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

[Angela Kennedy]

... This argument you've presented is basically that only reputable experts should be doing such things: nonsense. As long as it's legally allowed, it's fine and a great service. Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually. Can a private website that does the same thing be fixed by anyone, even if it's legal? No.

Any argument that boils down to "Less power to the people" is representative of repressive mindsets that only traditional methods of getting information, controlling information, and distributing information are valid. A world where anyone can get a message out is a good thing. Anything that breaks the control of governments, religions, corporations, or groups over information about themselves is a good thing.

Does that mean that in some cases "experts" or "traditional" authorities may get disempowered, marginalized, or be brought down to the level of talking heads or data points for the casual observer, instead of the word of information God? Sure. This is also not a bad thing, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

A great example is when Burma recently cracked down on the news media over their abusive treatment of protesters, and camera phone and citizen journalism told the entire world via the Internet. Wikileaks, and their potential to safely expose corporate or government malfeasance, is another great example. The arguments in thread aren't Wikipedia specific at all, but over whether the idea of anyone being able to compile and distribute information that some would like to see decentralized and scattered, or unavailable, is a good thing.

I think the 'democratization of knowledge/power to the people' argument does not apply to wikipedia. There are clear power structures in place that prevent people 'getting messages out'. My own example is at the Simon Wessely page - if you look at the archived talk page (it's long though ) you will get the idea. Here it was impossible to 'get a message out' because of the way the page is constantly being 'protected' by openly POV administrators (JzG and JFW) who used the Wikipedia system to get what they wanted.

Whatever people's views on this subject, it is I think a good example of adverse real-world effects of the 'powers' of Wikipedia. JFW and JzG actively wanted to portray ME/CFS sufferers (an already beleagured and abused group of ill people) in a certain, highly negative way (as is already happening in the real world), using unsafe evidence to do so (and also repressing sources that present legitmised criticism of the subject's work). The power they have at Wikipedia enabled this, especially as their actions were ultimately endorsed by Jim Wales himself. It might not matter if it was on a one -man- rant type of blog - but this outfit claims to be an encyclopaedia, and comes up high on google searches, is promoted in the news etc.

Throughout 2007, anyone looking up the subject would have been led to believe that he has been 'personally harassed' by an irrational ME/CFS community (including myself, a known and academic critic of the subject's WORK), a claim that is completely unsubstantiated (and in my case at least, completely false). The fact that this claim is also being promoted in other media (leaflets, a couple of books) is also a very big problem (one I've been documenting and challenging in the real world), but here, on WR, we are talking about Wikipedia as a domain of public knowledge production, which claims authority in this field, and is promoted by other powerful media.

Of course, there are legions of examples where people are prevented from 'getting the message out' by the structure and power relations at Wikipedia. This happens regardless of whether the 'message' is correct or not.

There is also the problem of 'systemic bias' and the particular personal ideologies of key people at Wikipedia (with all the associated problems) trumping other ways of looking at the world etc. etc. a big old subject that one.

Wikipedia is not a good example of 'democratisation of knowledge' - even though I've seen this claimed one way or another many times. It is just NOT the encyclopaedia 'anyone can edit'. A personal blog is probably a better example of that!

[Jon Awbrey]

This argument you've presented is basically that only reputable experts should be doing such things: nonsense. As long as it's legally allowed, it's fine and a great service. Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually. Can a private website that does the same thing be fixed by anyone, even if it's legal? No.

Any argument that boils down to "Less power to the people" is representative of repressive mindsets that only traditional methods of getting information, controlling information, and distributing information are valid. A world where anyone can get a message out is a good thing. Anything that breaks the control of governments, religions, corporations, or groups over information about themselves is a good thing.

