The World and Wikipedia - Andrew Dalby Options Rating

[sappho]

Did anyone read this book yet?

[Peter Damian]

Some interesting material in his user space here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...d_and_Wikipedia

where he mentions the Law incident.

[A Horse With No Name]

Some interesting material in his user space here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...d_and_Wikipedia

where he mentions the Law incident.

Law is not in the book, but ChildofMidnight and his weirdly funny food obsessions are.

This is a riot, considering who gets into the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...ned_in_the_book

I especially like that Keeper76 is in the book. What has he ever done except complain about how boring it is to be an admin?

[grievous]

This is a riot, considering who gets into the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_D...ned_in_the_book

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

This post has been edited by grievous: Fri 6th November 2009, 7:59pm

[EricBarbour]

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

That's part of why that book is such a joke.

He does not mention Jayjg at all, and the Israel-Palestine editwars rate a few paragraphs (pp. 182-183).

He gives Mantanmoreland only the briefest mention (p. 183).

The editwarring that involved Barack Obama and Sarah Palin articles got plenty of play (pp. 181-182, 209-213), yet the long, ongoing and extremely nasty Armenian-Azeri editwar got only about one page (pp. 170-71).

There's plenty about the Essjay mess, but Poetlister got a short dismissal, and there's not a peep about FT2 or Carolyn Doran.

He even talked about the JHK vs. H. Jonat editwar, which was in late 2001 and which very few people even remembered.

Why doesn't he mention recent (major) AN/I pests like Ottava Rima or Jehochman or Will Beback? Where's JoshuaZ?

And there's a lot of talk scattered everywhere about the French Wikipedia, which I guarantee is of virtually no interest to any en-wiki users, especially on WR.

In short, this is not a book. It's a blog smeared onto dead trees.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 6th November 2009, 8:40pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

That's part of why that book is such a joke.

Some of the people on the list seem like peculiar choices to write about: J.delanoy, Johnbod, Keeper76, Aleta, Kelapstick, Kevin, Kingturtle and Pickles4u (who?).

Eric, how did those characters get cited? And why are they there?

[Andrew Dalby]

Cast of characters, or the usual suspects?

That's part of why that book is such a joke.

Some of the people on the list seem like peculiar choices to write about: J.delanoy, Johnbod, Keeper76, Aleta, Kelapstick, Kevin, Kingturtle and Pickles4u (who?).

Eric, how did those characters get cited? And why are they there?

I'll answer that one ahead of Eric. The book's real aim is to make non-Wikipedians think about how this resource, used by them every day, gets to be the way it is. All the 220 users in the index of usernames are in there as examples. They did something, good or bad, to an article whose history I want the reader to follow: created it, improved it, categorised it, vandalised it, unprotected it, added irrelevances to it, talked endlessly about it, etc.

I decided at the outset that when I discussed any Wikipedia contribution I should attribute it to its author. The book would have been written faster if I hadn't chosen to do that, but it would certainly have failed to make Wikipedia come alive to non-Wikipedians. (It may still have failed, of course!)

I never interacted with any of these 220 users before they went into the book. And yet ... I have to admit ... the choice isn't mathematically random. Most of the names are of people who made some contribution (whatever it is, good or bad) more than once: they typify an aspect of the site, or an aspect of their own work on the site. Their name passed in front of my eyes two or three times during my research, and I said to myself: go back, use that first example (where the hell was it?), it'll link in here and it gives me another (virtual) personality.

Do you mention those who face personal attacks, harassment, public verbal abuse and worse because of their efforts in criticizing Wikipedia?

For that matter, is Wikipedia Review (where the Essjay scandal started), Hivemind, Wikipedia Review and other criticism sites even mentioned in your book?

If they're not given significant coverage, I'd hardly call that an "objective" treatment....

Tell me who you mean and I might tell you whether they are in. Here's the first mention of Wikipedia Review. This comes in a survey of criticism sites:

"Wikipedia Review is a forum populated by Wikipedia editors, whose attitudes range from fairly happy to extremely disgruntled. Like all forums you aren't involved in, the Review is penetratingly boring; which must be why I scan it and, as you'll see, cite it."

