Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Bad sources
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Received this morning from Kathryn Cramer:
I think I’ve just gotten the ultimate comment to my Wikipedia User talk page. If I can figure out the formatting, I’ll frame it. The commentor (an admin and a Wikimedia intern) argues that I have never been nominated for a Hugo on the grounds that the nomination was for NYRSF.Let us despair: Swatjester is indeed a Wikipedia Administrator. He’s very active. As of this writing, I count 4,882 “User Contributions” of his for this year alone. His run-in with Kathryn isn’t an isolated case. For instance, here you can see him peremptorily telling another user, “Please do not revert my edits. The Vietnam war was not “lost” as there was no declaration of war. Please stop adding in POV items.”Here it is in its full perfection, Wikipedian self-satisfied ignorance at its highest purity:
About WikipediaI was trying, as politely as possible, to explain him that he knew nothing about either Hugo rules or pre-web hypertext (he’s nominated the Eastgate Systems entry for deletion), and so should back down on his wikipedian boldness.I’ve noticed something about the past couple of conversations we have had. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Nobody needs any special knowledge, or special position, any qualifications to edit. It’s not helpful to demand that other editors present their credentials or show their knowledge, to edit an article. It would be appreciated if you no longer did that again. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Kathryn
p.s.: Note also that Wikipedia has no entry for Complacency, and that the WP entry on Ignorance covers Willful Ignorance, but not Self-satisfied Ignorance. (The closest they come is the enty Avidya (Buddhism): “Avidyā is a lack of knowing, and can be associated with intention.”
It seems to me that the situation needs to be corrected.
Swatjester’s been running loose on Wikipedia since January 2006, when he popped up in Talk: Counter-terrorism to announce:
==Here I am!==He was all over the place in Talk: Greenpeace, where he argued doggedly that Greenpeace is too a terrorist organization; and he took it upon himself, in the main article, to change mentions of “Greenpeace representatives” to “Greenpeace agents.”I’ve got some experience in the field of counter-terrorism. I’m taking it upon myself to clean up this page, as it absolutely reeks of kiddies playing too much Counter-strike.
Swatjester has continued as he began. He’s downright bellicose about credentials any time he thinks he has them. When he has none and is arguing with an expert in her field, he’s equally insistent that citing credentials, or expecting them to be taken into account, is grossly inappropriate. Wikipedia has responded to this astounding buffoon by clasping him to its institutional bosom. As it says in the opening paragraph of Swatjester’s user profile:
I am a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation, a member of the Communications Committee, an OTRS representative on the legal queue, and an English Wikipedia administrator. I also edit Wikiversity, Meta, Wikimedia Commons, and sometimes Wikisource.It would be nice to believe that Swatjester’s comment is the acme of Wikipedian self-satisfied ignorance. If we find a worse one, Kathryn can frame that too.
Addenda: Kathryn from Sunnyvale has requested a list of our stories about Wikipedia. If anyone remembers a piece we’ve omitted, let us know.
Making Light, 05 May 2007: Grep that spool (TNH).Note that every one of them is anonymous. It’s enough to make you think there might be problems inherent in giving people power without responsibility.(Idiot in question: Initially: earless busybody Azer Red, who’s big on tone complaints and deletions. Later: mendacious troll Will BeBack. He was so mortified at having his Wikipedia pseud linked to his real identity that he organized a campaign against Making Light, calling it an “attack site,” and vandalizing unrelated Wikipedia articles that contained links to material at ML.)Sidelights, 02 July 2007: Wikipedia: still run by horse’s asses who think print is magic (PNH). Note: that discussion at Talk: Fred Saberhagen has since been archived. Link was via John Scalzi’s Whatever, same date: Fred Saberhagen Is Dead, But Not on Wikipedia.(Idiot in question: the invincibly ignorant Quatloo.)Making Light, 24 July 2007: Gaming Wikipedia (PNH).(Idiots in question: this gets complicated, but the chief culprit is clearly the vile Hayden5650, a racist nazi homophobe and known Wikipedia vandal. Significant contributory idiocy was provided by Dmcdevit and a complete and utter airhead who signs herself “Alison :)”.)Particles, 03 August 2007: Another way to game Wikipedia (TNH).(Not quite the idiot in question: Professor Luca de Alfaro, who wants to color-code the reputability of Wikipedia contributions. How? If an author’s contributions go unchanged, their reputation rises. If their material is reverted to a prior version, their reputation falls. Problems with this system are left as an exercise for the reader.)Making Light, 13 August 2007: From correspondence: Top this! (TNH).(Idiot in question: Swatjester, of course.)
Ah, Wikipedia, land of a thousand fuckups.
Talk about a good idea spoiled...lately all I hear about Wikipedia is the complete and total failure to live up to its ideal. From friends randomly getting pages deleted (such as anything webcomics-related; apparently there are certain editors who think the entire genre should be one article) to everything at Wikitruth...it's disappointing.
Disappointing, but a bit unsurprising, I'm sorry to say.
Speaking dispassionately -- I have no interest in ever editing anything on Wikipedia, ever -- Sir Swatjester needs to get a life...
Have you seen the followup on Kathyrn's talk page?
SwatJester offers an apology that includes the statement: "some of your edits were not civil either"
My guess is that this is another case of admincandonowrongitus, wherin the suffering admin confuses someone pointing out their mistake with uncivil behaviour.
I'd love to see some supporting diffs for this accusation or a retraction from swatjester.
It could be worse. Ever take a look at Conservapedia?
I wonder if our kids will have the same level of stereotyping and disdain for net-moderators as we do for civil servants?
Disclaimer: I'm speaking in cultural generalities here, not commenting on any one individual's abilities or profession. If I were, I'd point out that TNH is that exact opposite of the stereotypical bad net-moderator!
LazyComment Request:
Could someone put together a list of the several Making Light threads about Wikipedia? They're an important and useful background to this current thread.
To paraphrase myself from a different corner of Making Light:
Wikipedia and Tragedy of the Commons go together well, don't you think? Enabled by the concept of "equality" expressed by Vonnegut in Harrison Bergeron, except that the Vonnegut story is a cautionary tale.
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for learning about topics that are widely considered important, and rarely considered controversial - i.e. the kind of stuff you tend to find in encyclopedias. At least if you catch a popular page between vandalisms.
But the Wikipedia userbase is filled with this sort of self-important jackass, and the Wikipedia administrators disproportionately so. There's no process to protest or appeal the unilateral decisions made by these admins, apart from reverting their edits and hoping (invariably in vain) that they have less time and attention to spend on the issue than you.
The SwatJesters of Wikipedia turned me off the project not long after I started contributing. If there's something I can speak on with some degree of authority (not that there are many subjects where I could), I'd rather post it to my blog and get critiqued or corrected in the comments than deal with mindless edit/ego wars.
Wonderful. This guy sounds like an idiot with an agenda.
I saw this when it was just a particle, and didn't realise the target.
John@7: I'd say it's the Tragedy of the lowest Common demonominator. Wikipedia rules gives the most power to people who have nothing else to do. Last edit wins. Most allies wins. The more edits you have, the more important you are. Actual knowledge has no measurable value in the system. edit counts, time since started editing, and such, do. Adminship is a popularity contest.
Yes, Teresa put up this post before she noticed that I'd particled it already. Some precisely-coordinated, fine-tuned global conspiracy we are.
Anticredentialism is a good and healthy thing in any society, not because it's a bad thing to have credential-issuing bodies, but rather because those bodies are always imperfect, and an excessive reliance on them means that a great deal of skill and knowledge go unused because they happen to reside inside of uncredentialed people. Which leads to a hidebound and excessively stratified society.
But saying that nobody needs any special knowledge in order to write in an encyclopedia, or that it's unacceptable for critics to demand that authors demonstrate that they know something about the subject they're encyclopedising about, isn't anticredentialism, it's insanity. When Swatjester writes "Nobody needs any special knowledge, or special position, any qualifications to edit. It’s not helpful to demand that other editors present their credentials or show their knowledge", he's jumping off a cliff. While, I might add, wearing a bulbous rubber nose and big floppy clown shoes. It's not a blow against the empire, it's slapstick. The non-insane people who've invested time and work in Wikipedia really deserve better than this.
It's a quagmire.
And it interests me to know that since I did some work with Greenpeace back in the day, I am therefore a terrorist. Little did I realize the nefarious agenda hidden behind those nonviolence training sessions.
The wikiwienies strike again.
Ignorance, arrogance, and bias are certainly not the traits one wants in an editor. I'm curious as to how this fellow got--and how he retains--his position of authority.
jmniman #4: It sounds to me like this guy wants to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia...
16: precisely. Just looked through half a dozen definitions of terrorism Greenpeace wouldn't qualify for any of them. That's including the US DOD definition.
"The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. See also antiterrorism; combating terrorism; counterterrorism; force protection condition; terrorist; terrorist groups. "
This just drips of a noxious mixture of self-pity and arrogance:
Treat the admins with deference and respect. Through the RFA process, they basically pass a peer-review of their knowledge on policy. That means they likely understand it better than you do. So give them a bit of deference.
Are WikiPedia admins the last kids picked for kickball/you name the game, from all over the internets?
I like to edit military, law enforcement, and firearms related articles. To a large degree, they are free from the nationalism and polemic vitriol that plague other articles.
*snortle* Once upon a time, I contributed to many a Wikipedia article. Larry Sanger was still there then, and there was some semblance of sanity. I can think of another couple of bloggers who moved from the 'pedia to blogging as our procrastinatory vice of choice. One gets tired of dealing with idiots/ If you're ever in need of a laugh, check out any of the old discussions about people and cities in current Poland that were once part of any incarnation of Prussia. The best discussion was the one on Copernicus (Pole or German?), much of which is missing now.
#15. He passed through the peer review process, rigorous as I am sure that must be.
In all seriousness, does anyone oversee how Wikipedians conduct themselves? This one admin is a first class jackass, but I suspect there are a few other poorly socialized peers of his over there.
Perhaps it's more fitting to call it "Anarchipedia." Last edit wins boils down to "edit submitted by person more committed to winning the argument wins" and I'm not sure that's how an authoritative information source should be managed. Not that this shakes my faith in Wikipedia, as I never use it for depth, merely to locate sources, but I know school kids (mine included) use it as if it were edited by people who care about the facts.
And how does one file a grievance or complaint about the actions of knuckleheads like this?
paul@18: Are WikiPedia admins the last kids picked for kickball/you name the game, from all over the internets?
That would seem to sum it up nicely.
swatjester: they basically pass a peer-review of their knowledge on policy. That means they likely understand it better than you do.
Or, more likely, they have more weiner friends than you that helped them stuff the ballot and get elected.
So give them a bit of deference.
Good lord.
Swatjester has completely mixed up authority with knowledge. Since he's a military man, I'll put it into a metaphor he might particularly understand: He's like one of the military's most dangerous weapons: a lieutenant with a compass.
Hm, with the advent of GPS, that doesn't quite translate as it once might have. Oh well.
paul@21: In all seriousness, does anyone oversee how Wikipedians conduct themselves?
Oh, sure. It is peer-reviewed, as he said. All the admins make certain that all the other admins don't abuse their powers and priviledges.
I should get bonus points for being able to type that with a straight face.
And how does one file a grievance or complaint about the actions of knuckleheads like this?
You, uh, haven't spent much time on wikipedia, have you? For your sanity, you might want to keep it that way. Admins are not people you grieve against. Your grievance will be reviewed by other admins, who, like swatjester said, give other admins "a bit of deference."
Greg @ 22
Well, a lieutenant with GPS who doesn't realize that altitude matters too. Marching them straight over a cliff, I'd think, because GPS doesn't show that difference, and of course he knows where he is.
#18: Actually, they're the kids who think that, because they were picked first for kickball, they are entitled to get As in the advanced science and math classes - without doing any of the work.
@22,23: OK, I'll take your advice and stay well away from all of that. And to amplify this "completely mixed up authority with knowledge" I would add that some admins, specifically the heavily-armed one who ignited this thread, have confused knowledge of policy with knowledge, full stop. Knowing how to run a printing press doesn't mean you can write the books that come off of it.
I just spent some time at WikiTruth (funny stuff, there, if a little bitter) and it's just disappointing that in spite of all the high-sounding talk (like this guy's page), it's all as ego-driven as the print encyclopedias (or anything, come to that). You just can't read the bitching about who got picked to write or edit a given article between the lines.
It's just so sad when people lack the self-awareness to recognize when they're boring or annoying.
Wow, seems to be a full-time nasty. I wonder if this guy is a paid propagandist.
For those with the patience for it, the info on filing a grievance against an administrator is here.
I suspect, however, that the process is stacked against anyone filing a complaint (if only because admins aren't likely to turn on their own).
The Becoming an admin page provides much (unintentional) amusement, with lines like From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else and Although standards for administrator appointment have risen over time, several administrators are created every week.
Conservapedia, like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, is at least up-front about its bias, even if the authors consider their bias to be The Only Truth.
And to call Wikipedia "Anarchipedia" is an insult to anarchists.
Wikipedia--the Weekly World News for the 21st Century! (Sometimes.)
Thank goodness there's someone to carry on the stories about Bat Boy and the B52 that was found on the moon and then became missing again. ;)
Jon Meltzer @25: Thank you. I was itching to protest that I was the last kid picked for kickball/whatever. I felt kind of uncomfortable with the implication that we should join in the ridicule of the last-kid-picked when goodness knows the last-kid-picked always had it pretty bad.
No, no. These are as you have stated, or else they are the kids picked just before the last kids. They're the middle-managers of abuse, not the final receivers of it.
So, when is an honorary WikiAdmin going to show up and tell us how we're all wrong to diss the light and wonder of the world that is WP? Come on, all the other Wikithreads had one! (Some of them had two!)
#33, no, wait, Wiki World News!
Help me out here... which member of the Communications Committee is this user claiming to be? And why is it that some of the members of the committee do not appear to be using their real names?
