Power of Wikipedia + Lack of Accountability = Bad News, Does anyone disagree with that? Options

[Kato]

Let's cut back to the chase:

• Due to the power Wikipedia has attained in the world of information, and the fact that this power is wielded without the standards of accountability society traditionally requires, Wikipedia's model presents serious problems. (examples are plenty of the problems that this lack of accountability has created)

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

[Neil]

That's one analysis, yes but another (from cost accounting) is that there is direct and indirect cost. (or direct labor and burden, or direct labor and overhead) An automaker produces one thing of value, cars. But the ancillary functions that are done have to be done too, or pretty soon cars stop coming out the assembly line exit door. (because machines break down, engineering didn't fix bugs, steel doesn't get ordered correctly, so doesn't get delivered, suppliers didn't get paid and sheriffs come to foreclose things, whatever)

Now when you're looking to improve the cost per car, focusing on places to cut ancillary functions is often very fruitful. (Improve the ordering process! Reduce the downtime to do maintenance on machines! Tell suppliers they need to cut their prices or else!... etc) But if you cut without careful study, you may cut too much. (Activity based costing sometimes helps in this regard, to identify what activities are key and which are not)

Some would argue that this is, for example, Chrysler's problem right now... while Daimler ran them there was a drive to cut cost... the design department survived cutting better than engineering, so right now they are producing cars that look sweet but have dated mechanicals and get relatively poor mileage. (where is the hybrid Durango that was promised 5(??) years ago? It never got the proper engineering, but there was funding to restyle it a few times and make a knockoff Chrysler version)

Forgive me from drawing parallels from an industry that is near and dear to all true Michiganders

Thus I would argue that what happens on Talk: pages can be very important to the ultimate quality (and thus desirability) of an article. Or... it can be very detrimental. It varies. But you can't cut Talk pages entirely, I don't think. You CAN improve the processes though.

I don't think anyone has ever done time and motion studies, activity based costing, or anything of the like with respect to Wikipedia... not exactly.

Manufacturing principles stumble when applied to the service industry, which is where Wikipedia best sits. Chiefly because a lot of the thinking that cost accounting stems from also believes targets and service-level agreements are a good idea. When it comes to manufacturing, Toyota have the right approach. See here. If you're really interested in systems thinking in the service industry, as opposed to the "Command and Control" concept, John Seddon has written some excellent books on the topic.

You're comparing Fear of Vandalism to Fear of Terrorism

(draw the Jimbo = Bush etc parallels for yourself)

So, if vandalism didn't exist because it couldn't exist, we wouldn't need admins (who would lose their control and their power). I can appreciate a certain mindset of admin would not want that day to ever come.

It's why I'm a big fan of systems thinking, as it takes the setting of priorities away from "management" and towards "what do our customers want" — you have to have buy-in at a senior level, though. I'm not optimistic that will happen for Wikipedia.

It will plod along, and I'm happy to play my part as it's something to do and I do believe the concept is good, albeit applied sketchily. For Wikipedia to take that leap to "truly valuable resource", there needs to be fundamental change in how it functions. I am actually going to vote Kohs on the Board elections, as he has given the best responses to the questions of all the candidates. Plus I could use $10,000.

One good heuristic of systems thinking is this:

• When you see a system persisting in a particular course, there's probably a reason why it's doing that.

Jon

It always stems from the thinking that created the system in the first place. Einstein said "You cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that caused the problem".

We need to finish this quickly before Moulton shows up and starts spouting off about spammish inquisitions/narcisstic wounding/Martian anthropologists yet again.