, how would one do this?

Some ideas:

1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.
2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly write up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

I think some of you mistake the nature of my engagement with Wikipedia. An addiction looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/YellowMonkey

My contributions never look like that. I have never reverted obvious vandalism, for example. My concern is with vandalism like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=275708267

which is made by a bona fide member of the 'community', and which has the result of seriously distorting popular perception of an important subject of human knowledge (medieval philosophy and theology). 185,000 people a year read that page, and it is the first result of a Google search on 'Scholasticism'. I have similar concerns about the way that Wikipedia distorts the prominence of cult figures like Ayn Rand over mainstream and orthodox philosophers.

<snipped out tl;dr material>

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?

[Peter Damian]

At least Blnguyen is consistent. You are unable to admit your addiction and your inability to either leave or stay at Wikipedia. What do you think you're playing at coming on here and saying, "Yeah, let's just destroy Wikipedia and everyone on it", when you're returning on October 3?

So what should I be doing?

[edit] I am in the unenviable position of being a hated figure on Wikipedia for my role in the unseating of one adminstrator and one arbitrator. And being hated here for my belief that it is still possible to work for change within Wikipedia.

I am being quite consistent. I am utterly opposed to the current governance system in Wikipedia, and the way that it guarantees the survival of a certain rentier class. It is that I want to destroy, and always have. And if you look at my editing pattern, it shows no evidence of any addiction, I think. For example, look at all my edits today

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...et=Peter+Damian

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.


This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kevin]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Surely you don't actually believe this?

[Peter Damian]

OK that was tongue in cheek. But let's be more scientific. We assume that the election of every new administrator has been opposed, and so the admin population is falling by the natural attrition rate (I believe we have some stats around this). Then work out how much each admin has to do in terms of fighting vandalism and estimate how much the work load would be increased by the falling admin population. At some point there would be a 'tipping effect' - a small number of admins realise that the fight is hopeless, and give up. This in turn increases the workload on the remaining admins, who give up in orderly fashion, and the dyke collapses.

[Milton Roe]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Surely you don't actually believe this?

No, but they'd certainly notice the "WR-block" of opposes, and change the rules to stop "off-site" canvassing. We'd all be labeled "meatpuppets" (at least those of us who agreed with each other enough to make this block) and kicked out, in some way. They'd have to. A block of 50 oppose votes, even 25 opposed votes, would swing most of the recent RfAs. The real problem with WR is its own integrety and (allow me this bit of horntooting) our good taste. Also, the unwillingness here by many people to vote against what looks like a decent admin candidate, just to monkeywrench the works of WP in general.

Though it might be fun to try it ONCE, just to see the fireworks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

It was pretty good even when we saw Ottava Rima start to try it abortively: "All those mean-mean WR people came here to vote against meeeeee." And all those stick-in-the-mud WP people who wouldn't be caught dead on WR also, turns out.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Wups.

Of course, it's not as though little Kabbals don't occur on WP from little backchannel cliques. How often have you seen SlimVirgin, Crum375, Nevard, and the ever power-amassing Jayjg (back when he was with us) vote against each other in an RfC where they did vote? Not too damn often. But if you blinded them all from each other's votes? Methinks that would be about as interesting an experiment as making the French wine judges taste wines with the labels hidden. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Hey--- they can't tell Napa Valley from Bordeaux. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[EricBarbour]

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)

[JohnA]

"Wikipedia: Threat or Menace? Film at 11!"

Watching Wikipedia from this close is rather like watching Orwell's Ministry of Truth - from the inside the actions of the bureaucrats are banal and petty, but from the outside the results are a complete loss of freedom by reason of cultural and historical memory loss.

Edit:

Wikipedia will never be destroyed. If Wikimedia was shut down tomorrow, there'd be a hundred avatars of the same content desperate to be the next Wikipedia.

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[Peter Damian]

I happen to agree with Peter. Just not with the methodology.

There is no need to "destroy" it. The deranged ADHD sufferers who
run the thing are slowly destroying it for you. Will take years, though.

Why do people pay so much attention to that madhouse?
Because Google gives their articles high page rank.
No other major reason that I can see.

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

(Good luck dealing with the bastards who run Google. If you think Jimbo and the WMF
are paranoid freaks, the Google top management make them look like pikers.
I suppose you could try kidnapping Eric Schmidt and cutting his fingers off, one at a
time, until he agrees to remove WP pages from the ranking algorithm....)

I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

[JohnA]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

[Peter Damian]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.

[Kevin]

So: Talk to Google, convince them that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy
source for information. That'll kill the Magic Wiki a lot more quickly.

I would be most surprised if Google were remotely interested in the perceived accuracy of Wikipedia, so long as it drives traffic throught their site.

So long as readers visit Wikipedia, it will exist. And so long as "consensus" is used to determine policy, no substantive change can or will take place. What is needed is some leadership for the masses, and seeing as we don't have sharp sticks to make people follow as is done in RL, the aspiring leader will need to use charisma and persuasion, both in short supply.

[Kelly Martin]

I am consistently opposing the election of every new adminstrator. If every one here did the same thing consistently, Wikipedia would collapse within a month or two.

Nonsense. They'll just restructure the election process so that the objections don't count.

Wikipedia isn't Iran. It's not possible for there to be a general strike with hundreds of thousands of editors clogging the streets, refusing to edit, and there's no international community breathing down Wikipedia's neck watching every move with bated breath. Nobody cares if Wikipedia's elections are a farce.

[JohnA]

The only way to beat Wikipedia is to supercede Wikipedia, to produce a web-hosted encyclopedia of real scholarly, historical value.

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

At the moment, investors are still buying the Wikipedia Kool-aid, although frankly I cannot see how throwing money at Wikipedia can be called an investment when there's no possibility of any return.

No I meant a competitor to Wikipedia. Make strong business plan, get together a bunch of future 'employees', present to venture capital company, get finance, invest in infrastructure, build alliances with potential advertisers ... That sort of thing.

If it was that easy I would have done it by now. You might as well have said

1. Make business plan
2. ????
3. Profit!

..for all the use that is. Venture capital companies are rather leery about investing generally at the moment, particularly in seed rounds where there is a well-known competitor which is free (as in beer). In order to get VC interest I've got to create some winning formula to bring in revenue that will give investors an excellent return and a clear exit strategy (like an IPO). I think I have that idea, but I have no money to even begin to lay it out.

