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)

[everyking]

It looks to me like these "rotten pillars" are just denunciations of the things Wikipedia is doing right, and which are responsible for its overwhelming success. Just because Wikipedia is dysfunctional in some sense doesn't mean its basic principles are wrong. The basics are just fine; it's the failure to refine site administration and governance to keep up with the site's rapid development that has caused problems.

[dogbiscuit]

It looks to me like these "rotten pillars" are just denunciations of the things Wikipedia is doing right, and which are responsible for its overwhelming success. Just because Wikipedia is dysfunctional in some sense doesn't mean its basic principles are wrong. The basics are just fine; it's the failure to refine site administration and governance to keep up with the site's rapid development that has caused problems.

Define success.

[flash]

Yup... sure, why not. Both the 'winning pub team' model and the Houston space center one indicate that a well-organised group is better than 'the best expert'.

With WP, the tension is over admin-experts or occasionally 'user votes' deciding. If WP were to attempt to land on the moon, for sure they'd ban the guy who recognised the error code and vote to change the mission to go to Mars...

[dogbiscuit]

Yup... sure, why not. Both the 'winning pub team' model and the Houston space center one indicate that a well-organised group is better than 'the best expert'.

With WP, the tension is over admin-experts or occasionally 'user votes' deciding. If WP were to attempt to land on the moon, for sure they'd ban the guy who recognised the error code and vote to change the mission to go to Mars...

Erm, bait and switch - well organised group was neither part of your original premise - which was "the wisdom of the crowds" which is the antithesis of a well organised group. Second switch is also the suggestion that WP is "well-organised". Leave admins out of it, the fundamental model of WP is disorganised mob rule.

[Later] - oh, and there is nothing in that example that suggests that a "best expert" is overridden in his field by an organised group - the organised group might defer to the best expert, but in the appropriate circumstances, a group could not invent more knowledge than an acknowledged expert already had.

[flash]

Yup... sure, why not. Both the 'winning pub team' model and the Houston space center one indicate that a well-organised group is better than 'the best expert'.

With WP, the tension is over admin-experts or occasionally 'user votes' deciding. If WP were to attempt to land on the moon, for sure they'd ban the guy who recognised the error code and vote to change the mission to go to Mars...

Erm, bait and switch - well organised group was neither part of your original premise - which was "the wisdom of the crowds" which is the antithesis of a well organised group. Second switch is also the suggestion that WP is "well-organised". Leave admins out of it, the fundamental model of WP is disorganised mob rule.

[Later] - oh, and there is nothing in that example that suggests that a "best expert" is overridden in his field by an organised group - the organised group might defer to the best expert, but in the appropriate circumstances, a group could not invent more knowledge than an acknowledged expert already had.

Woof woof!

The suggestion, which in your eagerness to BITE has been overlooked, is that IF WP was 'well-organised', like say Houston Space Control, then the wisdom inherent in its large pool of contributors could be utilised. If, on the other hand, one relies on the 'expert' model, the level of contributions cannot rise higher than the level of the experts.

IF you read my - or anyone else's contributions - you would know that NO ONE thinks WP is 'well organised' at present... I specifically refered to the 'cult' of the admin-expert. Grrr...

This post has been edited by flash: Fri 31st October 2008, 12:11pm

[dogbiscuit]

Yup... sure, why not. Both the 'winning pub team' model and the Houston space center one indicate that a well-organised group is better than 'the best expert'.

With WP, the tension is over admin-experts or occasionally 'user votes' deciding. If WP were to attempt to land on the moon, for sure they'd ban the guy who recognised the error code and vote to change the mission to go to Mars...

Erm, bait and switch - well organised group was neither part of your original premise - which was "the wisdom of the crowds" which is the antithesis of a well organised group. Second switch is also the suggestion that WP is "well-organised". Leave admins out of it, the fundamental model of WP is disorganised mob rule.

[Later] - oh, and there is nothing in that example that suggests that a "best expert" is overridden in his field by an organised group - the organised group might defer to the best expert, but in the appropriate circumstances, a group could not invent more knowledge than an acknowledged expert already had.

Woof woof!

The suggestion, which in your eagerness to BITE has been overlooked, is that IF WP was 'well-organised', like say Houston Space Control, then the wisdom inherent in its large pool of contributors could be utilised. If, on the other hand, one relies on the 'expert' model, the level of contributions cannot rise higher than the level of the experts.

IF you read my - or anyone else's contributions - you would know that NO ONE thinks WP is 'well organised' at present... I specifically refered to the 'cult' of the admin-expert. Grrr...

What you meant is not what you wrote, and that is what I have to deal with in front of me.

There is still a problem with what you have written - that you suggest a group can get contributions higher than the knowledge of an expert on the subject. Now I know I am getting pedantic, but in the inaccurate world of Wikipedia, it is important. Your suggestion is that a group can know more than an individual - but that is not the suggestion, both the pub quiz and the Houston example rely on a group of experts, not riff-raff, to succeed. It is an important point, as you can be read as suggesting that simply by being better organised, Wikipedia can increase its collective IQ. It can only increase its level to that of the most knowledgeable person, though I agree that as a group you can organise the work and research and produce a more effective result, when it comes to knowledge of a particular issue, a group of "know it somes" are highly unlikely to be more effective than the specific know it all, who not only already has the knowledge to hand, but also is likely to have the sources and experience within the sources to determine the appropriate answers.

