The WikiPedia Medium Is The WikiPedia Massage, What Is The Real Purpose Of The WikiProgramme? Options

[Moulton]

Are the "marks" the volunteer editors who aspire to ascend the ladder of power and status at Wikipedia?

[Jonny Cache]

Are the "marks" the volunteer editors who aspire to ascend the ladder of power and status at Wikipedia?

Sure, otherwise known as the "target demographic".

Jonny

[Moulton]

Then the occasional academic, who visits Wikipedia to tidy up an article or two related to one's academic specialty, would probably not fit that profile, and hence would not be part of the "target demographic" as you put it.

Is that a fair continuation of your hypothesis?

[Jonny Cache]

Then the occasional academic, who visits Wikipedia to tidy up an article or two related to one's academic specialty, would probably not fit that profile, and hence would not be part of the "target demographic" as you put it.

Is that a fair continuation of your hypothesis?

I'm not sure.

There are people whose underlying wish is something like "Doing Good" or "Being A Good Samaritan". Further analysis may detect an element of narcissism in that, especially if it's more important to "Seem Like A Good Guy Without Hardly Trying" than it is to do the work of actually being one, but let's not be too cynical just yet.

At any rate, people with any degree of training in just about any field will usually start asking questions about what the devil is going on when they start see some devil in the goings on — and people who start to ask too many questions will naturally be shown the door.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 19th December 2007, 1:00pm

[Saltimbanco]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

[Moulton]

In order for it to be a confidence game, there has to be some sort of planned act of betrayal.

One can certainly feel betrayed when one's (perhaps naive) expectations are not met, but for an encounter to be a con game, there has to be an express promise that those making the promise have no intention of ever delivering on.

I think it's fair to say that for a lot of people, Wikipedia has turned out to be a disappointment. That's true of a lot of new ventures, with or without unwarranted hype at the welcome mat.

To say it's a con game implies that the barkers at the gate know full well that they are fixing to fleece whoever comes through the front gates.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

I have found that most often I get what I pay for.

The carrot at WP has always been "power" and admin. status and getting the bit, etc.

The problems started when it became known that the average person of power at Wikipedia has only about 14 years of life on earth.

I ask myself, would I hire a 14 year old to operate on my shoulder? Would I trust the 14 year old to do my living trust or be the trustee of my estate? Does a college student have any real wisdom?

Most people that have the time to spend at Wikipedia "for free" are either students, under-employed, or unemployed.

Go "Knol" !

[Moulton]

Do you have a reliable source for the statistic that the mean age of WP admins is 14 years?

[Jonny Cache]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

Now you're just being silly.

Not to mention insulting to anyone who considers personal integrity to be inseparable from "normal business practice".

The distinction between fraud or grift and legitimate business is comprehended by common sense and even by the law.

Of course, advertizers try to exploit the collateral desires of their target market to sell everything from automobiles to beer to cigarettes to deodorant.

But all civilized societies draw the line at unfair practices, however shifting those lines may be over time. And common sense recognizes the features of the confidence game that put it outside the pale of "normal business practice" — the acquisition of goods under false pretences, the breach of promise that consummates the confidence game, and the outrageous disproportion in the real values of the goods exchanged.

No, there is nothing "normal" about that, thank goodness.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 19th December 2007, 3:45am

[Saltimbanco]

If there is an over-riding con at Wikipedia, I would say it would have to be in that volunteer editors, I think, might reasonably believe that their opinions, when they disagree with others, will be respected, and that there will be a process for resolving content disputes that has some grounding in objectivity, as in for example the powers-that-be caring that the process has become highly prejudicial and biased. This is clearly not the case with Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Saltimbanco: Wed 19th December 2007, 4:04am

[Moulton]

What is the express promise that is intentionally breached with malice aforethought?

[WhispersOfWisdom]

The engine that drives the confidence game is an unrealistic expectation on the part of the mark, typically rooted in unconscious strata of unrenounced fantasies, for example, delusions of entitlement or infantile wishes for glory, love, power, etc. The confidence artist is an expert in reviving whatever unrealistic hopes the mark may harbor and in using their imaginary values to deprive the mark of goods that have real value.

No, Jonny. That's not a con. That's normal business practice.

Wikipedia is about getting volunteers to contribute content. Full stop. No smoke, no mirrors.

That Jimbo Wales and whoever else hopes to profit through their reputation or otherwise through Wikipedia does not dissuade people from thinking that their volunteer contributions will garner them some sort of reward is not a con. Your car insurance salesman is also not likely to tell you that you you'd do better to buy a cheaper policy.

Now you're just being silly.

Not to mention insulting to anyone who considers personal integrity to be inseparable from "normal business practice".