Maybe someone should ask Don Murphy if he'd like to help fund the seed round of an encyclopedia project that will kick Wikipedia's ass by actually behaving *shock* *horror* like a bona fide publishing company. Alternatively (and this is my better idea) a new technology which will allow Encyclopedia Britannica and mainstream media outlets to publish on the Net profitably and would probably be picked up by Google or Microsoft in a heartbeat because of the new potential revenue streams it would generate.

Somebody ask him or any lurking VCs (I wish) that are reading this.

[sbrown]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

[aeon]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Dubious percentage.

[Peter Damian]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Good - very good.

[Peter Damian]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

[aeon]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

You could start by paying off the editors listed for that idiot cabal you tried and failed to get going. Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

[Peter Damian]

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

[carbuncle]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

[aeon]

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

I thought it only took a phony idea.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Kato]

The reality is that Wikipedia survives because the masses are simply not very interested in the idea of encyclopedias. They want to find out stuff, and think that whatever Google spews out is good enough. After all, take away Wikipedia and what would people accept from Google is whatever happens to be on the first page that looks vaguely plausible.

We now know that the WMF are not really very interested in making an encyclopedia, they are getting a nice living leeching off the project, such as it is.

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it. The "good altruistic idea" phase of Wikipedia seems to have passed, and it is viewed as something that many people use but apologetically.

I seriously doubt it can be killed. It cannot be replaced by something done properly, as the gerneal public do not perceive Wikipedia as being done wrongly. The fact that something like flagged revisions, the simplest attempt to add some authority to the publication of the aggregated tat that is a Wikipedia article, has failed should tell you something not just about the governance, but the audience as well - there is no sense of demand from the readership.

Wikipedia is seriously broken with regards to being a scholarly work, but the fundamental problem to solve is "Who cares?"

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

[Peter Damian]

Most of them may have rejected the invitation to join your circle of self-indulgence, but that doesn't mean something greener won't draw their interest!

This in my experience is the only way to draw the interest of experts.

I thought it only took a phony idea.

Is there any reason for this unremitting hostility? Are you one of those who regard me as a traitor to Wikipedia Review, or a traitor to Wikipedia?

Please say what you really think.

Are you FT2 by any chance?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

Stigma and ridicule will be increasingly piled onto Wikipedia.

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

Interesting take. You really think the formatting is a detriment to the usability? The main crux of it, the article space, is pretty plain: text, image on the right, image on the left, section headers, references (if you're lucky!), and that's it. It's pretty pedestrian, but it's functional and streamlined. It presents information without much fluff. What's your guff with it?

[Moulton]

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma. In fact, it seems that it more or less is at the moment, people simply do not like admitting in public that they have anything to do with it.

I agree.

To my mind, the best practice at this phase of the game is to construct and publish an accurate and insightful analysis and diagnosis of the project and the participants, and to do so in as professional and credible manner as possible.

The dysfunctionality of the site's governance model is increasingly apparent, as more and more scholars and professionals publish their analyses and studies of WP's anachronistic mobocracy.

The site is dominated by a substantial number of power brokers who manifest some variety of personality disorder, (primarily Cluster B). This would be the stigmatizing portion of the diagnostic analysis, were it to come from credible and reliable sources.

[dtobias]

But what I reckon may hit WP the hardest is its lack of adaptability. WP had hardly changed since the early days, and pretty soon, the formatting will seem tired, irritating to use, and obsolete.

The sites I find irritating to use are the commercial ones that pop up annoying ads at you every chance they get, even managing to do it in Firefox with popups disabled through various devious coding. Wikipedia is a breath of fresh air in comparison, with pages that aren't full of things flashing, moving, and popping up at you, and articles that you can read by scrolling down without having to keep clicking "next" to go to another slow-loading page with a bite-size chunk of text surrounded by lots of ads.

[dogbiscuit]

I think the only way to get Wikipedia fixed (and I think the time for breaking it has passed) or at least less broken, is to get political and do damage that way.

Confused. You mean RL party political? Or get involved in internal Wiki politics?

I mean real political - like the good work Greg has been doing highlighting Wikipedian irresponsibility to the senators, and the little glitch they had in Britain when there was the minor Scorpion scandal which was badly mishandled even though the action of the net nannies was not as inappropriate as suggested by That Man in the Leather Trousers.

To make inroads on that, the main argument of Wikipedia that needs to be undermined is the "responsibility == censorship" where any suggestion of common sense controls, including self-control is poo-poo'd as old fashioned reactionary twaddle.

The meme that should be being worked up is that Wikipedia is a resource of the people, by the people, and it is an international disgrace that such a potentially useful resource is being squandered and undermined by a bunch of irresponsible oiks. If this was a banking system or the motor industry, Obama and Brown would have already intervened (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

To make a serious proposal:

Get onto Net nanny and similar people. Point out how much pornography there is on wikipeida and commons and demand that there both blocked. That would mean these sites couldnt be accessed from schools libraries and many offices. That would cut 90% or more of edits and views.

Good - very good.

Get off the Wheel, Peter. Stopping caring about whether Wikipedia "succeeds" with or without your silly "contributions." It is not about you. Criticize Wikipedia for the harm it does to innocent persons outside itself. Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else. They only deserve the care you might have for anyone else whose addiction is exploited. Care about the pornography and lack of child protective measures on the site whether you are on the outs or not.

You sound like a junky desperately trying to get a free fix from his dealer by threatening to turn him in to the police.

[thekohser]

I suggested above a strategic alliance with natural competitors such as Britannica. Or perhaps just make a good business case to a group of investors via the usual channels. Get a group of contributors together, mock up a set of articles, a charter, a policy and so on. Allow advertising in a carefully controlled way, allow content contributors an income, make suitable revenue projections and you are off.

It would seem that Peter Damian and (perhaps) JohnA are on a track that I was on, back in February 2008.

Maybe there is something to be considered in a coalescing movement to create "the next Wikipedia". The key differences might be:

• Copyright, rather than copyleft; or non-commercial re-use only
• Free to read*, not free to edit
• Editorial attribution to real-named individuals
• Advertising and sponsorship revenues
• Revenues distributed to the most influential editors
• Endorsement by academia, news-gathering organizations, and NGO's

I used to think I don't have the reputation capital or clout to launch such an initiative, and I probably still feel exactly the same way. But, maybe a group of "nobodies" like us could collectively recruit the necessary "somebodies" who might make this work. It would have to be a combination of venture capital and a knowledge-celebrity spokesperson on the notability level of Al Gore or at least Neil deGrasse Tyson.


*Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee).