Randolph Fritz: The WWN was a wonderous thing because it knew that it was ridiculous and went for it. It was a sort of Cyrano de Bergerac of newspapers. The lifeless asshats at Wikipedia are the ones going "your nose, sir... is rather large."
In the grand scheme of things, is this Swatjester clown Danton, Robespierre, or Marat? The circle jerk that is Wikipedia reminds me of no period in history so much as the Terror. It's way too disorganized to be the Show Trial of the Old Bolsheviks, and insufficiently scary to be the Spanish Inquistion. Oh, wait, I know, the Kilkenny Cats.
For me, the problem isn't the cause ("Wikipedia's culture is f'ed up"), it's the effect ("Wikipedia's content sucks").
I know the former argument is a more sophisticated line of attack, and the latter argument leads down a road where Wikipedians feel much more comfortable. ("Well, stop complaining and improve the content then!" "Hmmm, maybe *you're* the wrong one here." "Oh yeah, Britannica is just as wrong. Worse even!" "Be patient, Wikipedia is constantly evolving and improving.")
But seriously. Just pick one topic where you feel you have significant expertise: your job, your hometown, your area of research. Visit the relevant Wikipedia article. I defy anyone to come back and report that the article ranks as "pretty good." I just visited the article about Technical Writing and ye gods, it is awful. Did any technical writer contribute to this thing? I sure hope not.
#37 ::: Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)
In the grand scheme of things, is this Swatjester clown Danton, Robespierre, or Marat? The circle jerk that is Wikipedia reminds me of no period in history so much as the Terror. It's way too disorganized to be the Show Trial of the Old Bolsheviks, and insufficiently scary to be the Spanish Inquistion. Oh, wait, I know, the Kilkenny Cats.
I have a couple of Art/Literary Historical suggestions:
1. Pickleherring
2. Pantaloon
The sad thing is that Wikipedia has had a decent reputation for accurate information.... where should one go now for reasonable accurate info...
===
Regarding credentialism... I've known some people who were acknowledged by their peers to be among THE world experts in their fields.... those folks tended to a) have a sense of humor, and b) said flat out they didn't know everything/could be wrong about things/were open-minded about taking additional looks at most things.
It's the third raters who have a much stronger likelihood of spout dogma, having senses of humor that don't include poking fun at themselves, and getting huffy-defensive when challenged....
[Someone I worked with years ago at MITRE, is an IEEE fellow. I see him in the local supermarket on occasion. Last week, he told me that he'd made an error in his calculations regarding retirement income, and realized that he had the funds he needed for retirement and buying a quite nice condo in either Boston or New York City. "You, an IEEE Fellow, making a math error?! I said, my voice dripping with gratuitous sarcasm. He took no umbrage at my teasing.
When I was first introduced to Wikipedia, I promptly looked up the article on the province of Ecuador where I grew up. It was full of amazingly glaring errors. I checked the article again a few months ago, and it's now full of completely different errors, some of them much more subtle than the original set. I suppose that's like improvement.
Why bother editing when someone can just change it to another type of error? Especially since I don't have citations in print to wave around, or the patience to keep coming back and checking the article again. I go to wikipedia when I want information about pop culture--because you can always find someone obsessive enough about scifi shows to jealously guard those articles and keep them accurate--or an overview of something where I don't care much about the accuracy.
I mean, if I want a quick reference on a minor Farscape character, Wikipedia's definitely the fastest place to get it. But I can't imagine using it as a reference for anything important where I wanted something approaching accuracy.
My recent favorite Wisdom of the Crowds moment on Wikipedia was finding out that the article for Wild Wild West, a song by the '80's band Escape Club, has been proposed for deletion despite the fact that Wild Wild West was a Billboard #1 and the deletion would break the template that links Billboard #1s to each other. Once the link is broken, Wikipedia will redirect to a page asking for a new article to be written, which, I suppose, will result in cycle beginning anew.
I think Patrick summed it up perfectly in Comment #13:
"It's not a blow against the empire, it's slapstick."
Wherefore, let it be decreed to Seekers of Knowledge, it shall henceforth be known to all as 'Slapstikipedia.'
Top this!
So where's the bottom the top's looking for? [Considering all the telecom and computers, byting the bag or bagging the byte, nibbles everywhere, bit buy bit, and through the looking glass, it's wicketpedia en flamingo... ]
I, for one, am not impressed by our new wiki overlords.
#38 -- how right you are. I looked up "Harmony", and it's pretty pathetic. The discussion of "tensions" is especially lame, but the stuff that comes before the quality disclaimer is no great shakes either.
Part of the problem here is that of composing a short article as a first point of reference to a deep and complex topic. Not easy for a single competent author, and evidently even less so for a tag-team of dabblers.
"I mean, if I want a quick reference on a minor Farscape character, Wikipedia's definitely the fastest place to get it. But I can't imagine using it as a reference for anything important where I wanted something approaching accuracy."
That's just it. I would like for Wikipedia to at *least* be useful for looking up Ultimate Galactus. That would be super. But given how poorly Wikipedia performs in subjects where I do have real expertise, I can't trust it even for that. Not even for trivial stuff. Not even as a starting point.
Here's my 200 cents, as someone who spent an embarrassing amount of time on Wikipedia till 2 years ago & isn't particularly partisan about it (I think).
The way I remember it, the process for complaining formally about someone like that is the same as any other dispute: you start nicely with a Request for Comment, see if anyone bites, carry on editing the disputed material in as level-headed a manner as possible, and if he persists in being an ass, file a Request for Arbitration. If others have been paying attention to the disputed material, they will probably comment on this. Eventually the arbitration committee makes some kind of ruling. In a case like this it probably wouldn't go further than telling the guy to refrain from making edits on that particular subject and telling everyone to play nice; you'd only strip someone of admin powers if they were using the actual powers badly (rather than just abusing their cred).
Anyway, I used to read lots and lots of RFA's (eventually this took over from actual editing as my timewaster of choice) and it's true that admins are treated less skeptically than non-admins. BUT...
1) There are tons of admins - the bar is not set very high for that, as there's a whole lot of basic janitorial work to be done - thus you end up with many duds, and this is common knowledge. But ArbCom is a very small subset of admins who are (in theory) nominated for demonstrable conflict resolution skills, and it's not a Judge Judy kind of power trip, it's a rather tedious job of proposing little bits of rulings.
2) I really didn't see admins treated with the kind of deference people are assuming here. Sometimes someone who seemed like a jerk was given a pass, and the plaintiff raised hell about the Wiki cabal etc., but I could usually see where the Arbcom was coming from... the complaint started out at such a fever pitch and had already gotten so personal that the plaintiff came across, justly or not, as just another crank editor, whereas the admin could point to tons of uncontroversial useful work that he'd been doing.
I think that for every pure idiot on WP - admin or not - there are 100 people who do useful work on subject A, ditz around in an uninformed but harmless way on subjects B/C/D, and go rapidly insane if anyone argues with them on subject E.
Vance @ 45 -- that reminds me, someone else had a similarly unpleasant experience with the Minimalism article. (I think that article was posted on Making Light a couple months back, but I can't remember for sure.) To be fair, music-related subjects are probably tougher than most.
Good grief. I just looked at a page that I edited about a year and a half ago to correct several errors. My changes were well-referenced to the primary literature. Now all such changes are gone, replaced by a hodgepodge of error and omission. Most galling of all: the most serious errors utterly misrepresent my own (peer-reviewed, published, frequently-cited, made-it-into-the-intro-level-textbooks) work. It's like a community of malevolent retarded hamsters. And, yes, that's an insult to malevolent retarded hamsters.
Sorry to disappoint you, Nicole, since I'm not a Wikipedia admin, but I'll come along anyway and say...
Well, no, I won't, because hey, I said it last time and there's no reason why anyone who may not have agreed with me then would agree with me now. Also because you guys as a collective are as intimidating when discussing Wikipedia as intelligent when discussing anything else.
So I'll just say that my best work on Wikipedia has been on subjects that I had no special knowledge about. What I had, and included in the articles, were references to reliable sources. And I've never lost a dispute I could cite reliable sources for.
The problem might stem from the fact that Most Time To Devote To An Article is rarely, if ever the same as Most Knowledgeable About the Subject.
To test this hypothesis, I posit that AD&D ruleset article is sparklingly beautiful, cogent, and correct to a level that would reduce an entire random encounter of level 4 Orcs to tears. If Orcs cried.
When I encountered this through the Particle, I didn't realise just how stupid SWATJester was. After all, there is a point when self-puffery through qualifications is a nuisance, while there's a whole fuzzy area on the fringes of No Original Research which seems to get variable handling.
I mean, I can go outside when it stops raining and check the manufacturer's plate on my Land Rover. I can measure it. But it's verifiable because there are a lot of Land Rovers out there.
Mind you, just because you're an old soldier isn't sufficient reason to think you know anything special about some military topic. I recall wastching a documentary on the AK47 in which a Russian DI stated the AK47 bullet was so lethal because it tumbled in flight.
Maybe mistranslation: lots of modern miklitary bullets seem to tumble on impact.
I don't have any pieces of paper, but do you need any to wonder how two tumbling bullets can even hit the same barn door? It sounds like one of those teaching stories for children, or new recruits.
Anyway, he claims to have been on a sniper team, usually a spotter. Why should that give him any special status on counter=terrorism? He's just too low down. And besides, being a sniper in Iraq is a very narrow viewpoint,
I'm rather more inclined to doubt his claim to be a legal intern. If he's doing that, how does he find the time to edit Wikipedia? More to the point, has that claim got him into the special-status admin positions, and has it been checked by Wikipedia?
And I wonder a little why he's been let out of the army.
Zeborah (50):
I don't think that anyone is really saying that you must have great knowledge of the subject to be able to do good, useful, edits to a WikiArticle. Teresa starts this by commenting about someone who apparently thinks lack-of-knowledge trumps experts-in-the-field, and games the system to their personal ego advantage. Yeah, we can be intimidating, and we're (collectively) being a bit snarkey, but we had high hopes for Wikipedia only to see it degrade as people rise to their Peter Principle ultimate position of incompetence. Unfortunately, what a lot us us are seeing is the effort of contributing to Wikipedia (with reversion and deletion and fugheaded edits to contend with) exceeding the value that we get for the effort. Gresham's law comes into play as well, with cheap bad edits driving out expensive knowledgeable edits.
Note also that the occasional Wiki thread ends up as a collecting pot for all of our WikiFrustration. If we didn't care about it, we wouldn't be paying attention.
Teresa:
The link at the very top of the article, to Kathryn Cramer's blog, is set to go to: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/www.kathryncramer.com. Which page, alas, does not exist.
Not to be contrarian, but I like/use Wikipedia.
I’ve never bothered with an account, but I’ve added the odd ISBN number where needed, contributed a section on transportation in my town, and casually fixed typos and other such minor errors when I’ve come across ‘em.
I’ve done these as a result of my using Wikipedia. No, I’d not consider it definitive on anything, but it is good for getting a gloss and springboarding on to source materials.
As others have noted it does have strengths and failings. Controversial subjects or ones dealing with abstract or subjective material (eg arts) are typically problematic. But a quick glance at an article’s Talk page usually gives an good idea about it’s potential weaknesses.
Again though, for a a quick primer on ‘nearly anything’ who-is-that/what-is-that it’s often quite good.
That Wikipedia has officious little monsters building even smaller kingdoms of egoboo is unfortunate, but hardly unexpected. There does seem to be an increasing need for a “civility administrator” with the ability to swiftly correct innapropriate attitudes.
But they, or the occasional mindlessly misguided application of an inappropriate policy, hardly seems sufficient cause for discounting or disparaging the entire body of work.
It’s more accurate then Paul Harvey, and broader then the dead-tree encyclopedias mouldering on my shelves. That’s enough for me to appreciate it.
@26: It's David Gerard's continuing presence on Wikipedia that convinces me that it's not wholly without hope. He's a genuinely nice guy, and he contributes to Uncyclopedia as well, so he can definitely laugh at himself.
I used to do some small edits on WP, but it started feeling like trying to swim up the stream of cluelessness, so I left.
(My personal favorite of the edit idiocy so far has been the Death of Fred Saberhagen)
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/www.kathryncramer.com. Which page, alas, does not exist.And www.kathryncramer.com itself has become a Network Solutions domain squatting page.
#37: Show Trial of the Old Bolsheviks ... the Spanish Inquistion ... the Kilkenny Cats
Uh, the Kilkenny Bratz.
#26:It's just so sad when people lack the self-awareness to recognize when they're boring or annoying.
To be fair, this isn't unique to Wikipedia. (e.g., I have this terrible fear that I'm unaware of my own lack of self-awareness and I've never edited at Wikipedia.) However, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have done anything to address this.
#38:I just visited the article about Technical Writing and ye gods, it is awful. Did any technical writer contribute to this thing? I sure hope not.
It's not impossible that some technical writers did contribute, then had their edits reverted because they didn't cite what some admin considered a relevant source. (If the incident with John Scalzi is any indication, at least one editor seems to be rather arbitrary and capricious with when a fact needs citation and when it doesn't.)
This is the point in the comment thread where someone points out that the goal of Wikipedia is not accuracy, but verifiability.
Personally, I wonder what Wikipedia would be like if their goal actually was accuracy. I understand why Wikipedia doesn't want original research on their web pages. However, the verifiabilty criteria reads to me like they're more interested in ass-covering than useful information. Now, I don't think this is the intent, but I think this is some times how it's practiced. (During the Scalzi incident, the editor actually he said that he didn't care if the datum was true or not, he just wanted to be able to point to something which claimed it was true.)
If you think about it, this is exactly the sort of thing we (or, at least, I) revile in journalism. i.e, the "he said, she said" story. Maybe the standards for editing an encyclopedia and writing a newspaper article aren't the same. (I haven't thought about it until now, and what I know about editing could fill an iguana.) But they're both supposedly interested in the dissemination of facts. (Newspapers, however, should be interested in original research. I can see why Wikipedia should not be.)
