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

[Jonny Cache]

Let us try to stick with the question of what purpose Wikipedia is being purposed to serve.

Moulton said «Search Engine Dominance» (SED), but that is clearly not so much an end in itself as a means to an end.

The closest that I came to suggesting a thesis of my own was along these lines —

The basic scenario was laid out clearly enough in those Dystopian novels that I read as a youth and the basic principles of media dynamics that govern Wikipediot Devolution were laid out by Marshall McLuhan so long ago that they passed from Archetype to Cliche when I was an undergraduate, and apparently into Oblivion now.

People keep being distracted by one damn Message after another when they ought to be looking at the kind of Medium that is being so craftily crafted under their very noses.

For example, people on all sides waste so much time trying to figure out what side the Cabal is on — when it comes to this or that economic, political, religious, or scientific tiff.

The Cabal is not on any side but the Cabal's side.

Sure, maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today, but it can just as easily shift to taking the side of Southerly Eurasia any time that it becomes convenient to do so.

What does that mean about the Media Operating Characteristic (MOC) that is the Cabal's MOC of Choice?

It means that the Cabal's most favored medium must be extremely agile, ductile, flexible, malleable, and plastic. It cannot be a medium that allows of being rigidly phase-locked into any one position or any one POV. More precisely, it must be agile enough to shift its phase 180° in a period of time just ε-greater than the modal attention span of the viewing public.

How long is that?

Your Mullage May Vary, but if we look at the US case in the last Dubya-Dubya Police Action, the US media were reporting on the Future Sea Battle for just about 6 months before it started to look downright silly not to go ahead and have it.

Six months is not exactly turning on a dime, and I think that the Powers That Be are probably trying to get that down to a temporal turning radius ≤ 6 weeks.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 14th December 2007, 9:53pm

[Saltimbanco]

If I understand you, Jonny, I don't think I agree.

We might divide information into two types: immediate information and background information. These appellations are almost self-explanatory, but I'll give an example just to be clear: immediate information would be something like a radio/television/newspaper report that the US is invading some country; background information would be the context in which this happens, which would include encyclopedia entries on the regions and any ongoing tensions therein, as well as scholarly (and non-scholarly) books and articles going into more depth on these matters. While Wikipedia is apparently pretty good at efficiently collecting breaking, 'immediate information' news on a given matter in one place, I suspect that its utility as a tool for controlling information of this sort is very limited: most people learn about such matters from their radio/television/newspaper, accept whatever they find out from these sources and think no further on the matter. Not many people hear that Liza Minelli collapsed on stage and rush to Wikipedia to get something close to real-time updates from almost all possible news sources on exactly what happened. Nor would many people do anything similar on any other immediate news item.

Background information, however, is a different matter. Mostly, people don't research this, either. But a few do, and these people influence the opinions of other people. If I happen to have taken an interest in Liza Minelli's life, I might be able to drop the remark that perhaps her collapsing on stage recently is related to the dizziness that she has reported experiencing for several years (I'm making this up, and I have no reason to believe that Ms. Minelli has experienced any more dizziness than anyone else). And memes like this take on a life of their own; before long there would be a web of self-important sentiment centered around me that is pretty sure that Liza Minelli's recent collapse is related to her chronic dizziness.

And for that sort of information, people do (sadly) refer to Wikipedia, although it would be nice - hopefully Google will do it with their service - if numbers of views for individual pages were disclosed. (This would probably be bad for business for Wikipedia: why spend countless hours documenting that capital punishment really does reduce violent crime, and edit-warring with those who want to stifle such information, if only 17 people a month view the article, including 4 who are actively editing it?)

But background information doesn't seem to be what you have written about, unless you are thinking in terms of an unachievable ideal: people do not abandon or refresh their background information frequently, if they even do it at all. I took a class on the US Military System twenty years ago, and I have not since updated my understanding that the Army's underlying philosophy comes mostly from Clausewitz; the Navy's mostly from Mahan; and the Air Force's mostly from Douhet.

Moreover, I think that if Wikipedia or any other medium endeavored to flip-flop people's background knowledge, it would mostly come off as flakey and unreliable ... which maybe goes more toward demonstrating that that really is what the Wikipedia powers that be have tried to do, but still ...

So have I read you incorrectly?

I had been thinking, by the way, that it might serve to define as precisely as possible what it is that the Wikipedia powers do that we believe does not serve a 'legitimate' purpose: an alternative hypothesis is that Linda Mack bans scores of people because that is pretty much what the legitimate purpose of creating a useful online encyclopedia requires.