[Peter Damian]

Possibly, a business model might be that the lead paragraph of every article is always free to anyone, but access to the rest of the article is opened by a micro-payment of 25 cents. Or, universal access to all articles is opened by a yearly subscription of $10 (we'd have to undercut Britannica's $69.95 per year fee). [/size]

Agree with you Greg and you are the one person who knows how to run such a site (Sanger's model was an improvement but sadly Larry never acquired the gentle art of making people feel welcome). But will a fee-based model work? Why can't subtle, targeted advertising work just as well? Even the philosophy pages on Wikipedia get a readership of millions. As for Britney Spears ....

[Shalom]

Reply to the initial request:

Pray. I sometimes insert in my prayers the words "destroy Wikipedia's corrupt power structure." I'm not kidding. At first it was a joke but now it's become a nervous habit. So far it hasn't produced results.

[Somey]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

[anthony]

For the most part I think we should just leave it alone and let it destroy itself. And I'm pretty much convinced that's going to happen. Not that it's going to blow up and go away in a blaze of glory. That *probably* won't be the exit. Its destruction will be more gradual, slowly it'll become more and more unreliable until Wikipedia is just as useless as the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Faster than Britannica though, because they'll probably hold on to "anyone can edit" until the bitter end.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

[Malleus]

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

I think I'd agree with that. Although I take part in the reform discussions, I do so in the full knowledge that no reforms will result. I'm a fool to myself really.

[Peter Damian]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

[GlassBeadGame]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

But as Peter says, this actually is outrageous. It's certainly not weak or cowardly, and as for being two-faced, there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to reform, improve, criticize, or subvert the system both from within WP and from here at the same time - "to each his own," as they say. Some of us clearly believe that Peter should give up trying to reform WP from within, but that's almost entirely for his sake, not theirs.

Two years ago, I concluded that the English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" and that this phase would last another 4-5 years, possibly longer if administrative reforms were made. So far those reforms haven't been made, and while it isn't too late for WP to make them, the fact is they're not going to. That means the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

However, if they were to make those reforms - and by this I mean things like applying the kinds of content and behavioral standards we'd normally associate with traditional reference publishing - then the next phase would be Lockdown/Stabilization, which is when we might start seeing some real improvements that casual readers can actually see. As it is now, I don't think they'll ever get to that point, even if Flagged Revisions is enabled someday.

So don't blame Peter here for noticing the first signs of impending dissolution and thinking something should be done about it. If anything, he's in the vanguard of an ultimately doomed endeavor, and if he now realizes that the endeavor is doomed, so much the better for him.

I'm glad that at least one person has said that. I compare Wikipedia to a country that I know and love, but whose administration is fundamentally corrupt and ruled by a despot who is badly advised by a crowd of unsavoury hangers on. Many of the people are good, but many are also afraid to speak out. Many others have fled the country altogether and are loosely organised like the Free French in London in the 1940's. Some choose to travel between the countries to fight a losing battle to persuade the good people to speak out against the despot.

But there seems no point in doing this because in Wikipedia country one is despised and hated and insulted. And because travelling to Wikipedia country is seen by the Freedom Fighters as somehow treacherous and cowardly, one is insulted by them as well.

What's the point I wonder. And who is Aeon anyway? He seems happy to speak out without revealing his identity.

[edit] And on my latest turn of thought, I had always believed that the majority of the inhabitants of Wikipedia country were fundamentally good, and that the evil lay with the dictatorship. I am now realising that this is not true at all. Most of those in the home country seem happy with the dictatorship, and support it wholeheartedly. So, nuke the lot I say.

PS I still think it is potentially a wonderful country. I have always loved encyclopedias, I have collected them all my life, and I love the idea of one that is free and on the internet and which potentially could bring the sum of all human knowledge to every one on the planet. Some of the people in Free London seem against the idea altogether.

Gag. The analogy of occupied France is not apt. Wikipedia is a menace that harms it innocent neighbors and Wikipedians sign up to inflict this harm freely of their own volition. It has not been "occupied" by foreign forces or "stabbed in the back" by something disloyal within. Its participants are responsible for the harm they cause. I'm not a "freedom fighter" just another guy with a little microphone. I'm not concerned with the internal dramas or careers of the bringers of the Blitz. I want to make the world aware of the harm they do. This is London Calling.

[Cedric]

In answer to the original question, I have long been of the opinion that Wikipedia is well into the process of destroying itself by slowly, but surely, damaging its reputation. However, I believe EricBarbour is right in thinking that this will take years to play out (it has already taken at least two).

I suppose if you wanted to take things into your own hands to hasten this process, you could try what I call the "Uriah Heep Solution". That is, register an account and start hanging out on the talk pages of WP's worst cabalistas. Shower them with loads of unctuous praise and play to all their worst behaviors and desires. Do little favors for them as well, like placing nasty block warning messages on the talk pages of editors they don't like or have conflicts with. Never miss an opportunity to sneer at experts, sing the praises of Jimbo and "free culture", and extol the wisdom of "banned means banned". In time, you might get nominated in a RFA. If you pass, then you can really do some damage.

Personally, I think that is all way too much work. I think that just sitting back and observing the natural process of decay is far less stressful and more instructive. However, I cannot eliminate the possibility that there are some undercover Uriah Heeps at work on WP already. We cannot be sure that there is no one within the current Cabal that is consciously attempting to bring WP down. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

I have some contacts at the CofE education division

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/education

which I haven't used so far, but could try. These people are in charge of all church of england schools which educate probably about 15% of the UK child population. More importantly, they would be in charge of the filter policy that selects the sites are available to computers used in church schools. If they were to block Wikipedia it would have no direct effect but the indirect effect (if well publicised) would be enormous.

...

(Dreamily) Oh, Peter, and I thought you were against fighting vandalism...?

[emesee]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

[gomi]

... English WP was firmly into its "maintenance phase" .... the next phase, after another year or two, will be Dissolution/Attrition - and we're seeing the first signs of that now.

Anyone remember Alta Vista? ..... I thought so.

Or to quote Frank Zappa: "Some say the world will end in fire or ice, but I think there are two other possibilities: paperwork and nostalgia."

[sbrown]

The only way to kill it is to make being involved with it a stigma.

That would be another advantage of my proposal. Whod want to admit involvement with a site officially declared to be unsuitable?

Accept that your precious content contributors are as much a part of the problem as anyone else.

Thats very true. If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.

[RMHED]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

[sbrown]

consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

Greshams Law. The bad drives out the good.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Or, something might change with Google. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on Google juice.

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

[Emperor]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

We're getting there, amigo.