As for credentialism, my experience has been that the people who really know what they're doing, or what they're talking about never resort to it. More often than not, it's the people straining to give the impression of being more than they are who resort to it. The best microprocessor designer I'd never known didn't point to all of his advanced degrees. (Actually, he didn't have any to point to anyways.) He just kept coming up with designs which were utterly right in every respect.
It's sort of like how anyone who ostenatiously pushes the notion that he's a tough guy probably isn't that tough. The toughest guys I know are also the nicest. It's almost like they don't want you to know how tough they are.
#56: It was David, more or less, who convinced me to give Wikipedia-editing another try, and reminded me that most Wikipedians are
i) Genuinely well-intentioned
ii) Not aggravatingly incompetent
and iii) Mostly invisible.
It's just the people who bring themselves to our attention who, er, deserve that attention.
Making Light: improving Wikipedia, one idiot at a time.
He has a blog in which he claims to have been getting drunk a lot lately. He also attracted favorable notice from a NYT reporter a little while back. He's 24.
These three things taken together explain a lot, I think.
JC @ 60: As for credentialism, my experience has been that the people who really know what they're doing, or what they're talking about never resort to it. More often than not, it's the people straining to give the impression of being more than they are who resort to it.
That's been my experience as well. It's not that real experts won't mention their credentials (usually when someone asks them something like, "Oh yeah? And how do you know that?"); it's that they don't pound people over the head with how expert they are because of X, Y, and Z.
I don't have enough experience with a wide enough range of credentialists (and please, may I never have that much experience with them) to determine whether they all know, at heart, that they're not really experts, and are trying to compensate for insecurity, or whether one set of them is basically insecure and the other is genuinely clueless about just how much in-depth knowledge makes someone an expert.
George @ 49: Whenever I look at Wikipedia entries on subjects I know something about and see errors, I remember stories like yours and move my mouse away from the edit button.
Michael @ 55 Not to be contrarian, but I like/use Wikipedia.
A lot of people--including a lot of people here--do, and a lot don't but would like to, if these kinds of screwups and fundamental problems could be corrected. Pointing out serious problems with a thing (such as a design flaw in a product, a group dynamic problem in an organization, or a logistical problem in a process, for example) doesn't mean you don't like the thing. Sometimes it means you care enough to want to see those problems corrected, because you believe the thing has potential.
If you read the other Making Light threads about Wikipedia, you'll see that other people point out that if the posters didn't like or care about Wikipedia, they wouldn't bother to point out the problems. It wouldn't be worth the headache.
#64: I suppose he's just throwing some D's.
If anything is well documented, it's the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor that opened WWII for the US. The US Navy has extensive resources available on-line. The first of several congressional investigations into Pearl Harbor was launched before the smoke had cleared; the reports of those investigations are available on-line.
The Wikipedia page on the Pearl Harbor attack lists the US vessels that were damaged or destroyed at Pearl Harbor.
That list is objectively, factually, and documentably, wrong. Errors include, but are not limited to, counting the same ships more than once.
Kathryn #6: The one I bookmarked as the best resource on Wikipedia's brokenness was # 8953, Grep that spool from May 5 - I must say the discussion there was rather more informative from here. That was the latest one, I think; I'm not aware of other ones, some googling should help, but I don't have the time to lose myself in them now :-)
I lasted about 3 months on Wikipedia. In my time there I got into about a dozen fights with administrators, mostly about the exercise of administrator fiat in inappropriate contexts (where rule by consensus was formulating, or not formulating, but where that should have been left well enough alone). I eventually left because I found that Wikipedians' ideas of what consensus is (as in consensus rule) were unsalvageably misconstrued to be equivalent to supermajority. Being a child of the Society of Friends, I know in my bones that this is not the case, and repeatedly running up against that misunderstanding was really ruining my year.
So I left. I don't know if there's a good way to fix the problem. I suspect not, since most folks are kind of uncomfortable with consensus decision-making and even though they give a lot of lip service to the goal of egalitarian consensus-based rule, they're really more comfortable with a hierarchical system where folks who want and have power make binding unilateral decisions instead.
I don't think that basic social issue will really ever be fixed there. Besides, the internet is an uncommonly difficult place to achieve consensus in gigantic organizations anyway.
Me #71: Oops. I see: that post was actually the first, and more came when I wasn't following Making Light. Also, this has a wiki-like quality of evolving under one's hands (comment #59 was last when I loaded the page), only without the editconflict warning...
Just makes me wish citizendium (http://www.citizendium.org) will eventually blossom again. Does anyone know how they're actually doing right now? I mean, of course THEY'LL say they're doing fine, thank you, but to me it seems like not a whole lot is happening over there yet.
Gaming Wikipedia was the other recent WP post - after that, google displays mostly comments on those threads, or 'comments by' pages.
#3 ::: Greg London I'd love to see some supporting diffs for this accusation or a retraction from swatjester.
He thinks I was uncivil for inquiring whether he had any base of knoweldge about Hugo rules or hypertext history. He also thinks I was uncivil for addressing him as "Denny," which I thought was his first name (since Denny Crane trails from his user name in small blue type).
I have no idea whatsoever why he took an interest in my entry or in me. SF editors seem to be a subject a bit off the beaten track for him. He seems to have arrived at Eastgate's entry via mine.
He seems to have a high rate of banning people. The experience of dealing with him was rather like having a cop tailgate you on the highway with highbeams on. He's a Wikilayer so he knows all the rules. My feeling is that he was pushing on me (and on Mark and on a guy in the Eastgate deletion discussion) to get us to do something he could ban us for. He was scalp-hunting, or at least trying to drum up something he could post to the Wikipedia Incident Noticeboard, which he is on a lot.
Paula Lieberman @ 43
"The 'facts' come and go so quickly here!"
The followup to Kathryn from Swatjester that Greg quotes in #3 goes on to say, "As for the citizendium remark it wasn't intended as "go there, leave here", it was intended as "If you're looking for an editorially peer-reviewed encyclopedia, that might be more what you're looking for." Judging from the sources I've seen provided today, you'd certainly qualify as an editor in the SF genre there."
Am I reading it wrong, or does that come to a grudging, "Well, OK, some Other People might call you an editor, I guess," statement?
There's a really fascinating set of questions here, related to how a Wikipedia like operation could do better. I am not sure, but it's something we (the net) need to work out. Maybe Wikipedia will evolve some good mechanisms to improve, maybe not.
I checked some of the cryptography pages, and they ranged from a bit wrong to not too bad, with a lot of not done yet. A lot of the errors I caught (in one pass) were pretty simple things.
I ought to spend some time fixing them. One issue I have with this is time, since I could be spending that time doing other stuff, like playing with my kids or working on a paper for which I'll actually get recognition. The cryptography section has a fair number of articles that still need to be written, and I don't feel like I have time to write a lot of them. A lot of times, the best way to fix the presentation of the information in one article is to write two or three linked articles. (The differential cryptanalysis entry, for example, never mentions product ciphers, which strikes me as really odd. The product cipher article could be expanded to cover enough to really support the discussion of differential attacks, and that would also help with writing the linear cryptanalysis article.)
Another issue is that I saw that some of my previous edits to one of the pages have disappeared, and I think (but I am not 100% sure) that errors were introduced in their places.
One thing that would be nice, is if there were expert consultants along with editors. You'd like something like a note at the bottom of a page saying that this was checked and okayed by an expert consultant, or checked against a neutral respected reference work, or whatever.
#58: You probably put in kathyrncramer.com without the www. My site seems to be functioning perfectly well.
)www.kathryncramer.com aliases into a Typepad account)
Dave Bell @ 52
And I wonder a little why he's been let out of the army.
I wonder why he was let in.
IIRC the US Army had a special load for the M-16 involving 2 bullets in tandem which tumbled on impact and ripped large holes in targets. I think it was specifically for going through barn doors.
Am I reading it wrong, or does that come to a grudging, "Well, OK, some Other People might call you an editor, I guess," statement?
My impression is that the "apology" was very hastily written after someone handed him his behind. He had posted a very hostile remark in an edit description 12 minutes earlier. Look at this edit history:
20:59, 13 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Pleasantville (apology) (top)
20:51, 13 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kathryn Cramer (→Hugo Rules?)
20:42, 13 August 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastgate Systems (→Eastgate Systems - please stop calling me denny. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to you that is not my name.)
. . . is he bipolar? Or did someone bigger than him tell him to apologize? I think it's the latter.
Actually, I should have let that list run a little longer. This is what he did right after "apologizing." He found someone else to block:
I've reset your block, and extended the length for 1 week, due to your blatant incivility, and obscene personal attacks written above. I'm also removing your access to edit your talk page for that length of time to prevent further incivility. If you want to remain an editor here, you will change your ways. If not, you can take your insults elsewhere. They are not welcome here. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments! Even though I'm actually an arrogant arsehole and as genuinely nice as castor oil. t's ls nc t s PNH rfrnng frm tlkng lk bckt f ccks nd cllng ppl psychpths fr drng nt t knw wh h s s wll,even as he is in the class of expert who can actually shut idiots up on Wikipedia just by saying something, and even as he has been around Wikipedia long enough to damn well know better.
Wikipedia is on the Internet and shares its characteristics. Last count (Sep 2006) there were 43,000 editors with over 5 edits in that month, and 4300 with over 100 edits in that month. Given that, if you didn't have people getting up your nose I'd be wondering just what sort of malign influence they were working.
I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else. Write for Citizendium. Or write something else that's freely reusable content if that's too odious either.
Alex #62: What's a walt? A wannabe?
A Walt is a military phony.
David Gerard (83): "I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else."
Plug a few names into Google and see.
Hi David. I really do need to get across to you WP admins how annoying it is when you suggest that we take ourselves over to Citizendium if we a re dissatifated with the behavior of obnoxios admins on WP. I got it from Jossi. I got it from SwatJester, but I would have thought you would have more sensitivity than that.
It translates to Wikipedia: Love it or leave it! And it is used that way.
I was thinking about requesting that a discussion of this point be added to WP civity rules.
Also, can you do me the favor of posting this sentiment to the Wikipedia discussion list? Admins need to understand what such a remark really conveys. (I unsubscribed from the WP list this morning and took back my own comment which was taking its sweet time getting through the moderation. I kept getting messages from at least one person who is stark raving batshit crazy, who talks about stuff like how not being able to edit WIkipedia is forcing him/her to OD on painkillers. I couldn't stand getting that stuff via email anymore.)
Also, given that a large number of the contributors to Making Light are professional writers and editors, don't you think that maybe we do occupy ourselves writing and publishing?
Kathryn #84: From Walter Mitty?
David Gerard #83: To quote one of your rules from your user page referenced above: "Don't be a dick.' Oh, and as has been pointed out on these threads multiple times, criticism does not mean that we don't think WP's goals are admirable. Equally, just because we do not spend our every waking hour on WP does not mean we have no right to comment on its manifest flaws.
Kathryn@64: speaking of credentialing: I'm a 24 year old law student at American University Washington College of Law, one of the top law schools in the nation.
sheesh
Kathryn@75: He thinks I was uncivil for inquiring whether he had any base of knoweldge about Hugo rules or hypertext history. He also thinks I was uncivil for addressing him as "Denny," which I thought was his first name
Yeah, that's standard admincandonowrongitus alright. It's a common illness affecting a great many admins. The pattern goes something like this:
editor: Did you know that your pants are on fire?
admin1: Please keep your comments on the topic of the article and avoid making personal attacks.
editor: No, really, there are flames coming out of your pant legs.
admin1: Uncivility will not be tolerated on wikipedia. If you do not desist, you will be blocked.
editor: it looks like you have third degree burns.
admin1: You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of NPA.
editor: (on appeals page): I just got blocked by an admin for telling him that his clothing had burst into flames.
admin2: well, he's an admin. I'm sure he had a perfectly good reason for blocking you. you do realize that we admins defer to other admins, right?
admin1: I blocked you for violations of wikipedia policy. If you continue causing further trouble then your block will be extended for wikistalking me onto this appeals page.
editor: but I came here before you did.
admin1: That's it. Your block has been extended for a week. When your block expires, I hope you will find a way to contribute positively to wikipedia.
Jon Meltzer @ 59
@83: I mean writing about it ... that's free content per the definition. I am unaware of examples, but if you have some I'll happily further them.
@86: Said person is now on mod. Have they been sending them privately? If so, I can't stop them ... more than one person who's exhausted wikien-l's remarkable patience has progressed to this. I've been getting their messages privately and ignoring them.
It's not "love it or leave it," it's that I see a lot of people complaining of the evils of Wikipedia and ... complaining. More "we write, you do so too, it's not like there's a barrier to entry." e.g. @78 - he's basically asking for Citizendium. If pointing this out is offensive arrogance, I'm not clear on what a productive response would be.
@83: I mean writing about it ... that's free content per the definition. I am unaware of examples, but if you have some I'll happily further them.
Given WP's deep contempt for anything related to blogs, I don't suppose I should mention I'd ever provided free content to the world about New Orleans or the Pakistan Earthquake, or private military contractors. Or that your hostess has saved countless newbie writers from unscrupulous "publishers" and "literary agents," an expertise Mr. Beback will neither acknowledge nor forgive her for.
Simply put, that argument doesn't work here. We are a highly productive bunch and do give things away for free.
Bruce @89: Yes, I know. My comment was alluding to the way said "cats" are acting as they eat each other: like teenage social-status-obsessed airheads.
David Gerard (90): "I am unaware of examples, but if you have some I'll happily further them."
Nice try, slacker. You made a comment for which you had no justification, and you got called on it. That leaves you the one with a deficit of credibility to be made up. In short: you did the sneering, you do the research.
David@90: You're completely uninformed and yet you continue to attempt to exert authority.
If it's free content you want, I've got a book on copyright that's cc-by and a perl programming book that is GFDL. I've been programming perl for years, I've been interested in fair copyright law for maybe a decade.