[Jonny Cache]

Salt,

This is not a day when I can focus, except intermittently, so I'll have to break up your comments into smaller pieces and take things one chunk at a time.

My overall impression is that we may be operating from different funds of assumptions, so it may be necessary to re-examine the grants that we severally take for granted.

If I understand you, Jonny, I don't think I agree.

We might divide information into two types: immediate information and background information. These appellations are almost self-explanatory, but I'll give an example just to be clear: immediate information would be something like a radio-television-newspaper report that the US is invading some country; background information would be the context in which this happens, which would include encyclopedia entries on the regions and any ongoing tensions therein, as well as scholarly (and non-scholarly) books and articles going into more depth on these matters.

While Wikipedia is apparently pretty good at efficiently collecting breaking, 'immediate information' news on a given matter in one place, I suspect that its utility as a tool for controlling information of this sort is very limited: most people learn about such matters from their radio-television-newspaper, accept whatever they find out from these sources and think no further on the matter. Not many people hear that Liza Minelli collapsed on stage and rush to Wikipedia to get something close to real-time updates from almost all possible news sources on exactly what happened. Nor would many people do anything similar on any other immediate news item.

Right off, it appears that you and I entered Wikipedia through very different doors and that we have arrived at very different opinions about a whole host of issues.

I have a logical-semiotic quibble with the term «Immediate Information» since «Immediate» means «Unmediated» and since all information is mediated by signs. I can use that term so long as everyone knows that it's just loose talk, but when push comes to shove in the final analysis it will be necessary to use other terms, say, «Short-Term Information» (STI).

I cannot agree with these assertions:

• Wikipedia is pretty good at efficiently collecting STI.
• Wikipedia's utility as a tool for controlling STI is very limited.

Perhaps more importantly, it never would have occurred to me that an Encyclopedia was supposed to be a resource for short-term information. In Normal Usage, a usage that is apparently news to the WikiΦaithful, there are wholly different names for the variety of publications that fall into the category of «Short-Term Information Resources» (STIR's).

So what are the consequences of this Highly Original Innovation (HOI) in the Normal Usage (NU) of the term «Encyclopedia»?

No doubt there are those who would say that the consequences of this Initial Idiosyncrasy are trivial and can be neglected. I would object to the contrary that the long-term practical effects of this Wikipedious Originality (WO) are profound and ultimately debilitating to the whole project.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 15th December 2007, 6:28pm

[Jonny Cache]

I continue to continue …

Background information, however, is a different matter. Mostly, people don't research this, either. But a few do, and these people influence the opinions of other people. If I happen to have taken an interest in Liza Minelli's life, I might be able to drop the remark that perhaps her collapsing on stage recently is related to the dizziness that she has reported experiencing for several years (I'm making this up, and I have no reason to believe that Ms. Minelli has experienced any more dizziness than anyone else). And memes like this take on a life of their own; before long there would be a web of self-important sentiment centered around me that is pretty sure that Liza Minelli's recent collapse is related to her chronic dizziness.

And for that sort of information, people do (sadly) refer to Wikipedia, although it would be nice — hopefully Google will do it with their service — if numbers of views for individual pages were disclosed. (This would probably be bad for business for Wikipedia: why spend countless hours documenting that capital punishment really does reduce violent crime, and edit-warring with those who want to stifle such information, if only 17 people a month view the article, including 4 who are actively editing it?)

You appear to putting forth what is known in semiotics as an «Interpreter Model» (IM), that is, a theory about the population of interpreters being addressed by a particular collection of signs. In that context, one speaks of a typical member of the model population as a «Model Interpreter» (MI).

If I read you right, you are saying something like this:

• In your theory, the Model Interpreter (MI) of Wikipedia content treats background information and breaking news information differently.
• As a result, the Message Controllers (MC's) of Wikipedia content have different degrees of control over background information and breaking news information.

Let me know if that sounds right …

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th December 2007, 3:32pm

[Saltimbanco]

I have a logical-semiotic quibble with the term «Immediate Information» since «Immediate» means «Unmediated» and since all information is mediated by signs. I can use that term so long as everyone knows that it's just loose talk, but when push comes to shove in the final analysis it will be necessary to use other terms, say, «Short-Term Information» (STI).

I agree; your appellation is better.

I cannot agree with these assertions:

• Wikipedia is pretty good at efficiently collecting STI.

Why not? I'll see if I can find a good example, but mainly I remember seeing a real-world news article about how Wikipedia's page on some breaking event was being updated with leaks almost concurrently with different news agencies releasing different information.

• Wikipedia's utility as a tool for controlling STI is very limited.

