GoRight, man made wiki change Options

[Ottava]

I do not want to pick sides, nor do I want to say anyone is correct on content. However, the problems surrounding GoRight are particularly troubling me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...by_User:GoRight

As you can see from the above, everyone (yes, everyone) seems dug into their corner and fighting it out. It seems that people want to dispute and argue. The worse thing is that its over content, so edit warring and partisanship is only heightened.

I tried to talk to people, but there is just a general problem, and thats with the editing process in general. One of the key editing ideas is that you edit first boldly, then someone reverts, and then you talk it over and reach a consensus. However, that train derails between step two and three. People come to Wikipedia with a notion, they bring stuff that reinforces that notion, and then they try to plug it in everywhere they can.

A true "editor" would start with a random topic, start finding information on the topic, put all the information of the topic out on display, and start sifting from there. Once the information is parsed, they then figure out what structure to fit it all together. This is where consensus is necessary, for stylistic and encyclopedic reasons. However, a lot of people want to take charge under the idea of "bold" and never try to work with others for compromise.

Eh, I don't really know what to say, and I guess I am just venting my frustration at the process in general. I tried to make as much peace as possible, but its hard to break bread with those who don't care enough to be hungry.

[Carruthers]

I do not want to pick sides, nor do I want to say anyone is correct on content. However, the problems surrounding GoRight are particularly troubling me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...by_User:GoRight

As you can see from the above, everyone (yes, everyone) seems dug into their corner and fighting it out. It seems that people want to dispute and argue. The worse thing is that its over content, so edit warring and partisanship is only heightened.

I tried to talk to people, but there is just a general problem, and thats with the editing process in general. One of the key editing ideas is that you edit first boldly, then someone reverts, and then you talk it over and reach a consensus. However, that train derails between step two and three. People come to Wikipedia with a notion, they bring stuff that reinforces that notion, and then they try to plug it in everywhere they can.

A true "editor" would start with a random topic, start finding information on the topic, put all the information of the topic out on display, and start sifting from there. Once the information is parsed, they then figure out what structure to fit it all together. This is where consensus is necessary, for stylistic and encyclopedic reasons. However, a lot of people want to take charge under the idea of "bold" and never try to work with others for compromise.

Eh, I don't really know what to say, and I guess I am just venting my frustration at the process in general. I tried to make as much peace as possible, but its hard to break bread with those who don't care enough to be hungry.

This is indeed an interesting case history and it IS difficult to see who's "right",whatever that means. But it seems to me a shining example of the process undermining the process. Why does this happen with all of the NPA, AGF, NPOV and all of that which should take care of all of this in two shakes of a lamb's tail?

My take? Well, I think that it's really quite simple: there are many people who are honestly editing WP to try to create a free, online encyclopedia,but there are about 10% of the editors there who are doing so for dishonest purposes. Because they are dishonest and because everybody else has to "assume good faith", these people can walk all over everybody else and nobody can do a thing.

The solution? Well, I'd start with getting rid of "assume good faith". Assume what you see would probably work much better....

[dogbiscuit]

My take? Well, I think that it's really quite simple: there are many people who are honestly editing WP to try to create a free, online encyclopedia,but there are about 10% of the editors there who are doing so for dishonest purposes. Because they are dishonest and because everybody else has to "assume good faith", these people can walk all over everybody else and nobody can do a thing.

The solution? Well, I'd start with getting rid of "assume good faith". Assume what you see would probably work much better....

By George, I think you've got it. Add to that thought that the dishonest ones are more highly motivated in their actions, and you get what we see here, that honest editors are driven out.

I may have told this one before, but AGF is like walking around town with a bunch of mates trying to decide which curry house you want to go to, only there is one person who really wants Chinese but the 11 came to a consensus. 11 of you head into the curry house, quite happy with their choice, and the twelfth stays outside, so the 11, being matey people, get up, head down the street and have a Chinese instead. 11 unhappy people and the one who always gets his way. The guy always does it, but if anyone calls it out, then they are the sinner. Happens all the time.

AGF is also used as a one way street. How often do you hear, "AGF, you misinterpreted what I wrote - I am sorely wronged!" (usually after posting a highly sarcastic diatribe and personal attack). Real AGF would be, "I'm sorry I was not clear in what I wrote, let me put it another way as I didn't mean to upset you." In other words, always pretend any misunderstanding is your own fault until such time as it becomes impossible.

[Moulton]

It's hard to adopt the role of peacemaker when the players of Wizard Chess are deep into the game.

Wikipedia lacks a functional process for resolution of disputes over content in articles.

Since the only remaining option is to eliminate your adversary from the game board, many veterans Wikipedians have learned how to play Wizard Chess.

[Sceptre]

It's hard to adopt the role of peacemaker when the players of Wizard Chess are deep into the game.

Wikipedia lacks a functional process for resolution of disputes over content in articles.

Since the only remaining option is to eliminate your adversary from the game board, many veterans Wikipedians have learned how to play Wizard Chess.

Wikipedia lacks a functional process for resolution of any disputes.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia's organizational philosophy suffers from the same defect of communism and many other noble philosophies: it assumes that everyone involved will voluntarily eschew base motives. This works when the community is small and when leadership is charismatic enough to keep everyone in line. It falls down when the community gets too large for a single charismatic leader to keep everyone in line.

Wikipedia is now overrun with people pursuing a myriad of personal goals, ranging from nobly altrustic to starkly vengeful. "Assume good faith" forces one to assume the former even when the latter is plainly obvious, and is further used by many as a club to beat down those who criticize their methods or intentions.

