Why Wikipedia Is Doomed, The Six Rotten Pillars of Wikipedia Options Rating

[Cedric]

When this site went down briefly this summer due to a database attack, what could be termed a declaration of purposes was published a temporary page. It read as follows:

WR:NOT
Wikipedia Review is not a conspiracy, a team-building exercise, a role-playing game, or an experiment in collusion. It is not meant as a resource or training ground for those who would instill fear and misery in others. It does not exist to corrupt, but to expose corruption; it does not exist to tear down institutions, but to expose the ways in which institutions are torn down; it does not exist to hate, but is meant to expose hate in others. To expose these things is not evil. It is not a monolithic entity, nor the sum of its parts. Like-mindedness does not imply singularity of purpose; respect for the rights of one group does not imply disrespect for the rights of another. It is not intended to be predictable, consistent, or dull.

Imagine a world in which human beings are not user accounts, are not programmable, and are not mere words on a display screen. That's what we're doing...

Part of this statement was even included in a recreated article about Wikipedia Review on Wikipedia. My personal belief is that this is as good a summary of what WR is not supposed be about as any I have read.

But this necessarily begs the question: What is WR supposed to be about? A good part of the answer is contained in the above statement. A certain segment of our membership, sometimes referred to as “the old guard”, would say that WR is primarily about serious criticism of WP. I identify with this view. Of late, there appears to be an increasing segment of WR, composed of a significant number newer members, who also happen to be WP administrators and prolific editors, and who would appear to view to WR as more of a “Wikipedia Improvement Association”. That is, a place to exchange information, to gather and discuss problems with WP, and to plan improvements to WP, with a freedom of speech not available on WP itself.

This is not meant to be a thread devoted to which of these points of view should prevail here on WR, or even if it is desirable that one or the other prevail. Rather, it is meant to be addressed to phenomenon producing this situation: WP’s decline and impending fall.

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of WP. A number of WP users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on WP have been particularly bad. This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”. In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate. In the early days of Wikipedia:Adminstrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, WP’s drama center, founded in December, 2004), it usually took around one week to fill an archive. Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama? There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at WR, and at some length. The most basic causes I identify as

THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA

1. INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES. I believe that this one feature of WP is the single greatest factor causing WP’s decline and will largely cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the MMORPG character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the WP experience has proved nothing else, it has proved that there is indeed a reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: they are needed. A number of members here (including myself) have suggested as a reform that all article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on WP be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area. WP could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on. The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish WP from other encyclopedias.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted? Absolute zero. The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so. His 2001 pharaonic fiat reads in pertinent part:

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Later, this “sacred” principle was made into the Third Pillar of The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which “define the character of the project”. In other words, instant editing is sacred; it is off the table for discussion; and any suggestion of such a reform of WP is wiki-heresy for which the offender shall be banned and consigned to “off-wiki” hell. Never mind that the central administrative junta that largely runs WP (“The Cabal”) makes exceptions as to who constitutes the “anyone” that may edit WP (after all, certain individuals and IP ranges are unmutual and must be suppressed for the good of the wiki); the basic principle remains inviolable.

“So let it be written! So let it be done!”

(Tomorrow's installment: “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES)

[flash]

You can edit this page right now...

I think this is indeed an inviolable principle - the most interesting thing about the whole Wikipedia project. And in many ways, sociologically speaking, it does work - edits are reversed and misinformation is often corrected while 'new information' is accepted. Wikipedia HAS built up a vast array of 75% reliable information, albeit mostof it trivial. Politically neutral points, pages not directly relating to certain people's 'interests' work okay, on this basis. Moving away from the principle requires the appointment of 'experts' - which scarcely removes bias either.

What has caused most of the ill-feeling towards the project is the ABUSE of the principle - eg. these sorts of comments violate such and such a rule - as interpreted by such and such an admin... Hence the principle is morphed into:

You cannot edit any page - EVER AGAIN!

[anthony]

You can edit this page right now...

I think this is indeed an inviolable principle - the most interesting thing about the whole Wikipedia project. And in many ways, sociologically speaking, it does work - edits are reversed and misinformation is often corrected while 'new information' is accepted.

It only works [if you can call it "working"] because it isn't followed. If *anyone* could edit *any page* in *any way* at *any time*, you'd have [[bellum omnium contra omnes]].