Again, why not? In what way do you think Wikipedia might effectively be used to control STI?

Perhaps more importantly, it never would have occurred to me that an Encyclopedia was supposed to be a resource for short-term information. In Normal Usage, a usage that is apparently news to the WikiΦaithful, there are wholly different names for the variety of publications that fall into the category of «Short-Term Information Resources» (STIR's).

So what are the consequences of this Highly Original Innovation (HOI) in the Normal Usage (NU) of the term «Encyclopedia»?

No doubt there are those who would say that the consequences of this Initial Idiosyncrasy are trivial and can be neglected. I would object to the contrary that the long-term practical effects of this Wikipedious Originality (WO) are profound and ultimately debilitating to the whole project.

Well, forget that it is nominally an 'encyclopedia.' What is it, really? Isn't it really a forum where a lot of people with too much time on their hands enter stuff that is presented as information, with a second wave effort of monitoring the stuff to see that it passes muster as the sort of information that the powers that be want to have presented? And isn't this second wave much less efficient/rapid than the first wave, with exceptions for closely monitored articles?

[Saltimbanco]

You appear to putting forth what is known in semiotics as an «Interpreter Model» (IM), that is, a theory about the population of interpreters being addressed by a particular collection of signs. In that context, one speaks of a typical member of the model population as a «Model Interpreter» (MI).

If I read you right, you are saying something like this:

• In your theory, the Model Interpreter (MI) of Wikipedia content treats background information and breaking news information differently.
• As a result, the Message Controllers (MC's) of Wikipedia content have different degrees of control over background information and breaking news information.

Let me know if that sounds right …

Jon Awbrey

I would at least phrase it differently. First, I would consider the MI of the vast swarm of information media available ubiquitously, and note that this MI treats background information and breaking news information differently, and that the typical MI of this group does not generally retrieve breaking news information from Wikipedia. This in spite of my belief that one thing that Wikipedia does pretty well at is collecting breaking news in one location.

Second, I don't think that the problem of the MCs of Wikipedia in controlling breaking news information as opposed to background information is particularly a result of how anyone differently treats the two types of information; it is primarily a matter of the information itself. The MCs mostly do not have the time to manipulate breaking news information in the same way that they can manipulate background information, and - remembering that it is generally breaking news information to them as well - they have a greater chance of screwing up in easily recognizable ways when they try to manipulate breaking news information. Basically, with background information, there is a lot of stability in from where and at what rate the information seeps into the 'general knowledge' of the set of all MIs, and so the MCs of Wikipedia can plan around this in their manipulations. With breaking news information, this it not so, and if the MCs try to bury reports of torture at Abu Graib, for example, they run the risk that this very information will become a very big story, and that their efforts at censorship will be painfully obvious to anyone, limiting their ability effectively to manipulate information in the future.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Does anyone really believe that there is any incentive to "break news" at Wikipedia? Hardly.

Professional writers, educators, and scholars will never go to a place like Wikipedia with their original works, and as such, nothing breaks there, albeit there seems to be plenty of underemployed people spending countless hours sleuthing and changing things more and more toward a mean and mediocre status quo.

I suspect that, on balance, Wikipedia will always be many a stones throw away from anything truly new and / or current, save for youngsters copying the major media centers only to be questioned as to whether or not said information is original.

[Saltimbanco]

Let me clarify that I think Wikipedia works pretty well at collecting breaking news, not at breaking it. What I mean is, if an airliner crashes in a major city somewhere tonight, you would pretty quickly find a Wikipedia article on it that would get updated with links when even obscure news outlets add information about eye-witness accounts, passenger lists, etc. And these links sometimes reach more deeply than you might get via Google, which might be why Jimbo imagines that he might cobble together a search engine to challenge Google.

[Jonny Cache]

I have a logical-semiotic quibble with the term «Immediate Information» since «Immediate» means «Unmediated» and since all information is mediated by signs. I can use that term so long as everyone knows that it's just loose talk, but when push comes to shove in the final analysis it will be necessary to use other terms, say, «Short-Term Information» (STI).

I agree; your appellation is better.

That was somewhat spur of the moment, but a better term is bound to occur to us eventually.

[I disagree that] Wikipedia is pretty good at efficiently collecting STI.

Why not? I'll see if I can find a good example, but mainly I remember seeing a real-world news article about how Wikipedia's page on some breaking event was being updated with leaks almost concurrently with different news agencies releasing different information.

I guess I give more weight to the "pretty good" condition than the "efficiently" condition. Things that I consider "pretty bad" are the lack of multiple independent fact-checking in the bum's rush of Junior Jimbo Olsens to get the scoop. Wikipedia's notable capacity for the efficient generation of unchecked gossip is the sort of thing that prevents me from even bothering to glance at Wikipedia's breaking news stories.