The distinction between fraud or grift and legitimate business is comprehended by common sense and even by the law.

Of course, advertizers try to exploit the collateral desires of their target market to sell everything from automobiles to beer to cigarettes to deodorant.

But all civilized societies draw the line at unfair practices, however shifting those lines may be over time. And common sense recognizes the features of the confidence game that put it outside the pale of "normal business practice" — the acquisition of goods under false pretences, the breach of promise that consummates the confidence game, and the outrageous disproportion in the real values of the goods exchanged.

No, there is nothing "normal" about that, thank goodness.

Jon Awbrey

Yes, indeed. Your reasoning is sound and wise. It also explains why the project is beginning to disintegrate at it's core. The University of Minnesota study was quite accurate in the assessment that without the creators and the contributors of key articles, the "flies" would take over.

[Jonny Cache]

If there is an over-riding con at Wikipedia, I would say it would have to be in that volunteer editors, I think, might reasonably believe that their opinions, when they disagree with others, will be respected, and that there will be a process for resolving content disputes that has some grounding in objectivity, as in for example the powers be caring that the process has become highly prejudicial and biased. This is clearly not the case with Wikipedia.

The normal expectation of a player entering a game where statements are set forth as "rules" is that other players will play by those rules and that some authority recognized by all concerned will umpire those rules.

I have stated this expectation in terms of games and players and rules but analogous forms apply to any norms of conduct in any normed activity.

This is clearly not the case with Wikipedia.

Jon Awbrey

[Saltimbanco]

Now you're just being silly.

Not to mention insulting to anyone who considers personal integrity to be inseparable from "normal business practice".

The distinction between fraud or grift and legitimate business is comprehended by common sense and even by the law.

Of course, advertizers try to exploit the collateral desires of their target market to sell everything from automobiles to beer to cigarettes to deodorant.

But all civilized societies draw the line at unfair practices, however shifting those lines may be over time. And common sense recognizes the features of the confidence game that put it outside the pale of "normal business practice" — the acquisition of goods under false pretences, the breach of promise that consummates the confidence game, and the outrageous disproportion in the real values of the goods exchanged.

No, there is nothing "normal" about that, thank goodness.

Jonny, you're an academic, yes? You've never really worked in the normal business world. I have, and I have in fact sacrificed a couple potential careers over matters where I thought my employer or its representatives had crossed an ethical boundary.

But letting, and even lightly encouraging, people to believe that they are getting more out of their participation in something than common sense and a little bit of thought would clearly indicate does not generally cross such a boundary. I am myself someone who will always tell someone if they would probably do better stepping away from something that benefits me, and I think that's a better way to live and, in the long run better for me as well. I would say that people who do not do this are not as good as they might be, but I would not say that they are not as good as everyone else has the right to expect them to be.

If there is an outright lie - if Jimbo Wales claimed that someone got tenured based on stuff they'd done in Wikipedia - that's a different matter. But to just nod and grin as someone explains how he expects his Wikipedia contributions will get him tenure, while kind of creepy, is not a con.

This post has been edited by Saltimbanco: Wed 19th December 2007, 4:01am

[Moulton]

If there is an over-riding con at Wikipedia, I would say it would have to be in that volunteer editors, I think, might reasonably believe that their opinions, when they disagree with others, will be respected, and that there will be a process for resolving content disputes that has some grounding in objectivity, as in for example the powers be caring that the process has become highly prejudicial and biased. This is clearly not the case with Wikipedia.

The normal expectation of a player entering a game where statements are set forth as "rules" is that other players will play by those rules and that some authority recognized by all concerned will umpire those rules.

I have stated this expectation in terms of games and players and rules but analogous forms apply to any norms of conduct in any normed activity.

This is clearly not the case with Wikipedia.

I agree that these are reasonable expectations, and they are undeniably breached at Wikipedia.

What remains to be shown is that those who are routinely breaching those expectations are doing so knowingly, intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

[Proabivouac]

It seems to me probable that the intended result may have been quite different.

Many or most academic enterprises have substantial elements of volunteerism. You don't get paid directly for publishing, for example; it just adds (so you hope) to your reputation. Nor do you expect to get paid when someone uses your work, just cited.

Were the project more reputable, more people would be proud of their contributions, including on their resumes, applications to doctoral programs, etc.

The other problem is the way the project attacks its own volunteer contributors. This is partly due to the tendencies of the web to produce flame wars, but is greatly exacerbated as an unexamined consequence of the fact that dispute resolution procedures are (formally) content-neutral: the only way to break content deadlocks is to tear one another down. Every meaningful process, from the noticeboards, to RfC's to Arbitration, pits volunteers against one another's reputations by design.