Jim just posted a whole bunch of first aid and emergency prepardness information under a CC license. he's an EMT.
You have no clue what you're talking about or who you are talking to, and yet you waltz in here with the typical confidence of the cocksure wikiadmins that we were just discussing. You have completely demonstrated our point.
Regarding Citizendium, see SwatJester's remark here:
If you dislike Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policies, you need not stay here. Citizendium is that way. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I did look into getting a membership in Citizendium, but they have this long paragraph you must agree to, which read to me a bit like a loyalty oath. I didn't read it in detail, but decided I didn't want to get into deciding whether I agreed with it all at just that moment. I may eventually end up there. But last time I checked, it had about the same traffic level of this blog.
Greg (95), just take it as a measure of the company in which he normally finds himself.
I guess I should add that in the wake of the BADSITES controversey involving this blog, I had some private correspondence with Mr. Beback & Mr. Wales at the invitation of Mr. Wales.
One thing I tried to outline for them was that SF and WIkipedia have a major culture conflict. Wikipedia regards itself as having long traditions established by consensus, but SF has a much longer history and also has traditions established by consensus.
Initially, I had hoped to resolve this by getting the most crucial sf materials housed elsewhere. But that won't work.
So Wikipedia is stuck with us sf people, and in sf authority is built as much on knowing what you are talking about as on credentials as such. We are willing to put up with assertions by people without credentials. We are much less willing to put up with self-satisfied ignorance, especially when combined with coersive authority.
This culture conflict isn't going away. And the collective we aren't going away either.
(One thing I can say in SwatJester's favor is at least he isn't trying be anonymous.)
#60: "It's not impossible that some technical writers did contribute, then had their edits reverted because they didn't cite what some admin considered a relevant source. (If the incident with John Scalzi is any indication, at least one editor seems to be rather arbitrary and capricious with when a fact needs citation and when it doesn't.)"
That's a fair point, JC. Actually, I could pick nits with the accuracy of the piece and its sourcing, but I'm really much more concerned about the quality of the prose. The whole Technical Writing article is a textbook example of anti-tech writing. Disorganized, pompous, wordy, passive blather. The first two sentences alone -- you could just nuke those and move on. Ugh.
Er, fine. I was invited here; if you were trying to convince me of something or seeking help in any way, these probably aren't suitable approaches to either. I'm sure that won't stop you doing it again and again. Good luck with it all, then.
I don't think he's talking our point about self-satsified ignorance on the part of admins.
David @ 100
That sounds, to me, remarkably like 'I'll just be leaving now before the door hits me on my rear end'. I'm still at a loss to understand your hostility to the people here, since nothing I saw before your first comment seems to have justified it.
"Walt"; a British slang term for one who claims undeserved military glory. It is indeed derived from Walter Mitty.
I started to put this in my earlier post, thought better of it, slept on it and decided to go ahead.
Wikipedia can be a great (micro) social engineering tool for herding the lazy, ignorant, irrational masses of middle managers, bureaucrats, zealots and other authority worshiping sheep in the direction you need them to go.
Where facts and rational argument fail, there's nothing a couple of critical assertions backed up by links to (carefully edited) corroborating articles to lend your powerpoint, memo, email a lot of weight with the kind of people who prefer to let authority do their thinking for them.
[Shuffles back onsite in time to catch Mr. Gerard's departing taillights]
[Removes lovingly-tended meerschaum from mouth]
Son, if you're going to to try that sort of thing around here, you really need to bring your best game. Some of these people have been whacking trolls and flamers since the Age of Myth.
[Replaces pipe, shuffles back offsite]
xkcd distills our entire discussion into one great panel.
Evan @ 99: The whole Technical Writing article is a textbook example of anti-tech writing. Disorganized, pompous, wordy, passive blather. The first two sentences alone -- you could just nuke those and move on. Ugh.
Absolutely. It's horrible. The sad thing is, the earliest version of the article that I can find is much better. It could still do with some improvement, but it seems that all the edits were in the direction of making it worse.
This is where the difference between Wikipedia and the scientific process becomes manifest. A process of continual revision will produce a progressively better result - if there is a metric for determining whether a new version is better than the existing version (and hence should be kept), or not (in which case it should be discarded). Wikipedia lacks such a metric.
Lance, at #104, wrote: Wikipedia can be a great (micro) social engineering tool
The problem with that one is that if you don't pick your targets carefully, one of them'll catch you at it and then the situation gets quite a bit worse than it started out.
Regarding the self-satisfied ignorance on the part of admins, I think a lot of it is fundamentally CSR burnout. They start off tending the flowers and mowing the lawn, picking up the odd crisp packet or beer can, and they end up brandishing pitchforks at anyone who even looks like they might be about to step on the grass - and it's all an incremental process, and at each step along the way they're still firmly convinced that they're contributing to the overall good of Wikipedia.
Which is probably not what they ought to be aiming at at all, of course. "Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia" is very noticeably missing from what Wikipedia is not, and the thought of suggesting myself that it should be added in is rather intimidating.
The delightfully named be nice policy, of course, means that the admins wouldn't even think about biting newbies. Therefore, anyone who deserves biting is either someone Wikipedia is best off without, or someone who's been around long enough to know better. Dehumanization: fun for all the family, FSVO 'family'. [Insert sarcasm tag here, and all that.]
Iain at #107: AFAICS, the article improvement process seems to work by some sort of Monte Carlo method. It flops around all over the place, generally heads towards the lowest energy state (best configuration, ie. accurate-useful-and-doesn't-cause-arguments), but sometimes gets stuck in a local minimum (one or two of the three, but not all).
It looks like the "Wikipedia is no more flawed than anything else on the Internet" people have a couple of powerful slogans but no bench depth.
This pro-Wikipedia worldview doesn't have a place for critics of Wikipedia who write information for the public domain or who did "just fix it" on Wikipedia, only to see the wrongness return months or years later.
Personally, I think the element of this thread that represents the largest threat to Wikipedia's Way of Life is the corruption of good articles by the motivated and wrong. If there's a crapward reversion to the mean, Wikipedia will eventually hit a steady state where articles are getting broken as quickly as they're being fixed.
(With apologies to Douglas Adams, it is possible that this has already occurred.)
Regarding a solution - it sounds to me like experts are better off writing free white papers on their own sites, which can be cited (or not) by Wikipedians.
John Meltzer @ 93
Ah, sorry, you clearly got it.
Kathryn (101), I know he's not.
If the standard for Wikipedia its advocates express is "no worse than the rest of the Internet as a whole" *, then I don't know why they're bothering. If we want a nearly impossible-to-evaluate mixture of correct information and random truthiness, we can just Google for it.
But I thought they were trying to create - what do they call those things? - an encyclopedia. For people to get information from.
* Hey, maybe that should be my new motto!
Lance Weber @ 106... You mean that Louis Armstrong didn't really land on the Moon in 1969?
"We had all the time in the world..."
I'm hoping someone out there is crazy enough to fork wikipedia and sane enough to do a good job of it.
Lance 106: that's great. I particularly like "u dont think we went to the moon why not tell louis armstrong to his face." (My period.)
Nancy 114: I was thinking that a Wiki (moderated!) of Wikipedia misinformation might be a good thing. Someone with energy would have to do it though, which lets me out.
Nancy --
Can't do a good job of it, because the process design is broken.
You get what you reward; Wikipedia-style processes don't reward, cannot register, information quality or net value. They inherently reward -- with social status -- energy over accuracy.
Information reduces prior uncertainty, and that is measurable, but nothing about that says whether or not your reduction in uncertainty was factually justified. It's the factually justified part that's truly challenging to measure.
FungiFromYuggoth @109:
Regarding a solution - it sounds to me like experts are better off writing free white papers on their own sites, which can be cited (or not) by Wikipedians.
#114 Wasn't that Frank Sinatra?
"Fly me to the moon...."
#38: The article on my great-grandfather the railroad engineer is pretty good, although it does leave out the fact that he did the initial survery for what eventually became the Hoover Dam. And, no, I'm not going to go in and fix it.
Nancy@114, I'd be crazy enough to do it. But I'd be quite happy if wikipedia simply cleaned up its act.
There are plenty of open source projects that work well, produce good results, and get the job done.
Wikipedia isn't one of them.
You could probably solve a whole chunk of problems simply by removing the "edit count" feature. if you have an edit count feature, then eventually edit count becomes more important than content quality. It encourages people to make dumb and minor edits to rack up their count, and then you get all these high count editors taking their tens of thousands of edits they've made and throwing it around as if it means something. Edit counts have become similar to gold in War of Warcraft, it isn't real, it doesn't mean anything in the real world, but it becomes important unto itself to the point that you get gold farmers running around in your simulated world rather than people just playign the game.
Edit histories are good. They help you track changes to an article. Edit counts for an individual editor are bad and wikipedia should remove any tools for doing edit counts and should make mentioning of edit counts == authority off limits behaviour.
There are a whole slew of social engineering things that can be done to improve wikipedia. The problem is that the current system rewards people with edit counts, with lots of allies to help vote for their version of "consensus", and with articles they've claimed as their own. Wikipedia doesn't make its rules based on social engineering, it makes its rules based on mob vote.
As long as wikipedia allows this mob to make the rules, they will never rewrite the rules to take their own power away. It would be like expecting politicians to vote themselves out of office.
Either the board or J Wales will decide that its better to have good articles than let this untamed mob continue to rule, or nothing will improve.
albatross @ 118... Well, that Sinatra song has already been used, in Clint Eastwood's Space Cowboys...
Has there been any indication that Wikipedia's high-level administration even acknowledges that there is a problem?
Graydon @116
You get what you reward; Wikipedia-style processes don't reward, cannot register, information quality or net value.
Pirsig!*
-----
* There is a trend that every Wikipedia discussion veers toward a rewrite of Phaedrus' dilemma about the how to define quality. I've been thinking of it as Pirsig's Law.†
† Well, there oughta be a law!
Norman@122: Has there been any indication that Wikipedia's high-level administration even acknowledges that there is a problem?
Were you here for the recent "Making Light is a Wikipedia Attack Site(tm)" discussion? I think that pretty much gives you your answer.
What I've seen, and granted I got to see the worst of the worst, the upper echelon response to accusations of admin abuse is quite similar to, say, the Bush administration's response to accusations that US abuse at Abu Graib was systemic and went all the way to the top:
"Nothing to see here. Just a few bad apples. Move along, move along. MOVE ALONG BEFORE I TIE ELECTRODES TO YOUR GENETALS! Oh, wait."
Wikipedia has a quasi-legal system and a corporation associated, etc. But those only matter if you let a situation get out of hand enough to merit a trial of some kind.
My solution to the problem of pseudonymous admins spouting acronyms at me was to let the good folk of Wikipedia Review coach me through how never to get banned. They devote far more brain space than I ever will to the ins and outs of Wikipedian policyl. (Wikipedia Review is one of those BADSITES the Wikipedian inner circle wants you never to visit because you might find out someone's True Name there and who knows what would happen then. I find WR very hospitable, much more so than WIkipedia itself or the Wikipedia email list discussed above.)
It seems to me that tin the long haul is that the sf field is much bigger and more socially networked than the inner circle WIkipedian cult (the one from which SwatJester learned the nonsense quoted in my initial letter) can ever hope to be, and that they cannot win.
Wikipedia is too big a website with too high of traffic to be truly controlled by a little cult that believes that all they really need to know can be read on the Wikipedia policy pages. Ignorance is not a virtue, nor an effective means to power. And they are further hampered by their senseless commitment to Xtreme pseudymity, in which they convince themselves that wondering out loud who someone things they are is equivalent to stalking them and sharing such info is the equivalent of rape.
This kind of nonsense is detrimental to web culture in general, but specifically it hampers the ability for the Wikipedian ignorance-is-bliss cult to organize itself. Intense paranoia breeds social alientation even within their own social networks.
In terms of traffic and public notice, Wikipedia is relatively healthy. But the social network of the inner circle is, at the moment, in extremely poor health. It can't win against sf; not because we are a conspiracy, but because we're not.
Kathryn@126:
And that's NOT depressing! Thank you. It's always good to see optimism.
Sigh. I don't recognize any of the names of the people doing awful damage to the IPv6 article, the only one I ever try to improve. All I want is for the introductory preamble to be almost sorta kinda reasonable, and it's nearly impossible to keep it from being a total clusterfumble.
I haven't been hammered by an admin yet. We'll see.
Hey, *I* used to be a Wikipedia Admin ... back when they were called sysops! Back then (in about 2002?) admins were a small group and some care was taken to see that they were people who had conflict resolution skills and had contributed quality work to the 'pedia. That has clearly changed. If I could point to a point where those changes started, it was about when Wikipedia started looking for money on a much larger scale.
As for the whole social engineering thing, um ... I seem to remember Jimbo Wales saying at the outset that the Wikipedia was partially an exercise in social engineering. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
re KC's comment about anonymity ... some of us like our Noms de Net!
Regarding #128, gotta love "Category: Wikipedia articles that are too technical"!
Recent and relevant: a CalTech grad student just released a tool for searching for Wikipedia edits from particular IP address ranges. Unsurprisingly, some of the edits turn out to be self-interested; Wired's collecting particularly egregious examples.
And now for the dangerous part: suggesting a use for somebody else's spare time.
I'm wondering if it would be helpful for people who have persistently run into this kind of trouble to have a way of posting well-sourced revisions to Wikipedia pages somewhere else, perhaps with documentation of what happened when they tried to make the same edit to Wikipedia itself. This would (well, could... well, might) have two useful effects: getting correct information posted someplace, and creating a useful pile of evidence to throw at people who deny that there's a problem.
Unfortunately, setting up the infrastructure for this project would itself involve at least several days of someone's Copious Free Time... but that aside, would it help?
I suspect that for the most part, the only major corporations or organizations that wouldn't show up as editing WP to their own advantage are those that already do it with such regularity that they know not to leave IP trails.
(I was just trying to search on American Association of Retired Persons, but the Wired traffic seems to have overwhelmed the servers.)