Does that mean that in some cases "experts" or "traditional" authorities may get disempowered, marginalized, or be brought down to the level of talking heads or data points for the casual observer, instead of the word of information God? Sure. This is also not a bad thing, because the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

A great example is when Burma recently cracked down on the news media over their abusive treatment of protesters, and camera phone and citizen journalism told the entire world via the Internet. Wikileaks, and their potential to safely expose corporate or government malfeasance, is another great example. The arguments in thread aren't Wikipedia specific at all, but over whether the idea of anyone being able to compile and distribute information that some would like to see decentralized and scattered, or unavailable, is a good thing.

I think the 'democratization of knowledge/power to the people' argument does not apply to wikipedia. There are clear power structures in place that prevent people 'getting messages out'. My own example is at the Simon Wessely page — if you look at the archived talk page (it's long though ) you will get the idea. Here it was impossible to 'get a message out' because of the way the page is constantly being 'protected' by openly POV administrators (JzG and JFW) who used the Wikipedia system to get what they wanted.

Whatever people's views on this subject, it is I think a good example of adverse real-world effects of the 'powers' of Wikipedia. JFW and JzG actively wanted to portray ME/CFS sufferers (an already beleagured and abused group of ill people) in a certain, highly negative way (as is already happening in the real world), using unsafe evidence to do so (and also repressing sources that present legitmised criticism of the subject's work). The power they have at Wikipedia enabled this, especially as their actions were ultimately endorsed by Jim Wales himself. It might not matter if it was on a one-man-rant type of blog — but this outfit claims to be an encyclopaedia, and comes up high on google searches, is promoted in the news etc.

Throughout 2007, anyone looking up the subject would have been led to believe that he has been 'personally harassed' by an irrational ME/CFS community (including myself, a known and academic critic of the subject's WORK), a claim that is completely unsubstantiated (and in my case at least, completely false). The fact that this claim is also being promoted in other media (leaflets, a couple of books) is also a very big problem (one I've been documenting and challenging in the real world), but here, on WR, we are talking about Wikipedia as a domain of public knowledge production, which claims authority in this field, and is promoted by other powerful media.

Of course, there are legions of examples where people are prevented from 'getting the message out' by the structure and power relations at Wikipedia. This happens regardless of whether the 'message' is correct or not.

There is also the problem of 'systemic bias' and the particular personal ideologies of key people at Wikipedia (with all the associated problems) trumping other ways of looking at the world etc. etc. a big old subject that one.

Wikipedia is not a good example of 'democratisation of knowledge' — even though I've seen this claimed one way or another many times. It is just NOT the encyclopaedia 'anyone can edit'. A personal blog is probably a better example of that!

Yes, I've given up talking to Rootology, as he's got that Populist Φantasia (PΦ) piped into both ears so loud that he can't hear anything I'm saying over the sound of his own WikiPod™. He seems to be oblivious to the fact that it's a carefully packaged and virally marketed PΦ that he's bought. But that's what happens to people when they lose the ability to Consider The Source.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 29th May 2008, 11:42am

[thekohser]

... Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually.

I thought the University of Minnesota disproved this fanciful notion of Wikipedia's ever-improving quality?

[Jon Awbrey]

Do Wikipedia articles get slanted sometimes in this regard? Yeah, but they can be fixed by anyone eventually.

I thought the University of Minnesota disproved this fanciful notion of Wikipedia's ever-improving quality?

Heresy!!!
How Dare You Blaspheme The Anonymous Hand Of The Markup Place!!!

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 29th May 2008, 12:56pm

[Moulton]

It can't actually be an exponential, since the probability of an article being erratic has to saturate at a value no greater than 1.0.

So a more plausible model would be a logistic curve like this one:

Probability of Wikipedia Article Becoming
Hopelessly Error-Ridden as a Function of Time.

[Neil]

If you apply some basic systems thinking principles to Wikipedia's problems, you need to identify "what is the purpose of Wikipedia". In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are. Assuming the demands is for "highly accurate and readable articles on a comprehensive range of topics", then the purpose of Wikipedia ought to be to produce these.

Work that adds value to Wikipedia from the customer's perspective: Adding accurate content. Checking content for accuracy. Writing excellent prose. Improving prose. Uploading/creating worthy, free images. There are possibly others.

