Sun 23rd November 2008, 10:49am
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 23rd November 2008, 1:08am)
QUOTE(Lar @ Sun 23rd November 2008, 12:44am)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 23rd November 2008, 12:28am)
I don't believe I've ever witnessed an online community implode before. I think I may very soon.
Seen it before. Didn't like it then. Doubt I'd like it now... So I hope you're wrong.
I predict more of an exodus. ... It may take a long time for the exodus to affect Wikipedia; however, it eventually will.
I'm not trying to gloat, Lar, and I can tell you and others sincerely believe that Wikipedia can make a difference as a free, online encyclopedia. I think Wikipedia started out with the best of intentions and idealism, but there were missed opportunities at the start and things fell apart. The wounds and problems are just too deep. You can't do anything with others without trust and cooperation... and there's really no trust left in the Wikipedia community. Too many hurt feelings and too much grief.
It's a shame that Wikipedia organized itself around an anachronistic, dysfunctional, and unsustainable governance model that was already going out of style some 3768 years ago, when humans first began to think about fair systems of governanance.
Notwithstanding the cumulative wisdom of four thousand years of political history, it's unlikely that entrenched Wikipedians will save their project by evolving to a modern and functional governance model. And so I agree that Jimbo's pre-neolithic tribal culture will crumble rather than right itself by fast-forwarding through four millenia of liminal political drama. The process of collapse will nonetheless provide an interesting lens into the dynamics of arrested development and learning disabled communities.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 23rd November 2008, 3:59am)
Lovely comment on Giano talk page:
I am shocked that the committee show no willingness to accept this case. This is a unique chance to make it clear, once and for all, that Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgment or writing abilities). Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.
Some of these overusers of article space resources even go to great lengths to motivate themselves (and others of similar inclinations) by employing humour. This may be acceptable in some open source or open content projects, but not in Wikipedia. (A common misconception, resulting from the fact that not all infractions can be persecuted, is that humour is allowed within reason.) We are writing a serious encyclopedia, not some nerdy operating system. Moreover, anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.
Checkusering as a means of intimidation is already a standard response to POV pushing and random article defacements. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a much more dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. It needs to be treated in the same way. I am concerned that Arbcom, unlike our checkusers, are not seeing the big picture. I urge the committee to accept the case and set an example. If the committee is afraid of banning Giano, I respectfully ask that at the very least he be de-adminned and his IRC and checkuser rights withdrawn. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
--Hans Adler (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes and Adler knows his stuff
. Many good contributions to articles on mathematical logic, which were in a poor state before he joined, and he is well known in the profession.
The emerging mathematics of storybook logic will very likely be manifest in the epic failure of Wikipedia. Be prepared to witness the spectacular dynamics of a drama driven by the sum of all fears.