ADM@129: Jimbo Wales saying at the outset that the Wikipedia was partially an exercise in social engineering. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean he actually knows anything about it. You could have a kid play around with matches and explain how it's all an exercise in fire safety.
Wikipedia has been around for years, and the house is still on fire.
Good God. <looks for a bucket in which to hold my temper> Trying very hard to remain calm; please excuse any mild hyperbole or figures of speech that cannot be substantiated.
Firstly -- thank you John for your reply to me. I appreciated it.
But moving on to the meat of my matter: David Gerard came here and was, on the whole, polite and civil. He asked a question about whether people here contribute free information -- he didn't claim that no-one did, he asked a question. Some people answered, "Yes, we do." But they didn't give him so much as a chance to say, "Thanks for the information, and that's great," nor even (if you want to take the question as some kind of rhetorical denial of existence) to say "My mistake"; instead they went on to castigate him for something that he didn't actually say.
And when he called them on it -- when he said "I didn't come here to be castigated, this isn't fun for me, I'm out of here" -- you mocked him as if he was jumping before he was pushed.
He wasn't. He was jumping because when you guys talk about Wikipedia, you make this a hostile environment for anyone who happens to disagree with you in the slightest.
WikiFrustration is one thing. Nastiness is another.
If ever you have a Making Light thread about Wikipedia in which no-one tries to disagree with you, don't think that it's because your arguments are stunning the world with truthiness. It'll because people are scared of you.
Zeborah,
I'm not a very frequent poster here. But from my perspective, it read as if David Gerard came in and began accusing people of not having credentials, then got upset and did a classic flounce out when people didn't lead him gently through all the credentials they already had.
I don't know if this is what actually happened, but I can see why people would be reading his messages that way. I certainly did.
Apropos of rogue edits, someone has been keeping track of the edits made by users from Fox News's netblock. and there's also WikiScanner.
Zeborah @ 134: But moving on to the meat of my matter: David Gerard came here and was, on the whole, polite and civil. He asked a question about whether people here contribute free information -- he didn't claim that no-one did, he asked a question.
Going back to David's comment at 83, I see he said some things about Patrick that led to a disemvowelling, and then said,
I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else.
That's not a question. That's an insinuation that people in this thread are complaining without contributing anything useful. It's the usual canard about critics being useless and serving no function. It bends attention from the subject under discussion and onto individuals who then must prove that they "create something else" in order to be given a pass to the criticism lounge. That's a rhetorical device used to tamp down dissent without addressing any possible root causes.
In short, he came in swinging, and took punches in return.
Greg #120 . It encourages people to make dumb and minor edits to rack up their count, and then you get all these high count editors taking their tens of thousands of edits they've made and throwing it around as if it means something.
Something very similar happened in the CIA. Unfortunately, if I were to tell you exactly what it was in enough detail to make it clear how bad the result was, I'd have to cut off your head and put it in my safe.
Zeborah@134: He asked a question about whether people here contribute free information -- he didn't claim that no-one did, he asked a question.
You are completely correct from a purely functional point of view. I agree.
However, Gerard's actual words @ #83 do seem to indicate that there was more to his question than just the functional request for information:
I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else.
I was picking up a rather strong signal on the sarcastic modulation subband. I think it blew a speaker, actually.
For those who've had to deal with wikitrolls, the attitude of "love wikipedia or leave it" is rather common. Whether Gerard intended this sort of facism or just bumbled into it by accident, I really don't care. If he was so clueless as to not grasp the full spectrum of his transmission, he's as dangerous as someone who did it on purpose.
Seriously, what does Gerard care about my CC-BY book, "Bounty Hunters"? Does it mean he'll suddenly listen to our complaints as valid? People here are complaining about wikipedia because they've tried to contribute to wikipedia but were thwarted by editors and admins. I spent around two years contributing to wikipedia before I threw the keyboard against the wall and finally gave up. That people tried to contribute to wikipedia should be enough qualification to report on wikipedia problems.
Gerard didn't want to discuss the problem. He wanted to silence the discussion by raising the entry fee. Then after I pointed out FLOS stuff by myself and Jim, which should have satisfied his requirement for legitimacy, he stormed off.
So, I question just how functional his request for information really was.
#134: I'm not saying that David Gerard is a troll or flamer. However, the last paragraph of #83 unfortunately fits the structure of what a troll or flamer might say.
You can characterize it as a question if you wish, but it doesn't really read that way to me. The word "whiny" is pejorative and not at all descriptive of what people here were doing. The first sentence of that last paragraph may qualify as musing. However, the last two sentences are clearly imperative, nowhere near a query for information.
The overall effect of that last paragraph is to say "Quit your whining and start contributing!" This is at least vaguely insulting. Now, I'm not saying that you can't read that last paragraph as a question. That's exceptionally kind and generous of you. However, given that most of the sentences are imperative, and none are actually interrogative, a question is not the most obvious interpretation.
It seems to me that he wanted to castigate Teresa and Kathryn for being "part of the problem." When they called him on this, he made a few passive-aggressive comments, then left. Whether or not he intended to come out swinging, he behaved exactly like someone who wanted to, right down to the way he left this thread.
I didn't see anyone jumping on him. I read the responses to David as being unfailingly polite, especially given the somewhat passive-aggressive tone of his comments.
Now, honestly, it seems what he really meant to do, rather than attacking, is say, "I've read some things on this thread which reflect poorly in Wikipedia. I take this personally, and it really hurts." (I'm reminded of a Jed Hartman blog post to this effect.) However, that's really hard to do. It's much easier to attack instead.
Did he intend to post disruptively? Probably not. Could he have gotten his point across less accusatively? Probably.
Zeborah -- first post I see from David Gerard on this thread is 83. Which to me looks like a classic Wikipedia "how dare you criticise", complete with swipe at Patrick that he should know better, and asking whether anyone here ever actually contributes anything -- asked in a way that to me certainly looks as if it was intended as a rhetorical question where the answer was clearly implied to be "no". That post is very far from what I'd call polite and civil.
Please note that I did not start reading that post already inclined to see insult, as I had only a few seconds earlier read a post saying that David Gerard was a nice guy. It was his own words I reacted to.
Jim@138, I'm rather fond of my head, although I suppose there would be some consolation if your safe was nicely outfitted with a cooling system. Perhaps you could give a hint whilst I keep my brainbox? Shall we use the one time pad? Leave it at the dead drop. Chalk the usual spot when it's there. The eagle flies at dawn.
Jim #138: ...I'd have to cut off your head and put it in my safe.
Now there's an interesting idea for a followup to your jump bag articles "Essentials for your safe"
@134, I was surprised he left so quickly. If he had a. taken the time to read the initial post or b. scanned the thread, he might have clued in that the commenters here (myself excluded) are productive and generous (generously productive?) and suggesting they do something they're already doing is dumb, rude, choose your own descriptor.
His remarks and attitude read to me like an admission that Wikipedia is broken, he can't/won't get involved in fixing it as there are other similar places to homestead. It's a shame really, as Wikipedia is getting more attention as if it were reputable every day. School kids are pointed to it, my own included, but not for long.
Can they fail to realize/understand that they're handing the mantle of authority back to Brittanica, et al? If, as noted above, fundamental, easily-verified articles like the one on Pearl Harbor are allowed to stand, who will be willing to rely on it?
Or conversely, is this like Conservapedia in that the admins (the lunatics running the asylum) are trying to create an alternate universe, where ships at Pearl are counted twice and Fred Saberhagen never existed?
He asked a question about whether people here contribute free information -- he didn't claim that no-one did, he asked a question.
And people here merely responded with cordial invitations for Mr. Gerard to bring his teeth into close proximity with their epidermises! I don't see what you're so upset about. My spouse and I do that kind of thing reasonably often. It's fun!
Zeborah 134: David Gerard's first post to Making Light begins with the words Thanks for the compliments! Even though I'm actually an arrogant arsehole and as genuinely nice as castor oil. He then sets out to prove this: the first part of his next sentence is disemvoweled (I don't know whether by him or Teresa) and is composed of snarling about Patrick. That paragraph ends by saying Patrick should "damn well know better," though he doesn't say about what.
His middle para is innocuous.
His use of the word 'whining' to describe people's comments about the problems in Wikipedia removes all doubt that the message had hostile intent.
Given these facts, I find it curious that you say that he's been civil on the whole. Perhaps his civil comments outnumber his uncivil ones, but the first comment carries the greatest weight.
Reviewing his other comments, he tries to backpedal in his second one, but still conveys the message of "prove I should listen to you." His third comment seems perfectly civil to me. In his fourth, he takes his marbles and goes home.
I honestly do not understand how you can say he's been civil on the whole. Maybe you read those differently? Maybe you know him, and you know he's joking when he says those things about Patrick, or NISMW calls us all a bunch of do-nothing whiners?
I felt attacked by what he said. That doesn't mean he intended that effect, but if not it means he communicated ineffectively.
Zeborah,
This is how Nix refres to Mr.Gerard: @26: It's David Gerard's continuing presence on Wikipedia that convinces me that it's not wholly without hope. He's a genuinely nice guy, and he contributes to Uncyclopedia as well, so he can definitely laugh at himself.
And this is Mr. Gerard's response: Thanks for the compliments! Even though I'm actually an arrogant arsehole and as genuinely nice as castor oil. t's ls nc t s PNH rfrnng frm tlkng lk bckt f ccks nd cllng ppl psychpths fr drng nt t knw wh h s s wll,even as he is in the class of expert who can actually shut idiots up on Wikipedia just by saying something, and even as he has been around Wikipedia long enough to damn well know better.... I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else.
Let's begin with the silly idea that maybe one should know what one is talking about before switching to attack mode. A couple of googles should have told Mr. Gerard that these folks are as talented and productive as they come. Some of them are even published in print, bookstore sales and all. Some are academics of known standing, experts in their fields. Trying to be snide about the accomplishments of this group is silly, and the snark falls completely flat--like a six-year-old shouting nyah-nyah to adults. To persist on the behavior after some folk tried to answer calmly is to be intellectually suicidal.
Hostile environment? Because people are trying to point out problems, and responding to hostile comments in like fashion? I hope you never have to deal with sitting oral exams, or even a research review. Professors can do things to you that would make this bunch seem as mild-mannered as David Banner.
Zeborah, that you describe David Gerard's manner as "polite and civil" does nothing to decrease my trepidation over the social skills and communications ability of the broad range of WP admins. Maybe the problem is that too few of you deal with people off the web, where civility is something other than avoiding frank insult.
emma,
can do things to you that would make this bunch seem as mild-mannered as David Banner.
or as mild mannered as bruce banner!
....sorry.
Miriam,in the tv series he was called David. That's all I can remember.... Old age, maybe?
JESR #148: Right! no one would ever act this way to people they knew in real life!
emma,
oh. i didn't realize we were actually talking about the same person. i thought i wasn't getting your highbrow reference, & making a lowbrow joke.
this reveals more geekery than i display in the course of a normal day, but i am certain that in the books his full name was robert bruce banner, called bruce. & that all his suits were purple because of his clinical lack of fashion sense (this was spelled out, believe it or not).
Lance Weber, in my experience, people in 3-D environments usually reserve the passive-aggressive attack mode for people they know pretty well, or at least well enough that they know they're safe from massive retaliation in the aggressive part of the spectrum. Or they refrain from it simply because it is almost always a losing gambit.
I'm wondering at this point whether the problem of creating a high-quality, comprehensive, volunteer community-built open encyclopedia is too big for any one organization to handle. Wikipedia's problems are well described here and elsewhere. Projects like Citizendium and Scholarpedia have general-purpose ambitions, but I'm not sure if they're strong enough to scale, either due to politics or workflow. The Britannica approach worked for a long time for high-cost content, but is expensive to construct and maintain.
I have, however, seen a number of specialized groups create very high-quality and interesting encyclopedias in their particular specialties. This includes some examples from the SF community.
So I wonder if there's something that can be done to federate the work of these more manageable groups, so that you could, when looking up a particular topic, or following a linked topic reference, be directed to a reasonable article from one of them, and also see what other encyclopedias had articles on that topic. There'd be a weighting favoring sources likely to have good articles, but falling back as necessary to more diffuse or chaotic sources when necessary, or when requested.
I can imagine some protocols, techniques, and lightweight editing regimes that might make this possible. This would not be easy: there are various problems to solve, some fairly straightforward, some trickier than they might appear at first glance. But it may ultimately represent an easier set of problems to solve than trying to get it all right in Wikipedia (or any other single online encyclopedia).
JESR #153: Sorry, for being a little too snarcastic (my new word for snarky + sarcastic!) - I actually agree that the anonymity and lack of real life consequences tends to make the net a harsher place than real life.
Charles, #131: *whistle* That's gonna upset some applecarts for sure!
I wonder if there's a way to customize that software to search a blog the same way? It would be a really useful tool for rooting out some forms of astroturfing...
Zeborah, #134: If "I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else," fits your definition of "polite and civil", I think you need to recheck the dictionary. That's not a question, it's a sneering challenge, and was treated as such.
And y'know... if people are afraid of the knowledge level to be found here, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It sure beats what's been happening over in your neck of the woods, where the people with actual knowledge are the ones who have to be afraid of a crowd of playground bullies.
miriam beetle @ 152... Off-topic, but you do know about the upcoming Hulk movie starring Edward Norton as Banner and as his alter ego, right?
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6100
Miriam,
There were books? :-) Purple suits???
Amazing what one misses...
To be sober and thoughtful about it all (bah, humbug): I didn't "get" comics and illustrated novels until recently when, trying to cope with a severe bout of insomnia, I came across something called "Inuyasha" on the Cartoon Network. Now I'm looking at these things as art, and it's opened up a whole new world of, as you say, geekery.
Fascinating. Morbid.
j h woodyatt (#128): I've made what should be a completely justifiable wording change to the IPv6 article that ought to address the criticisms made by some editors. Bets on how long it lasts are not being taken at this time.
