A Scientific Dissent from Wikipedianism, A Crockwork Orange Options

[Derktar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...er:Orangemarlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210232016
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=210231458

I don't know - we have an active contributor to Wikipedia Review apparently editing on behalf of another Wikipedia Review editor (who happens to be a permabanned editor). Not too big a leap at all... Guettarda (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right folks, I forgot to mention we re-programmed Krimpet a week or so ago and we are finally putting her to use.

So sorry you had to wander into that mess Krimpet.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

Why would Raul or any highly-respected Wikipedian defend these people?

[Giggy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

[The Joy]

Why are administrators letting the ID crowd get away with such uncollegial behavior? They are running off anyone that comes along. I've never seen such blind anger and pure hatred on a WP talk page before.

Because some admins are in the ID crowd too, and that crowd shouts louder.

Wouldn't a block speak louder than any shouting? Wouldn't a block silence the shouting?

No, it wouldn't - think of them as Gianos (no offence, but it's the best example we have!), and you know a block will only result in more shouting.

Has anyone tried disabling their e-mails and protecting their talk pages? That normally stops the shouting!

I would be a cruel administrator, wouldn't I? I have an extraordinary amount of patience, but I would have to show these people the door. Especially with what they're doing to a BLP victim.

[Cla68]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

[Moulton]

I just read the Picard article, and it appears to be fairly NPOV at the moment. The system "worked" in this case, thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened. The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery because they've gone too far and are now on the radar of several editors and admins who are bothered enough by these editor's clownish antics to do something about it.

While I regret the ugly politics that have surfaced in the wake of this case, I am gratified that, at long last, more responsible and professional admins have become aware of the problem and lent their weight and their good offices to correcting it. In due course, I hope to be able to identify and thank each of the responsible editors and admins who (better late than never) stepped up to the challenge of doing the right thing here.

There is much more work to do. The Picard bio was just the tip of the iceberg for me. There is also the similar biography of James Tour, who was also featured in that same NYT story. The same undue weight and coatrack issues apply there, as well.

I was impressed!

I mean, we'll see how long it lasts and all, but it's certainly a lot better - the way the article looks at the moment, Rosalind Picard might not even choose to "opt out," assuming she were to ever get the chance.

Yes. What Kim Bruning and Ottava Rima pulled off yesterday was nothing short of a miracle.

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Tue 6th May 2008, 8:11am

[Kato]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

[Moulton]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

[Jon Awbrey]

But I am also mindful of the difficulty of maintaining the high level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics that two or three courageous editors were able to achieve in yesterday's remarkable showdown with the ID Cabal.

Moulton, the "achievement" is hollow. Wikipedia has no learning curve. There's nothing stopping the article reverting to its previous state at any time. And most articles do.

I share your worry, Kato. The fact that they had to page-protect the Picard bio, coupled with the observation that two members of the ID Cabal then moved the battlefield over to the adjacent article on Affective Computing is evidence that the worry is well-grounded.

I am both intrigued and perplexed by the lack of organizational learning at WP. It's not like Peter Senge's notion of a "learning organization" is all that obscure or unfamiliar to people at WP.

But somehow or other, the learning process got arrested there.

I'd dearly love to understand why (and whether it can be kick-started).

In order to be capable of inquiry into a puzzling phenomenon, one has to be capable of entertaining many alternative hypotheses.

When one hypothesis does not account for the observations, then it is time to consider another.

Even though you know a lot of things, it is obvious from the things you say that you do not know Wikipedia very well at all. From what I've read of your story — heaven knows I haven't read it all — you got booted out of Wikipedia at very early stage, and this is probably why most of the things that you say are the sorts of things that most of us were saying at a very early stage of our trials there.

So it is not too surprising that you seem to be stuck on the Nøøb Hypothesis that the Wikipediot Population at large, in compact with the Foundation that "services" it, really are trying to craft a quality information source, but just don't know how.

I think that it might provide you with additional data and alternative hypotheses if you actually listened to the stories of others, instead of just preaching about plays and such.

Just A Thought …

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 6th May 2008, 4:48pm