So obviously there have to be restrictions on "anyone can edit". In fact, Wikipedia has restrictions on "anyone can edit". The main problem, in my opinion, is that these restrictions have virtually nothing to do with the merit of the editing. An excellent example of this would be the three revert rule. Edit wars are resolved not by examining the quality of the edit, but by...I don't know...what does the three revert rule measure? Who can wikilawyer better? Who can get a bigger gang of cabal members on their side? Who can create more sockpuppets? Who can get more of their friends to act as meatpuppets? It's certainly not merit.

I pretty much lost my interest in Wikipedia when the three revert rule was introduced. I'm not sure that it was ever uphill, but it was certainly downhill from there.

This post has been edited by anthony: Mon 27th October 2008, 2:02pm

[Kelly Martin]

An excellent example of this would be the three revert rule. Edit wars are resolved not by examining the quality of the edit, but by...I don't know...what does the three revert rule measure? Who can wikilawyer better? Who can get a bigger gang of cabal members on their side? Who can create more sockpuppets? Who can get more of their friends to act as meatpuppets? It's certainly not merit.

3RR encourages the formation of gangs. That it would do so should have been obvious to those who proposed and supported it. However, my experience is that the people who were behind 3RR think this is a good thing, rather than a bad one.

[Milton Roe]

An excellent example of this would be the three revert rule. Edit wars are resolved not by examining the quality of the edit, but by...I don't know...what does the three revert rule measure? Who can wikilawyer better? Who can get a bigger gang of cabal members on their side? Who can create more sockpuppets? Who can get more of their friends to act as meatpuppets? It's certainly not merit.

3RR encourages the formation of gangs. That it would do so should have been obvious to those who proposed and supported it. However, my experience is that the people who were behind 3RR think this is a good thing, rather than a bad one.

It's better than nothing, since without it, you really do get nothing more than an exercise in who can stay awake longest and focus on one automatic and inane task. That game truly goes to the individual obscessive-compulsive.

Going to 3RR forces "teamwork." It's not the most admirable kind of teamwork, necessarily (a criminal gang or group of raiders and spoilers is a sort of team, after all), but at least there's the first hint of cooperation in the use of force. Observe: the vestigial beginnings of organized, social, coercive behavior--- and thus, government!

[Son of a Yeti]

Going to 3RR forces "teamwork." It's not the most admirable kind of teamwork, necessarily (a criminal gang or group of raiders and spoilers is a sort of team, after all), but at least there's the first hint of cooperation in the use of force. Observe: the vestigial beginnings of organized, social, coercive behavior--- and thus, government!

If we used the Marxist theory that would be probably going from primitive communism to slavery.

Marxist theory of history is obviously wrong (they failed to reach the communist phase after all) but this sounds like a nice description of recent advancement of Wkipedia community system.

[Milton Roe]

Going to 3RR forces "teamwork." It's not the most admirable kind of teamwork, necessarily (a criminal gang or group of raiders and spoilers is a sort of team, after all), but at least there's the first hint of cooperation in the use of force. Observe: the vestigial beginnings of organized, social, coercive behavior--- and thus, government!

If we used the Marxist theory that would be probably going from primitive communism to slavery.

Marxist theory of history is obviously wrong (they failed to reach the communist phase after all) but this sounds like a nice description of recent advancement of Wkipedia community system.

Marx or no, we're well past empire-slavery, and into the feudal system on WP. That was what you had after raiders decided to settle down after raiding, and just tax people instead of spoiling and raping and killing. But then the settled have to defend your little parcel against outside raiders, and thus you get a government in which local lords owe military service to a central authority (a crown or shogunate).

On WP, we know who the serfs are, and who the lords are, because we've all been "lorded over" by them, at one time or another. We're at the point, however, where the lords themselves are getting pretty tired of the king, and are about to start drafting a Magna Carta.

One day, much later, we may even see a civil war, a popular revolution, and a real parliament which includes representation for the serfs, of some kind (A house of "commons.") But first, I'm afraid the "beheading" of Jimbo I cannot be avoided.

[Kelly Martin]

But first, I'm afraid the "beheading" of Jimbo I cannot be avoided.

Indeed, it is absolutely necessary. Wikipedia cannot hope to improve until it rids itself of that particular cancer.