#152: He was "Robert Bruce Banner" because Stan Lee slipped up in an early Hulk comic and called him "Bob" instead of the previously established "Bruce". Immediate No-Prize! Then the TV producers decided to rename him "David" because "Bruce" was not manly enough. You can look this up on, uh ...
#113: Wasn't it Lance Armstrong? "Bicycle to the moon" ...
Jon 160: Robert Bruce, huh? Fighting a neverending battle against a hulking opponent?
serge,
hulk was one of my favourite comics growing up, & i was terribly disappointed by the ang lee movie (i was expecting better from someone who did jane austen so well). i like edward norton a lot, so i'm hopeful for this new one.
emma,
i had the opposite experience. being raised by hippies (not to say wolves), i had minimal exposure to tv growing up. so all the trashy eighties culture my peers were immersed in from saturday morning cartoons, i only experienced from their comic book equivalents. he-man, ewoks, strawberry shortcake, muppet babies, etc., i only knew in printed form.
to this day i'm not sure which of my childhood pulps had animated equivalents. top dog? planet terry? madballs?
(a nod to the topic: i could look up what-all were saturday morning cartoons on wikipedia. but i won't!)
Emma @ 147
Hostile environment? Because people are trying to point out problems, and responding to hostile comments in like fashion? I hope you never have to deal with sitting oral exams, or even a research review. Professors can do things to you that would make this bunch seem as mild-mannered as David Banner.
Amen. I am blessed in my committee who manage to point out my mistakes clearly without pulling my ego to shreds. They are not the norm, and I still am dreading my defense.
I gave up on Wikipedia when someone kept changing the articles on fertility/sex gods and goddesses to reflect Victorian social mores. The best bit was from the talk:freyja page "Uhm, you're talking to someone who reads mythology books intended for high-schoolers and over..." After that? Even though response was required and given, I lost hope in the editing process. God forbid someone come along and cite the Eddas.
"It is nice site," indeed.
Ladies, gentlemen, people we never knew were dogs,
I think everything that can productively be said to Zeborah has been said, at least three times*. Can we untangle our limbs from the pile-on and move the conversation on?
-----
* In prose. Usual exemptions apply for poetry.
Miriam #162,
Capitals please. Your sentences are visually merging into one continuous stream that takes me several readings to sort out.
Sisuile,
I remember trying to hold up the corridor wall as I waited for the decision after my orals, and knowing, knowing, I had made a right cockup of it. Finally the door opened and one of my inqui...er...examiners came out, pointed at me, and simply said "any landing you walk away from is a good landing".
I slid down the wall until I was sitting down. Then I noticed at least three or four other people doing the same thing in front of similar doors...
Ah, those were the days. Long stretches of frantic cramming punctuated by moments of sheer terror.
Brain-eating zombies? BAH. UVa history professors, that's the ticket.
#149 JC I didn't see anyone jumping on him. I read the responses to David as being unfailingly polite, especially given the somewhat passive-aggressive tone of his comments.
I was considering after the fact whether I should have written to Gerard offline. I do have his email address, though I don't think I've ever corresponded with him directly. I was earnestly trying to ask him to intercede with other Wikipedia admins and ask them PLEASE to stop trying to send people like me to Citizendium the moment we raise the issue of an admins competence to judge something in a specialized subject matter. I honestly don't think they realize how rude it is.
Further, it is my general impression that a certain segment of Wikitopia has been hoping that pesky experts would all flock to Citizendium and stop challenging their knowledge of subject areas. From that perspective, Citizendium is a failure in that it has not relived 24-year-old admins of troublesome know-it-alls like me and Teresa.
Other than the fact that he behaved like an ass toward me and toward Mark Bernstein, I have nothing in particular against Dan Rosenthal aka SWATJester. He is fixable if he's willing to learn a bit of humility: he's a bright kid, recently back from Iraq where no doubt he was taught all manner of macho posturing, and he's been sold a bill of goods by the Wikitopian clique. (I certainly wouldn't want to be held permanently publicly to account for every bit of unreasonable arrogance I emitted under the age of 30.)
Also, despite Dan having posted his perfect philosophical gem on my user talk page, we do need to remember that as far as his editing of my entry goes, and our dialog on Hugo rules, what we were actually arguing about was essentially a footnote. (Given his general position that no knowledge is necessary except knowledge of the rules of engagement, I suppose it's good that he's off to law school and not med school.) I would have left it alone and let the sf-non-conspiracy take care of Hugo rules interpretations except for his nomination of Eastgate for deletion. I took him on over the Hugo issue partly because I truly was trying to understand whether he was editing from ignorance, from malice, or from what he thought was an informed point of view.
One possible reason for Gerard's departure is that the rules of civility are different here than on Wikipedia. He would probably think them looser than WP, though that's not the case. I am here before a jury of my peers, and some of you I'll know for the next 20 years, and TNH is one of the best comment section moderators there is. It is much easier to get yourself banned on WP; all you have to do is look cross-eyed at a cocky admin, and bang. Nonetheless a certain level of candor, impossible on WP is found here.
tw,
i'm sorry. i understand, & i am one of those people who checks & rechecks for grammar to get my ideas across as painlessly as possible, but capitals are not going to happen.
#149 JC I didn't see anyone jumping on him. I read the responses to David as being unfailingly polite, especially given the somewhat passive-aggressive tone of his comments.
I was considering after the fact whether I should have written to Gerard offline. I do have his email address, though I don't think I've ever corresponded with him directly. I was earnestly trying to ask him to intercede with other Wikipedia admins and ask them PLEASE to stop trying to send people like me to Citizendium the moment we raise the issue of an admins competence to judge something in a specialized subject matter. I honestly don't think they realize how rude it is.
Further, it is my general impression that a certain segment of Wikitopia has been hoping that pesky experts would all flock to Citizendium and stop challenging their knowledge of subject areas. From that perspective, Citizendium is a failure in that it has not relived 24-year-old admins of troublesome know-it-alls like me and Teresa.
Other than the fact that he behaved like an ass toward me and toward Mark Bernstein, I have nothing in particular against Dan Rosenthal aka SWATJester. He is fixable if he's willing to learn a bit of humility: he's a bright kid, recently back from Iraq where no doubt he was taught all manner of macho posturing, and he's been sold a bill of goods by the Wikitopian clique. (I certainly wouldn't want to be held permanently publicly to account for every bit of unreasonable arrogance I emitted under the age of 30.)
Also, despite Dan having posted his perfect philosophical gem on my user talk page, we do need to remember that as far as his editing of my entry goes, and our dialog on Hugo rules, what we were actually arguing about was essentially a footnote. (Given his general position that no knowledge is necessary except knowledge of the rules of engagement, I suppose it's good that he's off to law school and not med school.) I would have left it alone and let the sf-non-conspiracy take care of Hugo rules interpretations except for his nomination of Eastgate for deletion. I took him on over the Hugo issue partly because I truly was trying to understand whether he was editing from ignorance, from malice, or from what he thought was an informed point of view.
One possible reason for Gerard's departure is that the rules of civility are different here than on Wikipedia. He would probably think them looser than WP, though that's not the case. I am here before a jury of my peers, and some of you I'll know for the next 20 years, and TNH is one of the best comment section moderators there is. It is much easier to get yourself banned on WP; all you have to do is look cross-eyed at a cocky admin, and bang. Nonetheless a certain level of candor, impossible on WP is found here.
miriam @ 162... I didn't care much for Ang Lee's movie either. Too full of itself. My understanding is that Norton is a fan of the old TV show, but also of the comic-book, and that he was involved in the script's writing. It's reassuring when someone who 'gets' comics is involved. Not only that, and not only are there no mutant poodles in this movie, but Betty Ross is played by Liv Tyler. Woohoo!!!
Kathryn Cramer @ 171... troublesome know-it-alls like me and Teresa
Great.
Now I've got Rocket J. Squirrel on the brain.
Thanks.
#67 Aconite
Wikipedia is nothing more than a committee-driven entity where the committee changes randomly and without notice, has no agenda, and doesn't have to meet a deadline. You could "fix" it, but you would have to implement some changes that go against Wikipedia's stated intent.
As for me? I've worked with too many committees to ever take Wikipedia seriously. Too often, directionless committees turn into social clubs with a regular discussion list and occasional chores. The only thing I find it useful for is a petri dish about net culture.
Which doesn't mean that I don't care about it. I just care about the debates it spawns off-site more.
Serge @ #175 "Now I've got Rocket J. Squirrel on the brain."
This is a problem because. . .?
Linkmeister @ 178... It's a problem because my wife won't let me put Moose & Squirrel on the DVD player while she's around. And her parents are here.
Linkmeister @ 178... It's a problem because my wife won't let me put Moose & Squirrel on the DVD player while she's around. And her parents are here.
#131: More stuff from Wired" on Wikipedia Scanner.
Zeborah (134):
"Good God. Trying very hard to remain calm;"Good. You do that. We'll do the same. Good firing discipline is especially important when you aren't shooting at unarmed indigenes.
"please excuse any mild hyperbole or figures of speech that cannot be substantiated."They'll be given the same latitude anyone else's speech enjoys here.
"Firstly -- thank you John for your reply to me. I appreciated it.No. I'm sorry, but that's not at all true.But moving on to the meat of my matter: David Gerard came here and was, on the whole, polite and civil."
Did you not notice that there's a section in his very first paragraph that's missing its vowels? Until I disemvowelled it, that was a coarse, untruthful, and completely gratuitous attack on Patrick, who hasn't posted in this thread since comment #13.
Is that really your idea of "polite and civil"? That's not a rhetorical question. I would like an answer.
I suppose DG's "even as he has been around Wikipedia long enough to damn well know better" was meant in the same spirit, but his syntax was too badly botched to convey whatever insult he had in mind.
Onward, then, to your description of DG's language:
"He asked a question about whether people here contribute free information --"First: that's a disingenuous quasi-quote. What DG actually said was, "I'd love to know if those whining about Wikipedia actually create something else" -- deliberately offensive, and clear evidence that DG neither read the thread nor thought before he posted to it.
He came into a weblog where the discussion threads often run to hundreds of messages, and asked whether the participants ever create free content. That isn't just rude and shallow; it's stupid. If David Gerard is your idea of an impressive writer, I'm every bit as embarrassed for you as you ought to be for yourself but doubtless aren't.
Second: The sentiments you quote are from the last and shortest paragraph DG's comment. As already noted, quite a lot had come before it. So here's a question: do you, like David Gerard, believe you aren't obliged to pay any attention to the people with whom you you interact, or read with any degree of care the written material to which you're supposedly responding? You do seem to have that in common.
In truth, I have difficulty believing you didn't notice the disemvowelled text. But if you honestly missed it, you weren't paying attention to the actual words being exchanged -- an unwise strategy in a forum where you have neither more nor less power than any other participant. If you don't believe me, just ask David Gerard.
"he didn't claim that no-one did, he asked a question."Spare me. What he did was take a cheap shot, and everyone who attended an English-speaking high school knows it. (Yes, fluorospheroids, the rest of you know it too. I was establishing minimum qualifications.)
"Some people answered, "Yes, we do."I didn't. I told him that if he wanted to have any credibility, he'd do his own damned research. Insulting us does not confer the burden of proof on us.
"But they didn't give him so much as a chance to say ...,"He had every chance to say. This is not a live face-to-face conversation, and at the time it wasn't moving all that quickly. He had leeway to type anything he wanted. What he typed was intentionally offensive and unintentionally stupid.
..."Thanks for the information, and that's great," nor even (if you want to take the question as some kind of rhetorical denial of existence) to say "My mistake";Again, he most certainly could have said it, if that had been his intention. He could say it now. He hasn't. We've been responding to what he did say.
"instead they went on to castigate him for something that he didn't actually say."False. What he said is precisely what he was called to account for. You'll find the same applies to you.
"And when he called them on it -- when he said "I didn't come here to be castigated, this isn't fun for me, I'm out of here" -- you mocked him as if he was jumping before he was pushed."Wrong again. And while we're waiting to queue up the actual quote, allow me to ask you whether you normally get away with this kind of hogwash during arguments. You must square off against some very feeble opponents -- or perhaps you don't read their messages either? That might account for it.
Meanwhile, here's what DG really said:
"Er, fine. I was invited here; [No more so than anyone else, he wasn't.] if you were trying to convince me of something or seeking help in any way, [From him? No. We were having a discussion, which he was free to join under the same terms as any other reader.] these probably aren't suitable approaches to either. [Doubtless because that's not what they are.] I'm sure that won't stop you doing it again and again. [Another badly adapted cheap shot; and I'll bet a bottle of my favorite whisky that that's not the first time he's used it.] Good luck with it all, then."I've been on the nets for a very long time. I know the sound of a retreating troll.
"He wasn't. He was jumping because when you guys talk about Wikipedia, you make this a hostile environment for anyone who happens to disagree with you in the slightest."A fine brave defense, marred only by the fact that that's not what happened.
"WikiFrustration is one thing. Nastiness is another."Reading comprehension is a third.
"If ever you have a Making Light thread about Wikipedia in which no-one tries to disagree with you,"So far, it's not happening. If it ever does, we'll disagree with each other just to be polite.
"...don't think that it's because your arguments are stunning the world with truthiness."I think we know our readers better than you do.
"It'll because people are scared of you."I know. In most cases, it's a shame.
(This blog seems to be having some outages this evening.)
One other subculture conflict that bears mentioning in the context of SwatJester's edit history is the conflict between Wikipedia admins and the exposure sub-culture. In particular, in about the same timeframe Swatjester was in conflict with me, he also banned XavierVE. (XavierVE is associated with a group trying to stop pedophiles from using the internet to their advantage. He is affiliated with the site corporatesexoffenders.com).
In terms of basic Wikipedia rules of civility (and perhaps my own) I certainly see SwatJester's point in banning him: XavierVE claims to have identified several Wikipedia editors as pedophiles, and has created a Wiki of his own where he posts information about this. Calling someone a pedophile is a pretty heavy charge. If someone is doing that, it is pretty hard to figure a way to assure civility; perhaps even impossible.