[the fieryangel]

Tell me who you mean and I might tell you whether they are in. Here's the first mention of Wikipedia Review. This comes in a survey of criticism sites:

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you haven't done your homework.

Obviously, this book is for koolaid drinkers only....

And of course the Review is mentioned at the crucial moment in the Essjay story:

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

...actually, I don't ever believe that anybody here ever qualified "EssJay" as being "good". I remember other descriptive words being used at the time.

However, you can read that monumental thread here. That was probably one of the major tipping points in the history of Wikipedia, and the history of how it played out is all here.

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture. Of course, that's exactly what you were intending on doing, wasn't it?

[Andrew Dalby]

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture.

Er ... you've seen a two-sentence selection. How do you know what I've cut out?

This post has been edited by Andrew Dalby: Sun 8th November 2009, 2:35pm

[the fieryangel]

EssJay was so good, all round, that the people over at Wikipedia Review were beginning to wonder whether he was a committee; and Daniel Brandt, in August 2006, ruminated that ‘it’s possible that he has made up all of his biographical details. He’s too busy on Wikipedia to be a full-time professor.’

I think that you're cutting way too much out of the picture.

Er ... you've seen a two-sentence selection. How do you know what I've cut out?

You were the one who selected these two sentences to illustrate your point. If there is more information, then you may add that.

However, if this is how you're presenting Daniel Brandt's discussion of EssJay on Wikipedia Review (which could almost be worked into a book itself, considering the amount of text he wrote about that situation), then you're leaving quite a bit of information out of your account. You can go here and read that thread, which you should have done before you wrote your book.

[Andrew Dalby]

You were the one who selected these two sentences to illustrate your point. If there is more information, then you may add that ... You can go here and read that thread, which you should have done before you wrote your book.

If you want more, Angel, you'll have to buy the book, or at least demand it from your library. You'll find it differs very strongly from the book you're imagining. Yes, "penetratingly boring" though Wikipedia Review may be, I read the thread. The whole thread. Every word. End to end. And quoted it. And acknowledged it.

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

[Milton Roe]

There is a Taoist axiom: Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error.

At last! A Wikipedia Review post without a hidden meaning!

That's because it's a koan without any clear meaning. Taoists certainly think about right and wrong. If they don't use these explicit labels, it still counts.

Wikipedia doesn't have to be the drama-factory that it is. It's the drama-whores and bullies there that make it so. And the vandals and POV-pushers. Some editors fit none of these categories.

I name many such editors, of course. It's a sad fact that I don't name all of them, not even the best of them. But, after all, I don't aim to corner the market. Why not write that book yourself? In preparation, why not start a thread on Wikipedia Review praising good, peaceful, constructive, undramatic editors?

Such a thread as you suggest would be drivel. Enjoy your brave new world that has such people in it.

Back to the drawing board, Milton.

You're reading Glassbead instead of me. I think such stuff is useful in context, as a contrast to BAD editing and administration on WP. And I still don't know why you didn't name Kintetsubuffalo, who shares more co-edited articles with you than anybody else I can find on your list.

Not so, you say? Give me another editor you've worked more closely with, or edited more article in conjunction with.

And I'll check it.

[Andrew Dalby]

And I still don't know why you didn't name Kintetsubuffalo, who shares more co-edited articles with you than anybody else I can find on your list. Not so, you say? Give me another editor you've worked more closely with, or edited more article in conjunction with.

Milton, you're almost obsessed, it seems, with this question about a different book, one that I haven't written. ''The World and Wikipedia'' is not a memoir of happy work on Wikipedia. It isn't a celebration of good Wikipedia editors. You write that book, or I'll write it -- fine, just find me a publisher and a good contract -- but this book isn't it.