[victim of censorship]

Destroying hundreds of people's lives simply because you disagree with them doesn't sound like the most wonderful of ideas.

If your life is so lame that the loss of Wikipedia would "destroy" it, then you already have problems.

Ask Mr.Ryan Jordan. if his life was helped by the concept of Wikipedia?

Make no mistake, Wikipedia is a not a positive force in the world or the internet. Ask some of the those hurt, abuse and/or have be victim of Wikipedia theft of IP property, and reputations.

It's delusional to think Wikipedia has an positive value and to read the stories on WR should be enough to put that to rest.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship:

[sbrown]

there seems to be no point in "destroying" it. simply give Internet users what they want in a better way at a different location

it is just like market share it seems. consumers are using the site because it meets a need. fill that need in other ways and it seems that consumers of information will gravitate there.

We're getting there, amigo.

Yes weve established you have one good article. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

But look at wikinfo. Thats making no headway and if it cant I doubt any wikiclone can. We need a completely fresh approach.

[victim of censorship]

AMEN... Wikipedia is a canker sore on the internet. All Wikipedia does is... takes, steals peoples IP property, rights, and reputations.

Just like canker sores!

I'm guessing he actually meant to write "cancerous tumor." I was under the impression that canker sores eventually heal on their own.

cancerous tumor works for me. The Term "Canker Sore" is from the Play "Man of all seasons" by Robert Bolt.

[anthony]

If it werent for the good contributors who produce reasonable and even excellent articles wikipeida would be too ridiculous for anyone to bother with. But of course even if we could wean them all away (no easy task) the good articles would still be there.

For how many minutes?

[Malleus]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?

Hint. "A profit without honor …"

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[anthony]

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

WoW — Signs & Wonders — Prophecy Lives!

Bonus Question —

Anyone want to guess the name of the commercial entity and who will (co-)own it?

Wikia?

[Kelly Martin]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

[RMHED]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid benevolent well-meaning chap.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[anthony]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Yes, Wikia is purely amateur hour when it comes to commercial muscle or nous.

No the commercial entity will not be anything to do with Jimmy Wales, It'll be run by hard nosed business pros, not a confused pseudo hippo randroid.

Makes about as much sense as non-alcoholic beer. But hey, they manage to sell that, so who knows.

[Kevin]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality. When you look at the types of mass media that are popular, tabloid news etc, it is unclear that the masses are interested in the distinction. At the moment I doubt also whether much of the general readership of Wikipedia understands it's flaws at all.

[anthony]

Wikipedia will either die in a puff of smoke caused by a nonrecoverable server crash (it'll be brought back up, sure, but any significant downtime will cause a loss of the addicted), or else with a whimper as its content is inexorably reduced to gibberish as vandals increasingly outnumber those who work to stop them.

I think it more likely that Wikipedia will be made irrelevant by a commercial entity. They'll help themselves to all Wikipedia's free content and follow its general model only with advertising and the addition of cash incentives to content contributors and admins.

I think that seems like an increasingly likely scenario.

I'm not so sure. For that to be successful, the majority of users would have to value better quality information over what is on Wikipedia so much that they are willing to pay for it (by paying or viewing ads), and also would need to understand the difference between good and poor quality.

Is the idea that the commercial entity is going to improve the quality?

I think that's a pipe dream. A pipe dream I once believed, but a pipe dream nonetheless. The work it'd take to fact check a Wikipedia article, to confirm that it wasn't plagiarized, to ensure that it was neutral, etc. would be about as much effort as just hiring someone to write it from scratch. And in the latter case you don't have to deal with the problems of copyleft.

[MZMcBride]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

[RMHED]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?

[The Joy]

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Bam! There it is! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/Special:NewFiles

Wikia?

Wikia couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Flashlights and asses, you say? I think there's a Wikia wiki devoted to that.

Does it have boy scouts as well?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Featured_Wikia/Spankingart/Blurb

Oh and Wikia has a new spanking wiki up. No Boy Scouts, thankfully.

http://spankinghelp.wikia.com/wiki/Spanking_Wiki

[Somey]

But that's just it -- Damian hasn't noticed or done anything. If he wishes to espouse the anti-Wikipedia sentiment, so be it. BUT HE CAN'T EVEN LEAVE WIKIPEDIA. He's in a limbo land. That's weak.

What difference does it make if he "leaves"? I mean, sure, he should leave, just like everybody else, but I don't see why failing to do so (or do so decisively) should preclude him from espousing anti-Wikipedia sentiments. (Unless of course you're a hardcore WP'er and you just want to "get rid of" people who espouse such sentiments.)

Again, I agree with you that he (and most other WP folks) should "leave." But there's no single "correct" cookie-cutter approach to the WP problem for everyone, is there? It really depends on the person - I myself have never made a single edit on WP, for example, so if anyone could get away with insisting on total disengagement as the only path to integrity, it would be me. But I wouldn't say I'm known for promoting that as the solution for all people in all cases. (Though I'll admit, it often is!)

...what was the EEA? Reform? Don't be ridiculous. It was genuine participation in the community, or an attempt to do so.

It can't be both things? Stark binary thinking is a sign of you-know-what, Im afraid. And all this talk of "loyalties" makes me a little uncomfortable...

Personally, I would have to say that some sort of editorial board actually would be a requirement for a responsible, quality encyclopedia-like website of WP's size and internal complexity. I understand why they don't think they need one, and it's fairly obvious that most of them don't want one, but I don't blame him for suggesting something of that nature - pointless though it may be.

For what it's worth, I don't buy any of the stuff some of you say about fighting the good fight against Wikipedia. I've not seen any evidence of it.

How about fighting the bad fight, then? Or the not-morally-aligned fight?

And suggestions for how to "fight" more correctly or effectively are always welcome, within reason of course.

[JohnA]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

[A Horse With No Name]

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

Please do not engage in personal attacks -- rats behave with far more sincerity and intelligence than the average Wikipedia administrator. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.

Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.

[Peter Damian]

I'm criticising you for calling me a coward, when you are pathetically hiding behind a pseudonym, you little worm. You might at least say who you are on Wikipedia.

Peter Damian, you are expressing the same sort of agitation that led several of us to launch Akahele.org, where contributors of lead content are required to be real names, with real reputations, because people who persistently cast trouble from behind pseudonyms are not trustworthy, and most often their contributions to society are minimal.

Why don't you write a short guest post for us at Akahele, expressing your frustrations with this particular situation? Because, I can assure you, you will not find resolution or much comfort for your woes here at Wikipedia Review.

Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?

[thekohser]

Yes why not. By 'this particular situation' do you mean Wikipediots being idiotic, or the more general issue that Wikipedia is a problem in the sense of being a public health issue, and should be dealt with accordingly?

Whatever you want. The "particular situation" could even center on the idiocy of our tolerance for Aeon's so-called "contributions" here at Wikipedia Review, and how his presence makes the level of discussion here so much more juvenile and acrimonious than it could otherwise be without him.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Mod note: Various posts now live in the tar pit.

[Guido den Broeder]

I don't see that happening yet. I have my own ideas but no money to carry it out.

Do you or does anyone else know of the sums of money needed to develop a working project on these lines? The best projects actually start on a very small scale without ambitious investment. In addition, if a sizeable number of the leading contributors to Wikipedia could be persuaded to leave in return for equity in the new project, that would significantly damage Wikipedia's competitiveness.

As long as fairly up-to-date software remains already available, the needed sums of money to start are minimal. Wikisage runs on a few hundred EURO a year, to grow perhaps to a few thousand when we get closer to nl:wikipedia's size. That is currently mainly just a Dutch language version, but you get the picture.

In time, however, when features get added that Wikipedia cannot even dream of, one might envisage a professional organization that is several orders of magnitude larger than the Wikimedia foundation, and it wouldn't need any donations.

That's the point. Its not as simple as setting up a wiki and inviting people to write for it. In fact, I wouldn't use the wiki approach at all as the result is usually 75% drama, 23.2% administrative overhead and only 1.8% actual writing articles.

I think the wiki model is the wrong model. It either produces crap at extremely high volumes or it dies painfully after a feeble and miserable existence.

The greatest problem is that the cost of hosting and bandwidth would quickly overwhelm any similar scheme to Wikipedia unless a new approach were taken to the whole question of the dissemination of articles from trusted sources on the Internet. That's my approach.

But because its innovative and there is no-one doing anything similar, its hard to capture that to make anyone open their checkbook unless they are first convinced that Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crud in the first place, and that a competing product using innovative delivery can outmuscle Wikipedia AND deliver a reasonable return on the money.

That's why the Wikipedia donation drive depresses me - for the money I could make something worth having rather than the rats nest that is Wikipedia.

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

[JohnA]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

[aeon]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Alex]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure of your misunderstanding - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

[Peter Damian]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

Well (1) obviously couldn't have been meant - how could Wikipedia, which was invented in the 21st century, have fucked up events which happened long before that, such as the Holocaust. Therefore (2) is the only reasonable sense. Wikipedia is seriously screwing up our record of history, and there is no doubt about that. Do you not agree? If you do, why are you reacting with such horror?

Even the Wikipedia article on history manages to get the definition right. "History is the study (teaching) of the past, with special attention to the written record of the activities of human beings over time."

It is this which Wikipedia has fucked up entirely.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.

[Peter Damian]

I don't know. I responded based on how I read it, and based on the way you quoted JohnA. Alex saw it the same way, evidently.

It has fucked up both the teaching of the past - because school students now use it as a source to copy and paste into essays. And it has fucked up the written record by distorting and misrepresenting the past in the way that only mobs know how.

And of course, before 2001, school students never, ever copied from other people. And of course, there were no other encyclopedias that made errors. By professionals too.

In the old days they tended to copy things in writing so that at least the information went in subliminally.

There were no encyclopedias before Wikipedia that have made such spectacular errors as Wikipedia.

But how would you know, 'Alex'. Where actually do you get your information from?

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

[aeon]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

[Peter Damian]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[aeon]

This all reminds me of an Asimov story about a distant future where everyone uses computers and every mathematical result that the computer gives 'must' be right. One of the characters discovers he can 'prove' that 2 x 3 = 6. The other character is very sceptical. Of course the computer does return 6. But perhaps it might return a different number. The computer by definition is right.

Um. We seem to have drifted a bit.

Not at all. Right on topic. You don't really understand why I have a difficulty with Wikipedia, do you?

Oh yes and the threats have now started on my talk page.

Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hello Peter. Because this kind of thing is disruptive both in intent and effect, I would ask you to cease making comments of this nature. If you continue then I will block you to prevent further such edits. You should raise your grievances on one of the discussion pages where they can be debated. CIreland (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to lend weight to what CIrland just said. You belief Wikipedia should be blown up and destroyed is not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of producing a collaborative enyclopedia and as such is disruptive. Please keep your attempts to destroy Wikipedia on Wikipediareview and off of Wikipedia. Chillum 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of this dysfunctinal 'community' and I have the right to vote in these 'elections' and I have the right to give any reason I like. It is actions like these that are causing the true disruption. Peter Damian (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Please stop threats of blocking on my talk page
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessarily provocative and disruptive. Threats of blocking do not help this situation. Please stop this. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now commented on this on Wikipedia Review. Threats like this are counterproductive as they suggest to the large audience now reading this thread that Wikipedia is trying to suppress good-faith and conscientious dissent by those who are wanting reform. But of course you weren't trying to do that, were you? Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CIreland"

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

[Peter Damian]

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

[Peter Damian]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

[aeon]

Why is this at all surprising to you, Damian? You think people are just going to ignore your commentary about "destroying" Wikipedia? People on Wikipedia don't have time for it, and that's perfectly reasonable.

On the contrary, given my comments that began this thread, it's not surprising at all. This is because Wikipedia is not a normal community.

In a normal community, even those who want radically to change the community (or even to destroy it) or allowed to vote. If enough votes are cast, that is a reasonable case for radical change of some sort.

Also, any normal community sees that the repression of dissent has more far-reaching consequences than the dissent itself. Good.

[edit] Alex has now joined in the call for my block.

They're not trying to repress dissent. Stop trying to paint yourself as a victimised martyr when you're actually the one (attempting to be) on the attack. And we don't need running commentary on which nasty Wikipedian is now calling for your blocking. Surely you considered that minor setback in your battle strategy against all things Wikipedia...? *scoffs quietly to himself*

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Alex]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

[aeon]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

Nah. Wrong. It means to inflame for the sake of inflaming. Which, in spite of your "reasoned" and "rational" protests, is *exactly* what you're doing with this thread.

[Tarc]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

[Peter Damian]

They're not try to repress dissent.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

[aeon]

They're not try to repress dissent.

!

Taking words out of context ftw.

[Peter Damian]

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

And no one is stopping him from voting?

[edit] The third remark seems inconsistent, don't you think?