I am a participant in a private online support group that promotes exposure of online predators of a different type, so I can also see XavierVE's point of view: civility is immaterial because website should not be hospitable to Internet predators.
I know this dispute has a history, which may also be entangled with Scientology's beef with Wikipedia.
This is not a simple matter or situation. But it also does not seem to me to be easily navigated via a set of cook-book rules that put Wikipedia's notion of civility above all else.
I don't know what to make of the situation. But having immersed myself at least a little in the exposure subculture, I understand what's at stake.
Can someone like Swatjester make reasonable decisions about this? Or is some other social mechanism called for? (And yes I know about Wikipedia's quasi-legal system and how some of this has worked its way through this, but the frontlines of this is patrolled by people like Swatjester, who may possibly even be doing a good job of it, for all I know.)
*schwing* *snicker-snack* *thwip*
Abi #167: I believe the issue has now been, ahem, fully dissected (#182).
Maybe I just haven't been editing Wikipedia long enough to run into the worst of the bunch. Maybe I've just been toiling in the articles of so little controversy (directors of the Marshall Space Flight Center, various science fiction conventions, etc.) that I've only been bugged a couple of times. (Who knew "Chopper Chick" would have so many dedicated fans?)
I saw the note here about the 80s hit "Wild, Wild West" and checked out the article. It was a couple of incoherent lines of uncategorized, unreferenced text. There does seem to be a trend among some folks on Wikipedia to trash these sub-stub articles rather than improve them. I spent a few minutes tagging, writing, and referencing this article to bring it up to a level that, while still inadequate, won't make children cry when they see it.
I only wish more of the good people who spend time eloquently bemoaning the tragedy of the commons would spend a few minutes each week helping to improve them. Maybe pick a subject area (say, American science fiction conventions) to work on together knowing that you wouldn't be alone facing the "mob" should it try to act up.
I only wish more of the good people who spend time eloquently bemoaning the tragedy of the commons would spend a few minutes each week helping to improve them. Maybe pick a subject area (say, American science fiction conventions) to work on together knowing that you wouldn't be alone facing the "mob" should it try to act up.
I don't post at Wikipedia, so I feel rather Olympian, but righteous, in saying, in response to and with all due respect to Dave Dravecky III, with whom I have no quarrel at all -- why bother, if one is constantly running into folks like Mr. Gerard, who seems to wish that all clean up be done wearing a Hazmat suit? There are other ways to get useful and valuable information on the Internet than attempt for the gadzillionth time to wad through crap at Wikipedia. There does seem to be too much of it. I support improving common space, but other people have butted heads with this particular goat too may times -- it makes me wonder if the trash pick up is worth it. I'd rather wash windows.
Lizzy #186: I understand the frustration but I'm a foolish optimist that believes that enough good people working towards a goal can overcome the bad guys.
By the way, "cousin" Dave and I have met exactly once about a decade ago.
Ed, the problem is that the bad guys can ban the good guys from Wikipedia and delete all their edits.
Well, I spent some time trying to come up with a specific field on which I can regard myself as having decent knowledge. Then I went and had a look at Wikipedia's article on Richard III.
Yes, quite. I see what you mean.
I only wish more of the good people who spend time eloquently bemoaning the tragedy of the commons would spend a few minutes each week helping to improve them.
Shrug. It'd be an inefficient use of my time.
Let's say I decide to edit the entry for Joshua trees based on the last eleven years of work I've put into writing a book about the critters. To pick just one of the problems with the current entry, let's say I decide to edit the part about the origin of the popular name of the tree. Fact is, the version on that page is folklore. Might be true, might not be, but there's not a single piece of historical evidence to back it up. But there are a couple hundred iterations of the folklore online, and all I'd be able to point to, to back up my position, is failure to find any real evidence that the folklore's true.
Why should I spend my time arguing over people who don't understand what constitutes actual evidence, when I can just write the book?
Hell, I've got a good enough Google Rank that if I write more than two posts about a specialized topic, I tend to wind up in the top page of results, sometimes above the Wikipedia entry. I'm not alone in this. What's the point of spending time arguing with the Swatjesters of the world when a person can do good-faith research and some approximation of peer-review?
When I'm wandering through Wikipedia and see a quick fix I can make, I make it. Most of my changes are wording cleanups, typo fixes, and similarly uncontroversial tweaks.
Even so, I've had a four-word addition reverted with a 10-word comment that boiled down to "who cares?"
I don't bother getting into revert wars at points like that; it's not worth my time. The article can rot until I have another reason to look at it.
Oops. Sorry. Ed Dravecky. Nice to meet you, Ed.
CKD @ 159: Thanks. I agree with Berkowitz that your edit is excellent.
Ed: Maybe I've just been toiling in the articles of so little controversy (directors of the Marshall Space Flight Center, various science fiction conventions, etc.)
Go find a wikipedia article that's been the center of a long, ongoing battle. Check out the RFC lists, requests for mediation, and the arbcom cases. Find a nice hot, juicy article that has been the center of a sht-storm for a few months and is just boiling to a head.
Read the entire article. Then go back to the intro and read it again. You'll find something wrong with it. It favors one POV and dismisses the others. It's biased. It's wrong. There will be something wrong with the intro, I guarantee it.
Now, and this is the important bit, rewrite the introduction to be fair and balanced. Do this offline with a text editor, and then swap in the new introduction in one edit.
If you don't get reverted within ten minutes, threatened with some rules violation by an editor within half an hour, and visited by an admin dolling out some condescending advice within 24 hours, I will eat my flat fing hat.
Until you've experienced the wrath of the swarm, the relentlessness of the wiki-borg, you do not understand the meaning of the phrase "resistance is futile". And suggestions that maybe "a few minutes a week" will somehow slow the borg shows you've never actually dealt with the borg hive mind.
Graydon @ 116: ”They inherently reward -- with social status -- energy over accuracy.”
Greg London @ 120: ”You could probably solve a whole chunk of problems simply by removing the "edit count" feature.”
Right. Wikipedia rewards exactly the wrong behavior. How many edits you’ve made is utterly irrelevant to how useful your contributions are, and making it the arbiter of social status just encourages every MMORPG-trained min-maxer to make the easiest, most superficial changes as often as possible. If killing a [citation needed] rat gets you the exact same XP as taking on a tarrasque's worth of unreadable techno-gibberish, then why bother to do anything that requires time, knowledge or effort? Only an idiot would waste their time on the all those thankless tasks that actually make Wikipedia better.
All of which begs the question: how useful is it to have a social ranking system at all? Does having a couple hundred thousand edits under your belt actually make your contributions on the modern music page better or more important? I think not. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard of some highly-knowledgeable newbie driven off by some pig-ignorant admin. Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit policy could be a major strength, but as long as the edit count is in use, it is a hollow lie--they're just ignoring potentially useful status indicators in favor of reliably meaningless ones. I can't think of a single good reason for having any sort of social heirarchy on Wikipedia. When you’re trying to create a (relatively) bias-free reference work, ego can only get in the way.
So here's my crazy idea. In addition to getting rid of the edit counts, I think that Wikipedia could be enormously improved by limiting the number of edits users can make. Imagine that every day each user gets ten edit/revert points--no more, no less. If you care more about a particular edit, you can spend extra points to ‘harden’ your edit, making it that much harder to revert: an equal number of points must be spent to undo it. Additionally, if you approve of someone else’s edit, you can spend your points to harden that edit. I think this system would have several advantages:
-This system would encourage quantity over quality, and force people to focus on a narrower range of posts—hopefully the things that they actually know something about.
-Allowing people to record their silent approval would help lend good articles stability—-as it is now, any article is only one edit-grinding wannabe admin away from chaos.
-Reverting someone’s edit would come at the cost of making your own edits, imposing a fierce opportunity cost. Hopefully this will encourage people to work out compromises, or, at the least, keep the assholes tied up sniping at each other, limiting the damage they could do.
-It would even the odds between those with radically different amounts of time to devote to Wikipedia. Fewer disputes would be decided by who has the most time to spend on the matter.
This is just a rough sketch of an idea, and I’m mostly just curious how it will stand up to scrutiny. For one thing, if edits are limited, sock-puppetry would become rampant. How to counter that? Maybe a more fluid system, where your edits lost weight the faster you made them, would work better than a flat number.
Jon (160): You can look it up in Mad Magazine. (Something to the effect of "We changed his name because "Bruce" wasn't manly enough" while on the television in the background "Bruce Jenner wins Olympic Decathlon, declared world's top athlete")
(Am I the only one constantly misparsing David Gerard as David Gerrold, resulting in petit context mals?)
I recently came across, and now can’t find easily again, an interesting suggestion for Wikipedia–reputability by stability.
The idea was, recalled from my casual look-over, that a web of trust be built using Wikipedia article & edit stability as the criteria. Color-coding material based on this, in a sort of heat-map, would be used to communicate a soi-disant measure of reliability (? reputability?)
It’s an interesting idea, not the least as a tool for discussing what drives Wikipedia Authors, Editors, and the dynamics between them.
Under such a regime I imagine lower visibility, less controversial articles would become ‘more valuable’. As would quality writing & editing. Participation in battles would quickly burn off whuffie. Thus a possibly different breed of Wikipedians would be moderated up into authority.
It would also bring about new ways to game the system, organized credibility assaults resulting in collateral article disreputability, hot-button issues becoming too toxic for cooler heads to participate in, and evolving stories not as actively updated.
What really caught my eye was that this wouldn’t be particularly hard to do even from outside Wikipedia. Indeed I imagine some clever coder could make a Greasemonkey script that would parse an article’s history as it is loaded, reference the editors involved, and quickly come up with some first-order analysis of stability & ‘reputability’ (for lack of a more precise term.)
I’m sure there are other ideas out there for refining, or forking and complementing/competing with Wikipedia. I’m ust hoping they’re being given active attention by the senior folks involved.
Get rid of anonymity. Make it so that only people with real names can edit or even post to talk pages.
Yeah, it might force out some editors who desire anonymity, but it seems to be the key tool for users who abuse the system. Charge people a buck on their credit card to create an account, then use the name on the card, then take any records offline to keep the thieves away.
Yes, I know anonymous people make valuable contributions to various web efforts. But were they communities on the scale of tens of thousands of users? probably not.
Lance @184:
Abi #167: I believe the issue has now been, ahem, fully dissected (#182).
Indeed. It's always a pleasure to see a master at work.
divide the admins into different categories.
Janitors can revert vandalism, which is a massive wikipedia task.
Jurists can vote on whether or not subjective behaviour is a violation of any other policy, such as NPOV, NPA, wikistalking, etc.
Janitors would be allowed to edit articles.
Jurists would not be allowed to edit articles. Ever.
I've dealt with wikipedia admins like swatjester who operated in a pack. One would edit an article they were interested in. The other would come in and act as admin handing out blocks for editors who opposed their friend. On a different page, the admins would swap roles.
Alliances are massively encouraged and rewarded on wikipedia. If you have allies you can get elected to admin, you can win votes for consensus, you can stuff an RFC with votes, you can pile on the voices during arbcom. You name it.
The simple and effective way to fix this would be to disallow the admins making subjective judgements from ever editing any wikipedia articles. When an admin has a personal stake in an article, things can get ugly really quick.
The biggest admin job on wikipedia is reverting vandalism. This can be handed out fairly easily to a lot of editors. Abuse will be fairly easy to spot, and revocation of priveledges should be no big deal. a janitor can only revert vandalism and hand out blocks to users who commit vandalism.
The next big job on the list is dealing with POV pushing and personal attacks. The only way to deal with this neutrally is to be completely unattached to the articles involved. Currently wikipedia does not allow admins to use their privileges on articles they edit, but this is easily and commonly circumvented by allies who act as meat puppets for the admin, in return for the admin acting as a meat puppet for his ally on their article. quid pro quo is a natural reinforcer of alliances on wikipedia.
Remove the ability to edit any article, and give these admins jurist privileges that allows them to make the judgement calls on subjective rules like NPOV and personal attacks (yes, on wikipedia, a personal attack is definitely subjective. swatjester proved that by example)
yes, this means that jurists/admins can only operate as jurist/admins and cannot edit articles.
Yes this means you'll lose some admins because they're attached to editign some article. This, in the overall view, is probably a good thing, because in the end it means being an admin is not all power and privilege. It means you have to give up something to become an admin, to gain the privileges of blocking and banning other users. And the thing that is the cause of most problems is a biased admin working on a biased article. Disallow that by fiat, and an editor more concerned about making his article biased will be far less inclined to go for adminship to get extra privileges.
Since the big job is dealing with vandalism, and since this job is easily defined and limited, it should be easy to hand out janitorial positions to a lot of people and quickly spot janitor abuse adn revoke the privilege.
This also means that the number of admins needed for jurist duty is much smaller because they're not dealing with vandalism. They're only dealing with subjective judgement calls like whether someone is POV pushing or whether he just disagrees with another editor.
Given that jurist duty won't exactly be a huge draw for people, the fact that far fewer jurists are needed should balance out any logistics.
these are the sort of things that I mean by social engineering.
hm, you could let janitors hand out blocks for vandalism and 3RR violations. Both are pretty obvious which makes abuse pretty easy to spot. And vandalism and revert wars are probably the biggest source of work for admins currently.
The RFC's and the arbitrations and mediations and arbcom stuff is much more rare, comparitively speaking anyway.
Michael @ 197: 'twas recently particled under the title "Another way to game Wikipedia," which I guess sums up TNH's opinion on the matter.
Maybe the real problem isn't that Wikipedia can be gamed--there's no way to avoid that, better fools and all that. The problem is that they make gaming it really rewarding.
Heresiarch @ 202: The problem is that gaming Wiki World News is rewarding and easy. Limiting people who can game something to those who are very clever keeps abuse way down (and the threshold doesn't have to be high; consider the scary devil monastery).