It's not so much that the idea behind "assume good faith" is bad, but rather what it has been perverted into over the years; it has not been a simply admonishment to give others the benefit of the doubt in debate, but is now instead a license to not have one's intentions questioned in any way, shape or form.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia's organizational philosophy suffers from the same defect of communism and many other noble philosophies: it assumes that everyone involved will voluntarily eschew base motives. This works when the community is small and when leadership is charismatic enough to keep everyone in line. It falls down when the community gets too large for a single charismatic leader to keep everyone in line.

We to to distinguish between manifest and latent content of this "organizational philosophy." It seem increasingly apparent that Wikipedia was never intended to be the noble project it claims to be. Noble But Failed Project is not the right narrative. Pyramid Scheme is more like it, with more in common with Amway than the Second International.

It is likely that Mr. Wales saw Wikipedia as some kind of search engine summarizing and linking the content of the internet. It had a very crude algorithm that involved exploiting the efforts of a huge volunteer work force. It is a Googleplex made out of meat. The projects great failing is not that the exploited meat failed to live up to Mr. Wales vision but that Mr. Wales has failed to find a way to monetarize the project.

If Wikipedia is not a shell game ask yourself this: does Mr. Wales, given his famous views on the virtues of selfishness, seem like a likely candidate to launch a charity driven by the virtue of sharing?

[Kelly Martin]

Yes, Wikipedia's success, such as it is, is clearly despite, rather than because, of Jimmy Wales, and I suspect many of its failings can be traced to his concealed ulterior motives in creating the site. The nobility of Wikipedia was grafted onto Jimmy's decidedly ignoble frame by various early adopters. Jimmy has been fighting a rear-guard action to try to reclaim his investment ever since.

I still wonder if the move from Bomis to the WMF was motivated at least in part by Jimmy's (and Michael Davis') desire to keep whatever value might be generated by Wikipedia out of the hands of Brian Dowling. The timing is somewhat suspicious; WMF was founded in July 2003, and Dowling began aggressively seeking to enforce the judgments against Davis, who was a part owner of Bomis, and therefore Wikipedia prior to its conveyance to the WMF, in the early part of 2003. Amongst the assets conveyed to Dowling in the course of executing those judgments were Davis' interest in Bomis; this made Dowling at least a minority stakeholder in Bomis, and granted Dowling a fiduciary interest in Wikipedia. Jimmy's conveyance of the Wikipedia marks to WMF almost certainly constituted a breach of fiduciary duty with respect to Dowling's interests in those marks. The again, fiduciary duty is a concept which (as far as I can tell) Jimmy is completely unfamiliar with.

Given that Wikpedia is now widely regarded as a billion dollar web property, I'm rather surprised that Dowling hasn't sued Jimmy. Then again, the statute of limitations is probably just about run, six years in Illinois as I recall and the operative events took place in early 2003.

[Ottava]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Question

In case anyone wants to see the main philosophical arguments (Raul's and Carcharoth's).

[GlassBeadGame]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Question

In case anyone wants to see the main philosophical arguments (Raul's and Carcharoth's).

"Ottava Rima" also unspeaks very persuasively.

[Ottava]

"Ottava Rima" also unspeaks very persuasively.

That has a sort of Zen ring to it. I would clap with one hand to applaud you, but I don't know how.

[Milton Roe]

AGF is also used as a one way street. How often do you hear, "AGF, you misinterpreted what I wrote - I am sorely wronged!" (usually after posting a highly sarcastic diatribe and personal attack). Real AGF would be, "I'm sorry I was not clear in what I wrote, let me put it another way as I didn't mean to upset you." In other words, always pretend any misunderstanding is your own fault until such time as it becomes impossible.

Even this violates NPOV, as I have pointed out at the start of another thread. That doesn't mean I don't think your philosophy is a good idea (every Baysian analysis starts out with assumptions and premises). It's just to point out for the umpteeth time that the whole WP idea of NPOV, in all of its forms and perversions, is bankrupt and meaningless, and serves only as a POV tool for the powerful to beat the powerless over the head with. At the very best, it needs to be renamed.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 13th August 2008, 5:59pm

[Ottava]

AGF is also used as a one way street. How often do you hear, "AGF, you misinterpreted what I wrote - I am sorely wronged!" (usually after posting a highly sarcastic diatribe and personal attack). Real AGF would be, "I'm sorry I was not clear in what I wrote, let me put it another way as I didn't mean to upset you." In other words, always pretend any misunderstanding is your own fault until such time as it becomes impossible.

Even this violates NPOV, as I have pointed out at the start of another thread. That doesn't mean I don't think your philosophy is a good idea (every Baysian analysis starts out with assumptions and premises). It's just to point out for the umpteeth time that the whole WP idea of NPOV, in all of its forms and perversions, is bankrupt and meaningless, and serves only as a POV tool for the powerful to beat the powerless over the head with. At the very best, it needs to be renamed.

I don't believe in NPOV as it is used. I believe in discussion, consensus, cooperation, and then discussion again. We should have everyone play with their cards up so that we realize that, hey, this isn't a game or a contest. Instead, it seems that some people want to use Wikipedia like a game of Spades, always trying to trump the person before.

If information is old, then there should probably be a documentation of the history, i.e. History of ___ thought, so that it can still find a place. If history is wrong, then there should be a documentation of things later proven wrong. An encyclopedia should include all the stuff, not just the current and "correct" stuff. I think it would be important to know if some people thought that the world was flat AND important to know that the "flat earth" theory was rumor mongered into creation by protestants during the 19th century to make Catholics look bad in history books.

Wikipedia should be about facts, and even if someone is wrong, there was the fact that they produced such information.