People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Alex]

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

And no one is stopping him from voting?

Since RFA is not just a vote (you don't add comments to votes), this isn't possible.

[Tarc]

but interested in the views of others.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg)

Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.

HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

[Alex]

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

[aeon]

I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

This post has been edited by aeon:

[Peter Damian]

Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, your definition was inflaming 'for the sake of it'. Which I am not doing. As I said, my objections are in-principle and conscientious ones.

[Kato]

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

[Somey]

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is this "oppose" vote on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by this talk-page discussion.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.

[Peter Damian]

Since nobody else seems to be willing to provide contextual links for this particular branch of the so-called discussion, I believe what Mr. Alex and Mr. Aeon are referring to is this "oppose" vote on the RfA for someone called Ceranthor (T-C-L-K-R-D) , which was soon followed by this talk-page discussion.

While I don't personally see the point in any of this, I'd nevertheless like to remind members that this is not Wikipedia, and that readers would appreciate occasionally being given some sort of clue as what the hell they're talking about.

To put this in context:

* I began the thread with the thesis that it is not the administration of Wikipedia that is dysfunctional, but the community, and perhaps the community should be destroyed or 'rehabilitated'.
* One of my suggestions for achieving this was consistently opposing every RfA. This would have the effect (if everyone was like-minded) of reducing the number of administrators until the system collapsed.
* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.
* The results you see here before you.
* My conclusion is that the community really is dysfunctional. OK, it took me some time to realise that. I have always had a great faith in human nature, perhaps misplaced.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

[Peter Damian]

* I then carried this idea out, more as an experiment to see what would happen (in particular, to see if the Wikipedian idea about 'the community' having to support everything was really consistent.

Ahh. Sorry, I just figured you'd assume that's what would happen, and that an experiment wouldn't really be necessary. WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

Well I'm a bit of a doubting Thomas so I like to see for myself.

[dtobias]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

[RMHED]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.

[Kelly Martin]

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

Peter doesn't apparently remember that I was threatened with a block for casting a "neutral" vote on any candidate who was not a member of a WikiProject, even though neutral votes have no bearing on the outcome of the election anyway. The mentalities at play here are quite pathological, but also quite predictable.

[A Horse With No Name]

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Yes there is: "Balloonman." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[RMHED]

Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.

Yes there is: "Balloonman." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Balloonman is a wannabe RfA sage desperately searching for wisdom, trouble is he looks in all the wrong places.

[The Joy]

Did you honestly expect people to just sit back and accept your trolling? Really, "Peter", you're naive if you thought so. People aren't just going to ignore you and let you try and destroy Wikipedia.

'Trolling' is a word I am too old to understand. I think it means commenting in bad faith. No, I am being quite principled and conscientious in doing this, as most people who know me well will appreciate.

Sometimes I think it means 'comments I don't like', which is probably true in this case, eh Alex?

I definitely don't like them, much as I wouldn't like the comment "Alex deserves to die". We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why are you editing Wikipedia then?

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

Spot on!

[anthony]

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Denouncing someone as a "troll" anywhere generally means that they're saying something you don't want to hear.

Indeed, the mere act of calling someone a troll is just another form of trolling, as it is said to provoke a reaction.

Or as Wikipedia puts it (in a sentence which could use 3 or 4 {{fact}} tags):

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

Sometimes it's more fun to join in, though.

Experienced participants in online forums know {{fact}} that the most effective {{fact}} way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends {{fact}} to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen {{fact}} warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

Nothing like trolling the [[troll]] article. C'mon, you know you wanna do it.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[The Joy]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Tarc]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

[aeon]

Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?

No, and take your teletubby talk of "trolling" back to Wikipedia where people might give a crap. Denouncing someone as a "troll" here is meaningless, and just makes you look a fool.

Okay. Trolling seems to be a blacklisted term. He's being a fool, then -- surely that, at least, is still "meaningful" on WR. He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

[EricBarbour]

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

People engage in analingus for pleasure, and I'm having trouble
imagining what Mr. Ottava has to do with "pleasure".....

For that matter, that whole RFA is turning into a scrotum-chewing exercise.
A nice excuse for certain admins to take swipes at Peter.

* ...yes we can. Can't we just get rid of this bloke sans drama? If he doesn't like it good for him. Go to Google and get them to stop indexing Wikipedia if you need to. Dear me, this really is not complex. The little man is, contrary to popular and idealist belief, in actual fact very often very wrong. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Malleus]

WP'ers like to claim that adminship isn't really all that important to them, but it's fairly obvious (or at least I thought it was) that this isn't the case. They're more sensitive to whatever-it-is they define as "disruption" on in-progress RfA's than on any other set of pages on the site, probably by a fairly wide margin.

I think that's undoubtedly true.

[Ahypori]

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I was surprised by that, actually.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's weak, and it's cowardly, and it's two-faced. And, for whatever reason, it very much gets my goat ...

You own a goat? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Well, just keep David Shankbone away from it ... that is all I say. Otherwise, indecent photographs of it will only end up on the Pee-dia.

[Peter Damian]

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

[aeon]

He's not making a conscientious objection, he's doing something he knows won't work. What kind of idiot does something like that?

That is exactly what conscientious objectors do.

What a load of nonsense.

[Somey]

What a load of nonsense.

You have to define what the word "work" means before you can call it "nonsense," don't you? If his goal is simply to object for the sake of it, so as to retain his integrity and all that sort of thing, then what's the problem?

If you have a better idea for making the RfA process grind to a halt, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Who knows, maybe we'd all even join in! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Peter Damian]

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

[Somey]

The incredible irony of this RfA discussion is that the people who are proposing a topic ban for me in RfAs (thus restricting my eligibiligy to vote) are mostly the very same people who earlier were vigorously protesting against the right of established editors to elect other established editors.

It may be somewhat ironic, but IMO it would only be "incredible" if those same people were protesting against the right of established editors to prevent other established editors from being elected to the group of established editors.

I know, it's a silly thing to quibble over... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[EricBarbour]

You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

They could ask IP address 97.106.52.36 (T-C-L-K-R-D) why it was sooooo damned important
to tell the world that Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban......thus endangering his life......

That IP editor is a real prick, judging from the history. Charming person -- obsessed with
political hostages, FPS games, and The Godfather.

(just occurred to me......I can't think of a better way to ruin Wikipedia's golden "reputation" than
if it got someone killed. That occurrence is coming.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[JohnA]

Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

I think that's a very good definition of Wikipedia.