Work that does not add value (ie, work that does not directly improve the customer experience - "waste work") - Vandalism. Reverting vandalism. Blocking users. Anything on pages beginning with a Wikipedia:, a Talk: or a User:.

Reverting vandalism is wasted effort? Always. Rather, change the system so vandalism cannot take occur in the first place. Change the system so those who wish to vandalise are not able to. 95% of the poor performance of any process - including Wikipedia - are caused by the system constraints, not the people working within the system. Shouting at people to work harder does not make a business better. Making the system they work within as streamlined and efficient as possible, eliminating waste work at the source,

The flagged revisions concept is a promising step, as blatant vandalism will not be publicly visible; this will reduce vandalism (no visibility makes it less interesting to vandalise), which will reduce all that vandal "fighting". Sneaky vandalism (deliberately changing dates, numbers, etc) is harder to counteract.

The more I see, the more I am increasingly in favour of locking articles once they have reached some good standard - an attitude of "this article is good enough - stop your inept meddling and go and edit a poor article that you are actually capable of improving" would not hurt.

[thekohser]

Reverting vandalism is wasted effort? Always. Rather, change the system so vandalism cannot take occur in the first place. Change the system so those who wish to vandalise are not able to. 95% of the poor performance of any process - including Wikipedia - are caused by the system constraints, not the people working within the system. Shouting at people to work harder does not make a business better.

...The more I see, the more I am increasingly in favour of locking articles once they have reached some good standard - an attitude of "this article is good enough - stop your inept meddling and go and edit a poor article that you are actually capable of improving" would not hurt.

Neil, have you read my Board Candidacy response to this question? It would seem we're on the same wavelength.

[Jon Awbrey]

If you apply some basic systems thinking principles to Wikipedia's problems, you need to identify "what is the purpose of Wikipedia". In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are. Assuming the demands is for "highly accurate and readable articles on a comprehensive range of topics", then the purpose of Wikipedia ought to be to produce these.

Work that adds value to Wikipedia from the customer's perspective: Adding accurate content. Checking content for accuracy. Writing excellent prose. Improving prose. Uploading/creating worthy, free images. There are possibly others.

Work that does not add value (ie, work that does not directly improve the customer experience — "waste work") — Vandalism. Reverting vandalism. Blocking users. Anything on pages beginning with a Wikipedia:, a Talk: or a User:.

Reverting vandalism is wasted effort? Always. Rather, change the system so vandalism cannot take occur in the first place. Change the system so those who wish to vandalise are not able to. 95% of the poor performance of any process — including Wikipedia — are caused by the system constraints, not the people working within the system. Shouting at people to work harder does not make a business better. Making the system they work within as streamlined and efficient as possible, eliminating waste work at the source,

The flagged revisions concept is a promising step, as blatant vandalism will not be publicly visible; this will reduce vandalism (no visibility makes it less interesting to vandalise), which will reduce all that vandal "fighting". Sneaky vandalism (deliberately changing dates, numbers, etc) is harder to counteract.

The more I see, the more I am increasingly in favour of locking articles once they have reached some good standard — an attitude of "this article is good enough — stop your inept meddling and go and edit a poor article that you are actually capable of improving" would not hurt.

Neil,

You are buying the premiss that the Actual Goals of WP:CONTROL are the Espoused Goals of WP:CONTROL. That's perfectly normal — I think that most folks of good will buy that sort of line the first 2 or 3 times around.

What you fail to grasp about WP:VANDALISM is that WP:CONTROL is WP:SYMBIOTIC with WP:VANDALISM. The continuous presence and constant threat of WP:VANDALISM is necessary to distract from the unearned authority of WP:CONTROL and to justify the absolutism of WP:POWER.

