WP:Drama


According to Ed Poor and FeloniousMonk (who created the page two years ago), "Drama is the unnecessary creation, prolongation, and/or spreading of conflict and strife."

It's a remarkable essay, and it's not even wrong.

Discuss.

It's also ironic, given the degree to which both Ed Poor and FeloniousMonk tended to get involved in extended drama. Ed, I think, was relatively innocent; his main motivation was to spread the Good Word of his religious order, and merely got involved in drama because he was also possessed of an arrogant belief that he was Right, and action in defense of that which is Right is never inappropriate. FeloniousMonk, on the other hand, I believe deliberately gravitated to drama, seeking it out and engaging in it for its own sake.

One of Wikipedia's leading social functions has been to prove that irony is not dead; here is yet another instance of its doing so.

The main problem with the essay is that it identifies drama as a problem but fails in understanding that drama is a symptom of dysfunctional governance. Rather than acknowledging that the high levels of drama in Wikipedia are due to its ineffective community governance, drama is treated as a personal failing of those who engage in it. The reality is that, because Wikipedia lacks a meaningful venue for the orderly and effective settlement of grievances, people increasingly instead turn to public dramatics as a way to gain attention and sympathy for what they believe is mistreatment. This essay declares that involvement in drama is the failing of the actor, not of the system, and therefore perpetuates the broken system that generates most of the drama.

Exactly how not to get somebody to calm down:



The rest of this is so infused with Wikipediot thinking I don't even know where to begin. It's useful as a concise, classic example of many things wrong with their brains.

The main difference between Wikipedia and 4chan:

4chan is a troll haven. It has no pretenses.

Wikipedia is a troll haven that absolutely refuses to admit to this basic fact.
Thus, it's saturated with pretenses.

Precisely so.

I suspect Paul Mitchell never read any Dostoevsky.

Of course, neither did I, but somewhere along the way I caught on to what literate scholars have known for a long time.

That it's goddamn hard to read Russian?

Almost as hard as reading Awbrey.

In Soviet Union, Awbrey has hard time reading you!

Almost as hard as finding the Soviet Union any more.

Here's another essay and interview that's not even wrong...

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia, and the Personal Democracy Forum

Have at it.

Well, the very first sentence presents some problems. If it said instead, for example, that 'Wikipedia is what it is today because any idiot can edit it' then I would agree.

If 'success' means, a good quality encyclopedia, I don't see it. If 'success' means being the first hit on practically any search, than they have a success.

As for "being open to contributions from all", having been indefed four time in two years, I am disinclined to agree. Basicly "drama", as used here, means any Wikipedia editor who is inclined to complain about shitty treatment, deserves wiki-floggings, and if that does not convince them to shut up: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...era-Calbo-2.jpg