When you say something like that, are you sitting at home with a straight face? To assert that Wikipedia, of all things, has fucked up world history is frankly ignorant to the point of being insulting. Nazism and the holocaust, maybe. Persecution of African Americans, maybe. Wikipedia? No chance. Get some perspective.

I really think he is serious you know. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

What are you both talking about?

I am not sure what you are misunderstanding here - would it help to say that 'history' has two senses (1) the events themselves (2) the record of those events. Obviously (2) was intended. Quite obviously - how could (1) have possibly been meant????.

I think its because aeon just isn't very bright. And has never read 1984

[Milton Roe]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Maybe its just me, but I can't look at that name without "Ottawa Rimjob" popping into my head.

Not just you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Alex]

We really do not need somebody destroying Wikipedia from within.

Then why do you keep around Jimbo and all those other idiots?

Er... I do?

[A Horse With No Name]

It appears, Peter, that Chillum, Majorly, and friends are trying to ban you from RFA for "disruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ip#Peter_Damian

But Ottava Rima is coming to your rescue! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I really cannot believe how ridiculously silly that RfA discussion has become. When brain-limited characters like EVula, J.delanoy, AllStarEcho and Giants27 flare their nostrils and flex their muscles in outrage, it is impossible not to break out in giggles. I did like Xeno throwing in a reference to Nietzsche -- though Pastor Theo referring to Pinky and the Brain might be closer to the mark in regard to the gist of the discussion. Giants27 gets an extra star for trying to dig up dirt on Peter, and Wehwalt seems to have taken the Wiki title for being a lawyer who knows how to write cogently and comically (sorry, Brad, you're all washed up!).

Nonetheless, this whole thing has been very entertaining. Kudo, Peter, for giving me a good horse laugh! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Guido den Broeder]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.

[anthony]

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

Any by "publish" you mean simply "make available to the public"?

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

[Kelly Martin]

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

[A Horse With No Name]

Maybe I can buy that. But really, Mediawiki is easily adapted to not fall under that category. Set up stable versions, give the "editors" the power to mark a version as stable, and don't let the general public see the non-stable versions.

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

A stable version? Ah, there would still be plenty of horse shit to shovel. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[CharlotteWebb]

Indeed, stable versions with the proper configuration would remediate many of the most severe problems presented by Wikipedia.

Well here's the scoop:

I fully support the implementation which garnered the consensus of the community and have asked that it be turned on as soon as possible. I feel that this implementation is not strong enough, but it is a good start. [...] I think we are simply waiting now on Brion. He has suggested "before Wikimania". I hope that's right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

August 26–28 btw. Has anyone asked Brion yet what's the hold-up?

[dtobias]

You could always point them to this (extremely embarrassing) New York Times article.

How, exactly, is that "extremely embarrassing" to Wikipedia? What it shows is that an information collection and dissemination medium that isn't run by a "good ol' boys' club" like the mainstream media (and thus not as easy to get to conform to "gentleman's agreements" to withhold information) is harder to keep censored; the "God King" Jimbo just barely managed to keep a lid on it, but that might eventually become impossible as he declines in community power. While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

[EricBarbour]

While in this particular case it might have been objectively the better thing for everybody that the information did manage to be kept contained, the more general case is that censorship is a bad thing and openness a good thing, and the presence of ways of getting out information that can't be controlled by the censors of the world (look at China and Iran for examples) is a net positive.

In a general sense, perhaps. However, I'd still like to ask you, as I asked Hipocrite in
that other thread: are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?
And are you willing to speak to the family when it does happen?

This clash comes about because of that whole demented "information wants to be free"
concept that Web 2.0 and "digerati" types are always pushing, as if it were a law of
physics or something.

Information doesn't want anything, PEOPLE want something.

The only reason websites are killing newspapers and magazines, and Wikipedia is killing
encyclopedias, is because PEOPLE WANT FREE INFORMATION. And if you have total
la-la freedom on your information site, the result is very often defamation, personal
attacks, misinformation and propaganda, etc.

(In fact, allowing free editing of an information source would seem to INVITE
misinformation and propaganda.) And if someone dies as a result of said "free"
information, who is responsible? A teenager in his Florida bedroom, editing
Wikipedia while watching net-porn he scored at no cost, with his free hand shoved
down his boxer shorts? Is HE willing to apologize to the family of the deceased?

Those are damn difficult questions. What gets me, is that Jimbo did something
responsible in the case of Rohde. But his "encyclopedia" is being assembled by
random people, who may or may not be "responsible".

I still think that Times article is an embarrassment--because it shows Jimbo, being
a hypocrite and ignoring the "info wants to be free" cant that he pushed, and that
so many of his Wiki-gnomes take very seriously.

Jimbo helped create that atmosphere, and now he's making exceptions to the exception-less "rule".
And of course, his oft-deranged editor pool is playing Super Mario with people's lives.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia appears to have done the right thing here, but it's unlikely that they'll generalize from the experience. Jimbo did this because someone schmoozed him into it; it wasn't a case of them realizing ab initio that it was the right thing to do. Not everyone with a BLP can successfully schmooze Jimbo into doing the right thing, and in any case schmoozing the God-King doesn't scale.

[dtobias]

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

[Apathetic]

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

Yes, and just how much should Wikipedia censor to prevent potential harm?

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Kelly Martin]

Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?

The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.

[Apathetic]

Yes, and just how much shall we censor to prevent potential harm?

The correct amount, obviously. Or, if you're Wikipedia, some obviously wrong amount, but close enough that not enough people want you shut down.

Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?

[Kelly Martin]

Oh, it's that easy then?

Can you tell me on which side of this clear line the Rorschach images lie?

Squarely on top of it. Or something. I dunno, my crystal ball is malfunctioning.

Of course it's not easy. And determining the correct course of action in any given situation is not helped by absolutists lobbing squibs from the peanut gallery.

[EricBarbour]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo? Is he going to be the proper
God-King that people constantly joke about, and pass down diktats about how
Wikipedia should run? He hasn't done much of that before, and when he has,
the result was often ugly chaos. (cough BLP cough.)

Do the Wiki users decide? Look at how they are arguing over user page indexing.
Look at certain of them stabbing Greg Kohs in the back.
I would not vote for these people, even for dogcatcher.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[anthony]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

[The Joy]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.

[JohnA]

The only drama that we have is from Wikipedia users complaining that we don't have enough drama, and administrative overhead so far is minimal. Hosting and bandwidth get cheaper at a fast rate, and are not likely to become an issue. The wiki approach is fine for now (better ways are in development though and will definitely arrive). It's the social structure, where Wikipedia is failing, that makes all the difference.