Really, there's not a damn thing new about any of this. You should've learned about it from watching StarTrek reruns, even if you did miss the First War Of Quagmire.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 29th May 2008, 2:46pm

[Lar]

If you apply some basic systems thinking principles to Wikipedia's problems, you need to identify "what is the purpose of Wikipedia". In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are. Assuming the demands is for "highly accurate and readable articles on a comprehensive range of topics", then the purpose of Wikipedia ought to be to produce these.

Work that adds value to Wikipedia from the customer's perspective: Adding accurate content. Checking content for accuracy. Writing excellent prose. Improving prose. Uploading/creating worthy, free images. There are possibly others.

Work that does not add value (ie, work that does not directly improve the customer experience - "waste work") - Vandalism. Reverting vandalism. Blocking users. Anything on pages beginning with a Wikipedia:, a Talk: or a User:.

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.

[Neil]

If you apply some basic systems thinking principles to Wikipedia's problems, you need to identify "what is the purpose of Wikipedia". In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are. Assuming the demands is for "highly accurate and readable articles on a comprehensive range of topics", then the purpose of Wikipedia ought to be to produce these.

Work that adds value to Wikipedia from the customer's perspective: Adding accurate content. Checking content for accuracy. Writing excellent prose. Improving prose. Uploading/creating worthy, free images. There are possibly others.

Work that does not add value (ie, work that does not directly improve the customer experience — "waste work") — Vandalism. Reverting vandalism. Blocking users. Anything on pages beginning with a Wikipedia:, a Talk: or a User:.

Reverting vandalism is wasted effort? Always. Rather, change the system so vandalism cannot take occur in the first place. Change the system so those who wish to vandalise are not able to. 95% of the poor performance of any process — including Wikipedia — are caused by the system constraints, not the people working within the system. Shouting at people to work harder does not make a business better. Making the system they work within as streamlined and efficient as possible, eliminating waste work at the source,

The flagged revisions concept is a promising step, as blatant vandalism will not be publicly visible; this will reduce vandalism (no visibility makes it less interesting to vandalise), which will reduce all that vandal "fighting". Sneaky vandalism (deliberately changing dates, numbers, etc) is harder to counteract.

The more I see, the more I am increasingly in favour of locking articles once they have reached some good standard — an attitude of "this article is good enough — stop your inept meddling and go and edit a poor article that you are actually capable of improving" would not hurt.

Neil,

You are buying the premiss that the Actual Goals of WP:CONTROL are the Espoused Goals of WP:CONTROL. That's perfectly normal — I think that most folks of good will buy that sort of line the first 2 or 3 times around.

What you fail to grasp about WP:VANDALISM is that WP:CONTROL is WP:SYMBIOTIC with WP:VANDALISM. The continuous presence and constant threat of WP:VANDALISM is necessary to distract from the unearned authority of WP:CONTROL and to justify the absolutism of WP:POWER.

Really, there's not a damn thing new about any of this. You should've learned about it from watching StarTrek reruns, even if you did miss the First War Of Quagmire.

Jon

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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".

So when you find yourself saying, over and over and over:

1. If X really wanted to achieve objective Y, then X would almost certainly be doing Z.
2. But X is doing everything but Z.

Then it's pretty good bet that X doesn't really want to achieve objective Y.

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 29th May 2008, 3:28pm

[thekohser]

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

I considered the thread complete when you said, "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."

Thanks for your vote, Neil. Be sure to tell your friends.

Greg

[dogbiscuit]

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.

In my manufacturing systems days, the company I was involved in got into theory of constraints, and I'd highly recommend "The Goal" which was a novel that told a simple story of a plant manager discovering enlightenment through Boy Scouts (tying them up quite a bit but no spanking).

There are lots of interesting thoughts that come out of Goldratt's work, where a lot of people will these days be familiar with factory bottlenecks and scheduling techniques to deal with them.

The bit I liked best though was he had 10 rules, of which "Cost accounting is public enemy no. 1" was very popular (how many bad decisions are justified on cost cutting without understanding the business implications) and one where I can't remember the phrase, but a sale is not a sale until it is paid for. There is no point churning out Ford Edsels in the most cheap and efficient way if they are left in the showroom, and worse, it stops you making highly profitable Ford Mustangs.