So you have a whole culture where people gather and horde diffs of people of breaking various rules as leverage against them. Opponents greet misconduct, then, not with disappointment, but with glee. 3RR, incivility, etc. are just opportunities to be exploited according to this psychology which is the very essence of edit "warring" and incivility.

What is the chance, then, that contributing to Wikipedia will improve one's reputation, instead of sullying it? The unsatisfying answer to this question drives the trend towards anonymity/pseudonymity, which, as anonymous contributors are more likely to attack others, increases the flame war element in a feedback mechanism.

If we could solve these two problems, it might not be such a rip-off after all. It's not unrealistic to imagine a world only slightly different from our own, where contributing to Wikipedia is something most volunteers could point to with pride. It's a shame that this goal, so obvious from an external standpoint, is absent from the radar screens of the leadership.

[Jonny Cache]

Jonny, you're an academic, yes? You've never really worked in the normal business world. I have, and I have in fact sacrificed a couple potential careers over matters where I thought my employer or its representatives had crossed an ethical boundary.

But letting, and even lightly encouraging, people to believe that they are getting more out of their participation in something than common sense and a little bit of thought would clearly indicate does not generally cross such a boundary. I am myself someone who will always tell someone if they would probably do better stepping away from something that benefits me, and I think that's a better way to live and, in the long run better for me as well. I would say that people who do not do this are not as good as they might be, but I would not say that they are not as good as everyone else ought to expect them to be.

If there is an outright lie — if Jimbo Wales claimed that someone got tenured based on stuff they'd done in Wikipedia — that's a different matter. But to just nod and grin as someone explains how he expects his Wikipedia contributions will get him tenure, while kind of creepy, is not a con.

I am fighting down the urge to launch a Wodin Boast here. The fact is that I've worked in more different venues than you are likely to guess.

Lucky for everyone it's past my bedtime.

But something to think about for tomorrow is this —

Yes, I have seen academic papers that describe Civilization and its Discontents in terms analogous to One Big Confidence Game. And I suppose there is some sense in that. But common sense has to say what is fair and what is not. It is not fair to use the natural human susceptibility to various types of addiction in order to enslave people. It is not fair to exploit child labor. It is not fair to acquire tax-free educational status while miseducating the uneducated about the kinds of conduct that are expected of responsible citizens in real world societies.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 19th December 2007, 4:15am

[Saltimbanco]

What remains to be shown is that those who are routinely breaching those expectations are doing so knowingly, intentionally, and with malice aforethought.

Let me add to my comments that while some of Wikipedia's powers - certainly SlimVirgin and Jayjg, among others - are guilty in my mind of malfeasance in that they knowingly and willingly violate the reasonable expectations and abuse the trust of normal editors and readers, from my own personal experience I can only accuse Jimbo Wales of gross negligence in that he allows this to happen. Sins of commission versus sins of omission.

[Moulton]

It seems to me probable that the intended result may have been quite different.

Many or most academic enterprises have substantial elements of volunteerism. You don't get paid directly for publishing, for example; it just adds (so you hope) to your reputation. Nor do you expect to get paid when someone uses your work, just cited.

Were the project more reputable, more people would be proud of their contributions, including on their resumes, applications to doctoral programs, etc.

The other problem is the way the project attacks its own volunteer contributors. This is partly due to the tendencies of the web to produce flame wars, but is greatly exacerbated as an unexamined consequence of the fact that dispute resolution procedures are (formally) content-neutral: the only way to break content deadlocks is to tear one another down. Every meaningful process, from the noticeboards, to RfC's to Arbitration, pits volunteers against one another's reputations by design.

So you have a whole culture where people gather and horde diffs of people of breaking various rules as leverage against them. Opponents greet misconduct, then, not with disappointment, but with glee. 3RR, incivility, etc. are just opportunities to be exploited according to this psychology which is the very essence of edit "warring" and incivility.

What is the chance, then, that contributing to Wikipedia will improve one's reputation, instead of sullying it? The unsatisfying answer to this question drives the trend towards anonymity/pseudonymity, which, as anonymous contributors are more likely to attack others, increases the flame war element in a feedback mechanism.

If we could solve these two problems, it might not be such a rip-off after all. It's not unrealistic to imagine a world only slightly different from our own, where contributing to Wikipedia is something most volunteers could point to with pride. It's a shame that this goal, so obvious from an external standpoint, is absent from the radar screens of the leadership.

This is a thoughtful and well-written analysis, full of insight.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Saltimbanco]

I am fighting down the urge to launch a Wodin Boast here. The fact is that I've worked in more different venues than you are likely to guess.

If you expect Macy's to tell Gimbel's, I would expect either that you find yourself a place in an ivory tower or that you change working venues about three times a year.

But common sense has to say what is fair and what is not.

No. Societal norms have to say that.