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

OK, back to Kintetsubuffalo. I've interacted with KB and I agree with all you say about his work. Actually you exaggerate the extent to which we've interacted: since I joined Wikipedia, no one has commissioned me to write a book on Burma, and that means, perforce, that I have written less on that subject on Wikipedia than I expected. My personal work on Wikipedia nearly always reflects the other work I'm doing: I use Wikipedia (and nowadays the Latin Wikipedia) as a notepad, gathering information and links that I will want, or may soon want, in writing books. The article on Scott, which you cited, was just one of those: KB started it at a moment when I was just ready to add some stuff to it. A nice coincidence, although not such a big deal as you seem to suggest. You could equally name Agne27, who wanted me to write more about wine -- and I will, I will, as soon as it fits with all the other things I have to do! I could name others with whom I've interacted (look at Imladjov, who did so much for articles on Byzantium before he was driven off by trolling) and many others whose contributions are wholly positive and admirable. But, if you check these names, you won't be finding things I should have mentioned in this book. You're talking about a book you want, not the book I've written.

[Peter Damian]

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

Now you're talking. How is Wikipedia actually destroying other sources of reference?. On 'how bad is that' I opened another thread with a question for you. I have serious concerns not just about the content of the existing Wikipedia but about the structural problems that skew its point of view towards academically marginal points of view. But interested in your view.

If your book really does cover this sort of concern, I will get it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th November 2009, 7:58pm

[Andrew Dalby]

As Wikipedia undermines and destroys other sources of reference -- I give evidence of how this is happening, more and more rapidly -- I want non-Wikipedians to ask themselves whether they care, and what's to be done. Is Wikipedia really the best we can expect? How bad is that? Can we somehow make it better? Or will it just get inexorably worse? I'm not the only one concerned about these questions: this forum is concerned about them too, if I'm not mistaken.

Now you're talking. How is Wikipedia actually destroying other sources of reference?. On 'how bad is that' I opened another thread with a question for you. I have serious concerns not just about the content of the existing Wikipedia but about the structural problems that skew its point of view towards academically marginal points of view. But interested in your view.

If your book really does cover this sort of concern, I will get it.

Now you're talking! Evidence not just from Britain and USA but from Europe too: the surprising number of encyclopedias, in several languages, that have announced they won't be publishing any more. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French, others. They still exist, yes; they still have websites, mostly free; you can buy them on DVD for practically nothing. Their business models no longer sustain professional revision.

It's not disastrous this year or next year: most people can get by with a five-year-old edition of an encyclopedia (which is why the annual Britannicas of the 1960s killed their own market without any help from Wikipedia). It's disastrous in the long run. Once those teams of specialist editors have dispersed, they won't be reassembled.

Yes, I just noticed that other thread (I'm not supposed to be doing this, I'm supposed to be writing a book proposal this evening) and have made a brief comment while considering further.

[A Horse With No Name]

Now you're talking! Evidence not just from Britain and USA but from Europe too: the surprising number of encyclopedias, in several languages, that have announced they won't be publishing any more. German, Dutch, Norwegian, French, others. They still exist, yes; they still have websites, mostly free; you can buy them on DVD for practically nothing. Their business models no longer sustain professional revision.

But is that directly related to Mr. Wales' magical web site or the state of book publishing, which has been in a decline (particularly in the US) for a number of years?

Wikipedia might be a reflection of the so-called "dumbing down" of society, but I have not seen any evidence that reference publishing has lost one cent due its presence.

[Somey]

Wikipedia might be a reflection of the so-called "dumbing down" of society, but I have not seen any evidence that reference publishing has lost one cent due its presence.

Other than the fact that smaller and less-successful entities have gone out of business in recent years? It may be that the survivors of the shakeout caused by WP (such as Britannica) are aided by that too, but ultimately they're in the same sort of trouble as the others. Moreover, it's not so much the traditional-reference-work publishers themselves that we should be concerned about, but rather the professional editors who staff them. The publishing companies will do whatever they can to keep their profit margins intact as long as they can survive, and that usually means layoffs, pay reductions, and a variety of other cost-cutting measures that would reduce bottom-line impact, almost up to the point of complete dissolution.

