Thu 14th December 2006, 7:18am
QUOTE(anon1234 @ Wed 13th December 2006, 4:57pm)
A lot of people I've seen get banned from Wikipedia, while they felt personally like they were fighting for all that is right and just, were engaging in head-on confrontations with fragile but egotistic admins, a recipe that is just as guaranteed to fail if you tried it in real life against a person with authority who has similar characteristics.
Hmm... By "fragile," do you mean people with weak ego facades, who become defensive and hostile when challenged? Or are you thinking more about people who just have a tendency to overestimate themselves, particularly with respect to their talents and abilities? (Or something else entirely?) I guess I'd assume the former, but to be honest I've been assuming too much lately!
Earlier I pointed out that some of what I've been saying about MONGO is in full agreement with some of the nastier cabal-types WP has to offer. Check out this quote from Greg Maxwell - he's in favor of desysopping MONGO, and is cleverly trying to spin it as a form of mercy,
given that MONGO is burned out and behaving erratically:
QUOTE(Greggy @ Wed Dec 13 18:04:54 UTC 2006)
I think that, as a result of our environment, far too many people feel like they are the sole defenders of the Wiki. I think the impossibility of success as a sole defender is causing people to exhibit a pattern of volatility and highly emotional responses which are counter productive, something of a sole defender syndrome.
What Maxwell is calling "sole defender syndrome" actually has a name already, IMO - "hypervigilance" - and it usually arises out of post-traumatic stress. Also, it eventually goes away, if the person is removed from the stress-causing situation for a long-enough period of time. However, it can also be associated with addictive behavior, of various kinds. Now, the people who obsessively edit Wikipedia day-in-day-out are, for the most part, probably not the sort of people who are prone to dependence on alcohol, hard drugs, or things of that nature... But if they were, they might have a better understanding of what happens inside the addicted brain when something, or someone,
threatens the supply.
How does this tie in, you ask? It ties in because addiction weakens the mind, makes it more fragile - indeed, crumbles one's inner strength
- all while having very little noticeable effect on the person's ego facade. Whether or not this is affecting MONGO is an open question, as it would be for anyone on WP, given that we don't really know who the f**k any of them really are. But these people ignore the effects of wiki addiction at their utmost peril, and all the while, Jimbo & Co. laugh all the way to the bank. (And then they wonder why we criticize the system to such an extent.)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 13th December 2006, 5:14pm)
...an encyclopedia is not an opinion poll, that is, a statistical average or a weighted summary of the beliefs that a given population is willing to express about a given selection of subjects.
It almost makes you wonder why anyone would want
an encyclopedia to be any of those things, doesn't it!
A while ago there was a news article by a guy named Andy Updegrove who used the term "the end of archaeology" to describe what he saw as the "real" value of WP, i.e., that of a cultural snapshot of sorts:http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblo...061030173044439
...I believe that the real significance of the Wikipedia is not its status as a compendium of information, but rather its ability to provide a record of how we see ourselves, our heritage, our current events and our culture in real-time as those perceptions evolve.
I didn't know what to make of it at the time, and I guess I still don't. On the one hand, he's probably right. On the other, it's this kind of apologist spin-doctoring that's going to ultimately result in our having nothing left but anonymously-produced collaborative websites left as information resources in the future, which is really not something to look forward to.
At the same time, if people generally accept that sort reasoning, then I suppose MONGO really should be desysopped. After all, by trying to keep the conspiracy-theorists out of Wikipedia, he's actually reducing the accuracy of the cultural snapshot,
isn't he? It's like the very height of irony, in a way.