Of course, this strays into Original Research - but it is a dilemma that Wikipedia cares not to resolve - anything that requires careful thought does not belong in Wikipedia, therefore the expert, who can understand the subject and offer interpretation is excluded against the editor who can count sources and discount those he disagrees with.

Put another way, the suggestion you make is that groups can know more than experts - they don't, what they can do is work more quickly to get a wider coverage at a lower level. Wikipedia could never be the definitive guide when organised by the mob - for example you would need an expert on Greek literature to be able to assess the most appropriate of multiple conflicting sources on some Greek work, you cannot simply do a vote of the sources and assume that the most common one is correct. (Why? For example, you need to understand where one source is actually derived from another, repeating an error; or you need to understand that another one was written in the 1950s where there was a different political outlook so the translator may have been influenced by his own times - perhaps writing in the idiom of the day which has now changed meaning). The mob does not necessarily have the intellect to be able to say that they do not understand and should defer to someone else.

[flash]

There is still a problem with what you have written - that you suggest a group can get contributions higher than the knowledge of an expert on the subject. Now I know I am getting pedantic, but in the inaccurate world of Wikipedia, it is important. Your suggestion is that a group can know more than an individual ... It is an important point, as you can be read as suggesting that simply by being better organised, Wikipedia can increase its collective IQ. It can only increase its level to that of the most knowledgeable person [...]

Put another way, the suggestion you make is that groups can know more than experts - they don't, what they can do is work more quickly to get a wider coverage at a lower level. Wikipedia could never be the definitive guide when organised by the mob ... The mob does not necessarily have the intellect to be able to say that they do not understand and should defer to someone else.

Dogbiscuit and I are chewing over this one, but why not, as doggy says, its important and quite relevant to Cedric's supposedly knocked over and crushed for hard-core WP pillars, esp. 3 and 4.

No, I do not agree taht an expert writes a better article than say, three experts. Nor do I even agree that 1 or 3 experts writes a better article than 100 WP drones... I would take the philosphy pages as examples. The 'experts' are in reality very dull people who read a book many years ago and have been paid to repeat its contents ever since. These people are expert only in comparison to the WP editor in the Street. Get another book out of the library and you see thier expertise is very thin. Go back to 'original sources', as Doggy says, and you get an even stranger picture. But who is to judge?

This is where the WP model gets interesting. A.N. Expert is obliged to 'win over' the mob, and the mob may ferret around (with quick checks of the internet, the odd book, even the odd person like Moulton who seems to know odd bits of information!) and 'challenge' the expert. The article thereby grows organically into something better than the expert would have either chosen to or been able to write.

WP is like the '.Game of Life' simulations - you start off with some very simple rules, and the editors all interact, devouring most of the contributions without trace but leaving behind a structure of suprising sophistication, complexity and elegance.

[dogbiscuit]

No, I do not agree taht an expert writes a better article than say, three experts. Nor do I even agree that 1 or 3 experts writes a better article than 100 WP drones... I would take the philosphy pages as examples. The 'experts' are in reality very dull people who read a book many years ago and have been paid to repeat its contents ever since. These people are expert only in comparison to the WP editor in the Street. Get another book out of the library and you see thier expertise is very thin. Go back to 'original sources', as Doggy says, and you get an even stranger picture. But who is to judge?

This is where the WP model gets interesting. A.N. Expert is obliged to 'win over' the mob, and the mob may ferret around (with quick checks of the internet, the odd book, even the odd person like Moulton who seems to know odd bits of information!) and 'challenge' the expert. The article thereby grows organically into something better than the expert would have either chosen to or been able to write.

We're getting closer - but I think you do experts a disservice - you probably never heard a lecture by A J P Taylor who used to do whole history programmes on TV by just talking - no re-enactments or drama documentaries that you need now. And you are still talking apples and pears, are the WP self-proclaimed "experts" really knowledgeable? Well, we can't tell, there is no reason to assume there is anyone competent in any field on Wikipedia, so we cannot judge whether your characterisation is correct, and your test is as good as any - assuming that the books from the library are appropriately chosen.

You then drink of the Kool-Aid and make the fallacious assumption that someone who is knowledgeable about their subject will win over the mob and therefore the article will be better, whereas experience shows that the expert gets bored of dealing with idiots and walks away, leaving the mob believing they have won - they have won a battle and made the encyclopaedia a little worse.

[Moulton]

You then drink of the Kool-Aid and make the fallacious assumption that someone who is knowledgeable about their subject will win over the mob and therefore the article will be better, whereas experience shows that the expert gets bored of dealing with idiots and walks away, leaving the mob believing they have won - they have won a battle and made the encyclopaedia a little worse.

History shows that the pitchfork-wielding mob will emasculate the subject-matter expert every time. Whether it's Hemlock-flavored Kool-Aid or Blood-On-a-Cross flavored Kool-Aid or Spammish Inquisition Kool-Aid, the story repeats endlessly down through the millenia, with both famous and long-forgotten iconoclastic thinkers being given the heave-ho by the unwashed masses.

Which, I suppose, is why it's traditional to tell the unwashed masses to go jump in the lake.