That's where I beg to differ. The wiki approach is simply the wrong way to publish authoritative information. Its a good way to write collaborative technical documents by a project team (I've done this) and its certainly cheaper than using Lotus Notes.

The wiki model is derived from the social structure, and without clear leadership and a division between authorship and editorial control, what you get is Wikipedia, the anarchist's answer to the question "How can we fuck up world history?"

But for all of the Web 2.0 blather, the best way to write an authoritative collection of articles on a subject is still the old way which has been well understood since at least 1768.

In particular I reject the notion that any article is subject to revision at any time and that revision is immediately published without editorial review.

The wiki software allows for a structure with clear leadership and editorial control. Wikipedia is not using that, but Wikisage is.

Here is a list of all articles on Wikisage:

1. Main Page ‎(2,314 views)
2. Myalgic encephalomyelitis ‎(347 views)
3. Dutch units of measurement ‎(233 views)
4. Byron Hyde ‎(155 views)
5. Post-viral fatigue syndrome ‎(151 views)
6. Basic income ‎(131 views)
7. ME/CVS Vereniging ‎(114 views)
8. Tram ‎(110 views)
9. Light Rail ‎(108 views)
10. Basic Income Earth Network ‎(107 views)
11. Chronic fatigue syndrome ‎(105 views)
12. Wish You Were Here ‎(90 views)
13. Siemens-Düwag U2 ‎(85 views)
14. Wikipedia ‎(80 views)
15. Fibromyalgia ‎(76 views)
16. Pink Floyd ‎(75 views)
17. Myalgic encephalomyelitis nomenclature ‎(75 views)
18. Karel Joseph van de Poele ‎(74 views)
19. Tramway systems in the Netherlands ‎(61 views)
20. Vereniging Basisinkomen ‎(59 views)
21. Invest in ME ‎(56 views)
22. David Bell ‎(55 views)
23. Systems of measurement ‎(52 views)
24. Group 1850 ‎(51 views)
25. ME Association ‎(50 views)
26. History of Trams ‎(49 views)
27. Morgen ‎(47 views)
28. Tonne ‎(46 views)
29. List of Tramway systems ‎(46 views)
30. Daniel Peterson ‎(34 views)
31. Da Costa's syndrome ‎(27 views)

I guess there must be two or three editors at most and one of them is a hypochondriac.

And none of them should be writing encyclopedia articles.

[Guido den Broeder]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

[anthony]

The point is, what is the policy? Who decides? Jimbo?

The owner of the servers decides the policy. In the case of Wikipedia, that means the board.

And yet the server owners (i.e. the WMF Board) who decide the site policy can't be sued when some idiot libels someone Wikipedia.

So long as the policy didn't cause the libel, they shouldn't be. Of course, in the case of the WMF, the lack of policy arguably does cause the libel, but I thought we were talking about what should be, not what is.

Jimbo really walks a fine line though on the Section 230 rules, doesn't he? As a WMF Board representative, he's not suppose to interfere on the "publishing" aspect of Wikipedia.

No, he doesn't. The popular notions of "the Section 230 rules" don't correspond to what the law actually says.

[JohnA]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

At least it explains why there are so many articles in the English site about the same malaise.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

are you willing to let people die as a result of Wikipedia information?

That's probably a genie that will never be placed back into its bottle; even if Wikipedia itself were to be successfully bottled, the Internet as a whole wouldn't be. Freedom occasionally kills, and censorship occasionally saves lives, but that doesn't mean I'm supportive of a regime of centralized control of information (somehow trusting this control to always remain in "good hands") that would be needed to prevent "bad" information from getting out and possibly killing people.

That's true. The Internet is a gold mine of misinformation, lies and the ramblings of mentally disturbed people. I don't advocate shutting down Wikipedia as it would be like the magician's apprentice trying to stop the broom by cutting it into pieces with an axe - we know how that ended.

The way to beat Wikipedia is to produce a better encyclopedia that is free to use and quote, but not free to edit. And wikis are not the way to produce authoritative encyclopedias.

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval? I know that EB uses their own in-house software (which must be a study in itself). Is there something similar out there?

[anthony]

Has anyone found open source software that produces Wikipedia-like formatted result while using traditional editorial control and approval?

What features are lacking in Mediawiki?

[Peter Damian]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

[Guido den Broeder]

Thanks for the multiple insults, but you're looking at en:Wikisage which is still in its testing phase.

nl:Wikisage is slightly larger.

That's true. And even more importantly it has the Jimboesque need for self-promotion: http://nl.wikisage.org/wiki/Guido_den_Broeder

I did not write or even edit that article, thanks. There used to be a fairly decent page at nl:Wikipedia.

By the way, I was diagnosed as having ME in the mid 1980s when it was barely described in the literature. It turned out to be a sleep center disorder induced by a viral infection.

It doesn't make me an expert on ME either.

Ah, now we get to see where your disdain is coming from. You think that because you didn't have ME, others can't have it either, and that because you aren't an expert, others can't be. And there was a fair amount of literature on ME in de mid 1980's, btw. You must have missed it.

But you're just attempting to sidetrack because you were caught mispresenting the facts with regard to Wikisage.

That's the common way of making discussion on Wikipedia, but here we don't fall for it.

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears that you are attempting to destroy Wikipedia."

They caught up fast. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

How can one expect them to make good articles if they are checking WR all day long? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder:

[thekohser]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

And now we'll see the familiar process of a man "getting even" with those who blocked him, by generating an army of rotating-IP sockpuppets, whose discovery will only harden the Wikipediot resolve -- "He's an indefinitely blocked troll who is compounding his block by socking. Let us have a community ban vote, now!" Then he'll be community banned. Then maybe an appeal to ArbCom will be in order. We all know the drill.

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

[Cedric]

I hope that Peter Damian is intelligent enough to think through this very carefully, in a systematic and mature way, such that his revenge will have actual, credible impact -- by working outside the Wikipedia gulag and influencing larger forces beyond those culminating at 39 Stillman Street.

Indeed. If you think about it all again after gaining some distance, it becomes apparent that the thought patterns and actions of the reigning regime are rather predictable. That makes the task considerably easier.

[Basil]

Looks like I've been indef blocked, anyway.

It was to be expected. I'm surprised it took so long. I don't understand why you insist on taking them on, head on? As SunZi wrote,

Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defence if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.

[dtobias]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.

[Somey]

Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all...

Perhaps it could be interpreted as a "cry for help"? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)