[I disagree that] Wikipedia's utility as a tool for controlling STI is very limited.

Again, why not? In what way do you think Wikipedia might effectively be used to control STI?

First let me say that I have not bought the premiss that Wikipedia's Message Controllers (MC's) have any less control over breaking news and current events information than they have over what is more properly called — by more proper callers — "encyclopedic" information.

So the generic question is —

«How Do Wikipedia's Message Controllers Control Information?»

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th December 2007, 3:52am

[WhispersOfWisdom]

In order for Wikipedia to ever effectively compete with Google on any meaningful scale, there would, in fact, have to be an incentive for the next 10 million or so people to start adding content to same on a timely basis; in effect, breaking the news. Then they would have to have a substantial stake and/or compensation package to keep them there. Now, let's see...Google is worth how much and has how many potential access points for ad-revenue?

Google survives nicely without Wikipedia but I doubt the reverse thesis works.

"Knol" is going to be a very interesting project.

Google will have an incentive to direct traffic to Google.

[Saltimbanco]

So the generic question is —

«How Do Wikipedia's Message Controllers Control Information?»

By blocking the way of inquiry, of course.

In order for Wikipedia to ever effectively compete with Google on any meaningful scale, there would, in fact, have to be an incentive for the next 10 million or so people to start adding content to same on a timely basis; in effect, breaking the news. Then they would have to have a substantial stake and/or compensation package to keep them there. Now, let's see...Google is worth how much and has how many potential access points for ad-revenue?

Google survives nicely without Wikipedia but I doubt the reverse thesis works.

"Knol" is going to be a very interesting project.

Google will have an incentive to direct traffic to Google.

I don't think it would need 10 million people; if you just have people monitoring a broad spectrum of news outlets and making updates based on them, that would suffice. I agree that there is no real incentive for people to do this, and yet, people do it.

[Jonny Cache]

So the generic question is —

«How Do Wikipedia's Message Controllers Control Information?»

By blocking the way of inquiry, of course.

Strictly speaking, they banned the Way of Inquiry, but close enough.

• 04:17, 11 March 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) blocked "Way of Inquiry (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite‎ (banned User:Jon Awbrey)
• 11:54, 12 September 2006 Way of Inquiry (Talk | contribs) New user account

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th December 2007, 4:54am

[Saltimbanco]

I guess I give more weight to the "pretty good" condition than the "efficiently" condition. Things that I consider "pretty bad" are the lack of multiple independent fact-checking in the bum's rush of Junior Jimbo Olsens to get the scoop. Wikipedia's notable capacity for the efficient generation of unchecked gossip is the sort of thing that prevents me from even bothering to glance at Wikipedia's breaking news stories.

Obviously, any information gleaned from Wikipedia is to be sipped rather than gulped: much of it is likely to be crap; some of it is likely to be outright disinformation; and all of it is likely to be poorly written.

But if you take a look at Wikipedia's breaking news you find a pretty broad representation of news agencies. I'll go to the 11 December 2007 Algiers bomings article, on the guess that it is less likely to have some villain hovering over it than the other selections. Here we have links to CNN, CBC, al Jazeera, the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press, a UN agency, and some Chinese news outfit. Most of these come up in a Google search of "Algiers bombing," along with one from Haaretz that seems to be a rehash of an al Jazeera report. But the Chinese one does not, at least not in the top 10 results. In this instance, the additional information from the Chinese site - that a Chinese national was among those killed - is not earth shattering, other than for his friends and relatives, but it illustrates I think the potential for a Wiki model to collect news links,

[Jonny Cache]

I guess I give more weight to the "pretty good" condition than the "efficiently" condition. Things that I consider "pretty bad" are the lack of multiple independent fact-checking in the bum's rush of Junior Jimbo Olsens to get the scoop. Wikipedia's notable capacity for the efficient generation of unchecked gossip is the sort of thing that prevents me from even bothering to glance at Wikipedia's breaking news stories.

Obviously, any information gleaned from Wikipedia is to be sipped rather than gulped: much of it is likely to be crap; some of it is likely to be outright disinformation; and all of it is likely to be poorly written.