Anyway, for good or ill, I'd say Mr. Dalby is in the right place - I myself have been going on about this issue for over three years:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...408&#entry16408

This is why people like me say you can't put the general public, i.e., just anybody in charge of a major collaborative knowledge-gathering project which, if allowed to continue, could ultimately destroy traditional encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other professionally-produced publications, not to mention undermining traditional standards in academia. That would be a tragedy, and what's even sadder is that most people probably won't realize what a tragedy it is until it's too late, and all of the quality alternatives to unregulated (not to mention plagiarized) content are gone.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...osts&hl=&st=100

Microsoft vs. Linux is a misplaced analogy. Wikipedia is more like "dumping" in the sense of international commerce. You know what dumping is - countries with low standards of living use cheap labor as a means of producing low-quality goods at prices too low for higher-quality manufacturers to compete with, and when their competitors in more affluent societies go out of business, that's when they start raising their prices. Only those laborers keep getting paid the same paltry amount, don't they? And now the people in the affluent societies are worse off too. Great!

And also this:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...527&#entry47527

[A Horse With No Name]

Wikipedia might be a reflection of the so-called "dumbing down" of society, but I have not seen any evidence that reference publishing has lost one cent due its presence.

Other than the fact that smaller and less-successful entities have gone out of business in recent years? It may be that the survivors of the shakeout caused by WP (such as Britannica) are aided by that too, but ultimately they're in the same sort of trouble as the others. Moreover, it's not so much the traditional-reference-work publishers themselves that we should be concerned about, but rather the professional editors who staff them. The publishing companies will do whatever they can to keep their profit margins intact as long as they can survive, and that usually means layoffs, pay reductions, and a variety of other cost-cutting measures that would reduce bottom-line impact, almost up to the point of complete dissolution.

The book publishing industry (at least in the US) has been a mess for years. The Internet has not helped, of course, but many of the problems facing the publishers have been self-induced and were in place long before WP showed up.

[Andrew Dalby]

Wikipedia might be a reflection of the so-called "dumbing down" of society, but I have not seen any evidence that reference publishing has lost one cent due its presence.

Other than the fact that smaller and less-successful entities have gone out of business in recent years? It may be that the survivors of the shakeout caused by WP (such as Britannica) are aided by that too, but ultimately they're in the same sort of trouble as the others. Moreover, it's not so much the traditional-reference-work publishers themselves that we should be concerned about, but rather the professional editors who staff them. The publishing companies will do whatever they can to keep their profit margins intact as long as they can survive, and that usually means layoffs, pay reductions, and a variety of other cost-cutting measures that would reduce bottom-line impact, almost up to the point of complete dissolution.

The book publishing industry (at least in the US) has been a mess for years. The Internet has not helped, of course, but many of the problems facing the publishers have been self-induced and were in place long before WP showed up.

True, but -- up to now -- general book publishing has continued and numbers of new books have increased year on year. It's the encyclopedia market that seems threatened; certainly destabilised by Encarta, and maybe succumbing to Wikipedia. Where now is Encyclopedia Americana? Britannica's still going; it hasn't collapsed, but it's struggling. I'd love to be proved wrong on this.

[A Horse With No Name]

True, but -- up to now -- general book publishing has continued and numbers of new books have increased year on year. It's the encyclopedia market that seems threatened; certainly destabilised by Encarta, and maybe succumbing to Wikipedia. Where now is Encyclopedia Americana? Britannica's still going; it hasn't collapsed, but it's struggling. I'd love to be proved wrong on this.

Yes, the number of new books have increased due to the rise of indie print-on-demand labels and the proliferation of niche specialty publishers. Book sales, on the whole, are not rising (at least not in the US). If anything, you can walk into any Borders or Barnes & Noble in the US any day and find it conspicuously lacking in book-hungry customers. If those retailers didn't have cafes, they'd be completely empty.

I will admit that I am not an expert in the encyclopedia side of the US publishing industry, but from what I understand there is no hard evidence that Wikipedia (as a standalone entity) was responsible for collapsed sales of paper-based encyclopedias. Considering that many U.S. schools refuse to allow their students to use WP as a reference source, it would seem that the school and library markets are still viable for such texts.