In Wikipedia, until someone really has defined the audience, we cannot know whether these articles that are being produced to the satisfaction of the authors have any relevance to the target audience. For example, there is some high quality scientific work being documented, but if it is only of use to the scientific community, then is it of any use as it is not in a form that is sufficiently stable and reliable ever to be used by the scientific community. So there is a major body of effort which may actually be very satisfying for the authors and yet have no useful purpose. So we can optimise the production of these articles, and make them reliably and cheaply, but if nobody wants them, if people actually want Pokemon, then it is wasted effort. Worse, the deletionist effort, believing that getting rid of the crap is improving the product, could actually be making the product less attractive to the real audience.

Unfortunately, WMF has not really determined who the audience is (has anyone apart from Jimbo's condescending views of dusty children), therefore any assessment of the appropriate production techniques, indeed the appropriate articles to focus on, is moot.

Or, I could summarise this post with a song:

We're busy doing nothing, working the whole day through
Trying to find lots of things not to do.
We're busy going nowhere, isn't it just a crime?
We'd like to be unhappy*, but we never do have the time.




*It worked quite well till then didn't it?

[Jon Awbrey]

Jimbo knows exactly who his target demographic is.

Duh!

Jon

[Moulton]

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

If you already know what I'm about to say, what the hell do you need me here for?

Oh. Wait...

Mebbe I shouldn't have asked that question.

[Anaheim Flash]

In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are.

On what basis are the 'customers' understood as being 'readers' ? The true customers of Wikipedia are its participants, the editors and administrators; it is they who pay for the privilege of having access to the site's facilities. Readers are just passive observers of what the site users do; readers have no capacity to impact upon the site in the way that a customer base impacts upon a provider of products or services. The WP customer/provider relationship exists between the site users and the site facilitators - Jimbeax and the WMF who draw in income and kudos in relation to how pleased the users are.

AF

[dogbiscuit]

In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are.

On what basis are the 'customers' understood as being 'readers' ? The true customers of Wikipedia are its participants, the editors and administrators; it is they who pay for the privilege of having access to the site's facilities. Readers are just passive observers of what the site users do; readers have no capacity to impact upon the site in the way that a customer base impacts upon a provider of products or services. The WP customer/provider relationship exists between the site users and the site facilitators - Jimbeax and the WMF who draw in income and kudos in relation to how pleased the users are.

AF

Is there a distinct line between readers and editors? Everyone is empowered to be an editor.

Of course, there may be many different customer bases, and the art is maximising the profit (whether purely financial or some other desirable) by considering the needs of each. WMF show no signs of satisfying any customer base, editors are not a happy group, the browsing man in the street seems content enough as far as it goes, the academic world is unconvinced. I suspect that the dusty child will not be entirely happy with their Wikipedia 1.0 unless it tells them how to build a well of fresh drinking water in a desert with bare hands to allow them to survive long enough to read about the pulling exploits of the sole flounder.

[Neil]

In order to this, you need to understand what the demands of the customers (readers) of Wikipedia are.

On what basis are the 'customers' understood as being 'readers' ? The true customers of Wikipedia are its participants, the editors and administrators; it is they who pay for the privilege of having access to the site's facilities. Readers are just passive observers of what the site users do; readers have no capacity to impact upon the site in the way that a customer base impacts upon a provider of products or services. The WP customer/provider relationship exists between the site users and the site facilitators - Jimbeax and the WMF who draw in income and kudos in relation to how pleased the users are.

AF

Wholly wrong. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then its customers are its readers. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to pass information on to its readers.

If Wikipedia is a social networking site and/or MMORPG, then yes, its customers are its participants.

The purpose of a service is to provide a benefit for its customers. If readers have no capacity to impact upon the site, then the system is flawed and needs reengineering.