But if you take a look at Wikipedia's breaking news you find a pretty broad representation of news agencies. I'll go to the 11 December 2007 Algiers bomings article, on the guess that it is less likely to have some villain hovering over it than the other selections. Here we have links to CNN, CBC, al Jazeera, the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press, a UN agency, and some Chinese news outfit. Most of these come up in a Google search of "Algiers bombing", along with one from Haaretz that seems to be a rehash of an al Jazeera report. But the Chinese one does not, at least not in the top 10 results. In this instance, the additional information from the Chinese site — that a Chinese national was among those killed — is not earth shattering, other than for his friends and relatives, but it illustrates I think the potential for a Wiki model to collect news links,

Look, «Rule Numero Yuno» in my Book Of Critical Semiotics is «Consider The Source».

I have seen how the WikiPepperoni™ is made, and it's enough to make me swear off that brand for good.

Jonny

[Saltimbanco]

Possibly I have a greater general contempt for most news outlets than you do, Jonny, such that the badness of the Wikipedia brand, while extraordinary, does not set it completely apart from the others.

[Jonny Cache]

Possibly I have a greater general contempt for most news outlets than you do, Jonny, such that the badness of the Wikipedia brand, while extraordinary, does not set it completely apart from the others.

I don't remember praising establishment media especially extravagantly here.

In the case of professional news sources, however, especially those that still maintain a modicum of old-fangled professional ethics and standards, one comes to know over time roughly what kind of spin to expect from each media outlet — and from each byline within that outlet — and all of that is what it means to «Consider The Source».

That consideration of the source is simply not available with Wikipedia.

And that does set Wikipedia completely apart from other media outlets.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th December 2007, 5:56am

[Saltimbanco]

I disagree, Jon.

First, how much do you ever really know about a real reporter? I have only ever looked into the background of one or two, and that mainly to see if there might be a genetic reason for a bias I'd thought I'd been seeing beforehand. Beyond that, a real reporter is a professional; if he wanted to lie to me, I expect that he'd do a better job of it than almost anyone at Wikipedia.

And second, you generally can follow various editors around Wikipedia, and get an idea of their spin. Any experienced user of Wikipedia knows that the discussion pages are an essential part of any article, albeit most of them indicate that nothing in the article should be trusted in the least. The cabal at Wikipedia has not yet been so powerful that they can impose their preferred spin on articles without there being a trail of the shenanigans in the discussion pages.

[Jonny Cache]

I disagree, Jon.

First, how much do you ever really know about a real reporter? I have only ever looked into the background of one or two, and that mainly to see if there might be a genetic reason for a bias I'd thought I'd been seeing beforehand. Beyond that, a real reporter is a professional; if he wanted to lie to me, I expect that he'd do a better job of it than almost anyone at Wikipedia.

And second, you generally can follow various editors around Wikipedia, and get an idea of their spin. Any experienced user of Wikipedia knows that the discussion pages are an essential part of any article, albeit most of them indicate that nothing in the article should be trusted in the least. The cabal at Wikipedia has not yet been so powerful that they can impose their preferred spin on articles without there being a trail of the shenanigans in the discussion pages.

I have to pack it in for the day, but I remind you that we are currently arguing about how good a newspaper a publication advertized as an encyclopedia makes, which is right up there with arguing how good a hawk something packaged as a handsaw makes. I frankly do not see how you expect to win such an argument, since even if you convince me that something packaged as a handsaw makes a good hawk, then I will have to observe that there is something really out of joint with the packaging.

G'night, Sweet Wiki-Prince …

Jon Awbrey

[Moulton]

Above the fold, Wikipedia is a volatile compendium of popular culture.

Below the fold, it's a bewildering MMPORG with a disingenuous "rule-book" that resembles a plate of spaghetti with a randomly variable sauce of the day.

Calling it an "encyclopedia" is like peddling fecal matter in baby food jars.

[Saltimbanco]

I have to pack it in for the day, but I remind you that we are currently arguing about how good a newspaper a publication advertized as an encyclopedia makes, which is right up there with arguing how good a hawk something packaged as a handsaw makes. I frankly do not see how you expect to win such an argument, since even if you convince me that something packaged as a handsaw makes a good hawk, then I will have to observe that there is something really out of joint with the packaging.

(Does it make a good encyclopedia, though?)

What Wikipedia has succeeded at is in getting thousands of people to contribute content to the Internet in a more or less tractable form. (A lot of that content isn't worth much, but still.) And as the repository of that content, Wikipedia gets a lot of eyeballs. This is what makes it valuable to those who want to influence what people believe.

For the reasons I have given previously, I think that it is easier to influence background information in Wikipedia than breaking news information, and I think that a full-court press is underway, at least with regard to certain topics, to control information at Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia makes a good newspaper; more like a RSS feed that sometimes has intelligent input. But for this use, Wikipedia is better than it is in being used as an encyclopedia.