Greg @ 200: I like it. One problem I see--it'd be pretty easy for jurists and editors to work in teams much like they do now. You don't like my edits? Let's go talk with my good friend here, the jurist. There's an easy way around that, though: assign cases randomly. Make a docket for dispute resolution requests. The jurists have to take the one that's on the top when they log in. No cherry picking and only ruling on your friend's cases. It'd also get jurists out of their comfort zone: they'd be ruling on cases where the actual content is clearly beyond their knowledge, forcing them to rule according to policy, not opinion.
Hm, the more I think of this, the more I like it. Yeah, I know it was my idea, but still, I think this would actually work really well.
Two different types of admins: Janitors and Jurists
Janitors can block users for vandalism and 3RR violations. strict interpretation of 3RR, not loosey goosey, it was more than 24 hours, but I don't like you, so I'll say it was 3RR and block you.
Janitors can edit articles like normal editors.
Handing out janitorial privileges should be easy since vandalism and 3RR violations are pretty easy to spot and not open to a lot of leeway, which means if a Janitor calls something vandalism that really wasn't strict vandalism (This is GAY! You suck! Blah!), then its easy to spot the abuse of privilege and revoke it.
Jurists make the judgement calls on stuff like POV pushing, personal attack violations, wikistalking, etc. These are rather open to interpretation and therefore give the jurist a lot of leeway in abusing their privilege and hiding it under a creative interpretation of "violated NPOV" or something.
Because of this difficult subjectivity, abuse is harder to spot. To encourage neutral jurists, and discourage jurists creating alliances of fellow jurists, a jurist will not be allowed to edit any articles. They can only perform jurist duties. weighing in on RFA's, handing out blocks for NPOV violations, handing out blocks for NPA violaions, etc.
That Jurists will not be allowed to edit articles will discourage some editors from becoming jurists. This should not be too big of a logistical problem since fewer jurists are needed than admins because admins had to deal with janitorial duties and jurists duties.
That jurists will be a smaller number makes it easier to spot jurists misusing their priveleges.
Also, since a jurist cannot edit articles, it may also encourage jurists to eventually give up their admin privileges. Currently there is no incentive for an admin to give up their privileges. Once they can block editors, they can build alliances to misuse that privilege, and then their influence on an article becomes much greater. Admins do not willingly give up power very often.
Jurists, because of their restrictions against editing articles, are more likely to serve shorter terms and then step down so they can go back to editing.
Bcomeing an admin on wikipedia is a lifetime appointment. Becoming a jurist might be a selection process for a limited term.
Heresiarch: it'd be pretty easy for jurists and editors to work in teams much like they do now. You don't like my edits? Let's go talk with my good friend here, the jurist.
One difference is that two admins can quid pro quo without a lot of work. Oh, you need a block, sure, a minute's worth of work. later on, I might need a block. a few bits of minor work for you. We can block for each other while we do large amounts of work editing our own articles.
If I'm a jurist and you're an editor, then I can't edit anything. I can block for you, but you can't repay me unless you happen to be working on an article that's important to me, and editing it the way I want. Otherwise you have to go edit some other article that you're not really interested in as payment for me.
That system doesn't naturally fall into a quid pro quo sort of feedback system.
Oh, one other thing that sort of dovetails into the jurist/janitor system:
jurists must declare any personal biases on any case they are dealing with.
Wikipedia, at least when I was editing it, had this assinine concept that editors were neutral by default. As if people naturally drawn to edit an article on some political topic would only do it for altruistic reasons.
It's a complete load of bollocks.
Everyone should have to declare their personal biases regarding an article. Then when editors are trying to hash out what goes in the introduction for the Sneetches article, its a simple matter: those editors who favor the Star-bellied sneetches get to write that part of the introduction favorable to starbellied sneetches, and those editors who favor Sneetches with no stars on thars would get to write the part of the intro favorable to starless sneetches.
As an article becomes more polarized, a pro-star editor editing a section that reports a no-star point of view would be a red flag for possible POV violation.
One of the biggest problesm on wikipedia is POV pushing. And allowing the editors who support one point of view to come in and write teh entire introduction or the entire article, and downplaying the POV's they don't like, is just asking for trouble.
Hopefully most articles don't need to enforce that sort of editing, but the ones that get combative need some way of isolating the different editors to different corners of the article.
So, to edit an article that's declared polarized, you would have to declare which POV you personally support, and you'd only be allowed to edit that POV.
It isn't perfect, but it would definitely limit article thrashing as editors try to weaken the other point of view or remove it completely from an article.
Jurists would then have to likewise declare their personal side of an article, and vote their opinion.
which means you might have to get more than one jurist to reach a conclusion. If all the jurists vote along party lines, then that's a red flag for bias.
Again, it isnt' perfect. the point isnt' to be perfect, but to remove the things that cause feedback loops that reward bad behaviour. Feedback loops cause small problems to spiral out of control. If you disconnect the loop, then it stays small enough to manage.
yes, polarized articles would still need jurists to step in once in a while, I'm sure, but article thrashing should go down, and the combat that occurs when everyone is stepping on everyoen else's writing should go down when people are segregated into their separate corners.
[Looks at the Richard III article....]
It looks like a schoolboy's history essay, doesn't it.
(I'd class myself as a Weak Ricardian.)
Greg: I like it, and I think Heresiarch's suggestion of a docket list is an excellent one. I don't know how hard it might be to implement, and I'm sure there are ways to game it, but it has that whole separation of powers thing going for it.
(This seems to be a model that is popular for trivial things, like nations.)
Greg: Citizendium also has rules on real names and division of labor similar to what you advocate above. You may be interested in checking them out (citizendium.org).
It remains to be seen whether that project will scale up well. (The fact that editors are required to endorse, not simply agree to abide by, a statement that in some important ways -- like their essay on neutrality -- is rather a mess is not encouraging to me, and I have not signed up to edit to date for that reason. I'm not sure how the politics of that particular project will develop in practice. But my uneasiness may be unwarranted, so I'd be interested in hearing from folks who've gotten more involved in the project.)
So, what's the chance that ML will be punitively categorized as an "attack site" again by one of the people subject to justifiable correction herein? It would be a shame if that were the cost of being right.
I only wish more of the good people who spend time eloquently bemoaning the tragedy of the commons would spend a few minutes each week helping to improve them.
I do. Does one assume that since I have complaints I do not put in time removing commercial spam or reverting vandalism or working to actually improve articles?
#211 So, what's the chance that ML will be punitively categorized as an "attack site" again by one of the people subject to justifiable correction herein? It would be a shame if that were the cost of being right.
My impression is that the large majority of Wikipedia admins are loosing patience with heavy-handed gestures taken to serve the interests of a very small number of admins.
Abi @167: thank you; and indeed I would never object to verse. @199: I hope you took a great deal of pleasure in it, as it would be a pity for a master's work to sadden more than cheer.
Teresa@182, I don't know whether you think I'm so great an opponent to require, or so despicable a person to deserve, such a lengthy dissection. In either case you're much mistaken.
I have always had the highest regard for you, Patrick, every regular here, and Making Light as a whole. It is not lightly that I allow that regard to be shaken, and it is certainly not lightly that I step up to challenge your behaviour. I do so because I have honestly been hurt by the atmosphere here in these threads and -- knowing you to be generally respectful of others' feelings and tolerant of others' points of view -- have sincerely believed you would want to be aware of that.
I am not well-versed in rhetoric nor in debating tactics. Wrong or right, I could never in my life hope to defeat you point by point. Despite what you think, I've never been fool enough to take anyone here for an unarmed indigene, and certainly never fool enough to wave a gun I can't handle in the midst of a force which so clearly outnumbers me. I merely spoke up in the hopes of convincing you to see (however briefly) the nature of these threads in a different light; no more, no less. That I have so far almost entirely failed in my objective does not negate my intentions.
You ask of a certain disemvowelled text, Is that really your idea of "polite and civil"? and insist on an answer.
The first few words I've only just decoded, but they're not very contentful. If I had to classify them as anything other than neutral it would be on the courteous side of bitter.
Then there's a noun phrase which is not nearly as polite or civil as "Wankerpedia" and the like, which is why I qualified my sentence with "on the whole".
Following that is a specific claim about one instance of Patrick's past behaviour which, although loose in its attribution of the motivation for said behaviour, is not untruthful in its description of it: Patrick did call one person in particular a psychopath, though he didn't explain anywhere I find readily why exactly he made this diagnosis. (In the same conversation he also called someone partially defending that person a cowardly troll. To the best of my knowledge he was wrong in both instances, but particularly so in the second; in the first, though I disagree with him, I can at least understand why he came to the conclusion.) Unless it is inherently uncivil to call someone on their past behaviour, I don't consider this particular claim uncivil.
That's as honest an answer as I can give, so I hope it's satisfactory. Your other questions do appear rhetorical, so I'll leave them alone.
Abi #167: I believe the issue has now been, ahem, fully dissected (#182).
Indeed. It's always a pleasure to see a master at work.
[Shuffles back onsite in time to catch Ms. Z's latest passive-aggressive schtick]
[Removes lovingly-tended meerschaum from mouth]
Ma'am, if you're going to to try that sort of thing around here, you really need...
[Breaks off with disturbing sense of déjà vu]
Hmm, self-righteous indignation coupled with further venom for one of our hosts. Perhaps I need to finish thrashing out that limerick after all... But if I may beg your forbearance, a higher priority is editing Mr. Nielsen Hayden's Wikipedia entry. I'm tackling the controversy over whether he's history's greatest monster, or merely the reason for everything that's wrong with Wikipedia.
(I have joked about this with my peers, but the threads at ML have made me seriously consider that these "My Wiki, Right or Wrong" people actually fit the definition of a cult. Something about the way they mobilize to attack criticism of their practices, with a brittle veneer of faux civility.)
Sisuile @ 163
Oy, I can imagine if some Wikiwanker got hold of the Holldander Poetic Edda, which changes the sex of Sun and Moon. Or Guerber's Myths of the Norsemen, which uses (e.g.) Tennyson as a source and has bits that no one has ever found any source for. But it's in print! It is citeable! It must be true!
gah.
You know, back to the initial craziness of SWATJester's complaints ... I was thinking last night that there is a fairly common analog outside the sff community -- The Academy Award for Best Picture goes to the producer(s), doesn't it? Of course, the fact that all creative products are the work of real people does seem to have passed him by ...
Dave Bell: I'm not quite sure what to say about an article on Richard III, said to be suitable for an encyclopedia, that quotes the Patron of the Richard III Society and various other Riccardians at some length, but dismisses Thomas More in one word ('questionable') without quoting him at all. 'Neutral' and 'unbiased' are not terms that leap immediately to mind.
But it's the curious lacunae that seized my attention. For instance, Rivers is stated to have been "arrested and taken to Pontefract Castle", but no more, leaving the reader to suppose that he thereafter led a life of cloistered retirement. Hastings, Grey, Vaughan and Haute are not mentioned at all, nor Stillington by name. I can't think why not. The paragraph or so on Richard's earlier doings doesn't mention Barnet or Tewkesbury, nor the death of Henry VI. One would take from it the impression that Richard was a sort of industrious and successful civil servant.
Whether one is a Riccardian or not, the missing facts are more vital than a fulsome repeat of that foolish story about him striking his head against the stone on the bridge. I mean, he was already dead by then.
mds @ 215: (I have joked about this with my peers, but the threads at ML have made me seriously consider that these "My Wiki, Right or Wrong" people actually fit the definition of a cult. Something about the way they mobilize to attack criticism of their practices, with a brittle veneer of faux civility.)
It's downright creepy, isn't it? It's the coordination of the attacks that is especially disturbing. They strategize them. They actually spend time getting together and planning how they're going to do this. Ick.
Here is a specific on a subject I know something about. Compare the articles on Abel Wolman on Wikipedia HERE and on Bookrags HERE.
Zeborah@214: Patrick did call one person in particular a psychopath,
Quatloo? The editor who reverted information about the death of Fred Saberhagen for lack of "reliable sources"? Who reverted people who had personally known Fred Saberhagen and threatened them with a block for 3RR? Quatloo, the one who basically imposed the notion that some fact that no one contested is contestable because it doesn't have an external source?
Quatloo basically said "I'm sorry for your alleged loss, but until your friend is important enough that his death can be reported in a significant independent source, he's in wikipedia limbo, and if you keep insisting on his death, I'll see you blocked for 3RR violations"
Hm, what exactly was your complaint against Making Light folks? "you make this a hostile environment for anyone who happens to disagree with you in the slightest."
That you're "hostile environment" alarm was triggered because Patrick called a psychopath a psychopath and a troll a troll, and yet that very same "hostile environment" alarm failed to launch when Quatloo threatened people with 3RR blocks for reporting an undisputed fact, when Patrick's troll misrepresented Teresa's words into nonsense, and when Gerard came in here and made his "whining" comment, just boggles my mind.
You might consider that perhaps, the sensitivity of your "hostile environment" alarm contains a bit of internal bias to it. A tad oversensitive when wikipedia is being criticized, and not just a little tone deaf and color blind when wikipedian admins act like complete asses.
abi @ 167... Can we untangle our limbs from the pile-on and move the conversation on?
I second the motion.
#221 - " You might consider that perhaps, the sensitivity of your "hostile environment" alarm contains a bit of internal bias to it. A tad oversensitive when wikipedia is being criticized, and not just a little tone deaf and color blind when wikipedian admins act like complete asses. "
I lurk here... er, almost constantly. In threads like these, you do all seem very hostile. Perhaps this is because everyone seems to be of a like mind, and it can get very intense, which can be seen as aggressive? You've certainly been making me a little scared.
Another longtime lurker. I'm not a Wikipedia partisan. My experiences with Wikipedia have not predisposed me to defend the site, and SWATJester's behavior makes me physically stressed with anger.
That said, the treatment of Zeborah in this thread is ridiculously rude. I know you all know each other, and see a lot of trolls show up. That does not excuse treating a stranger with such hostility.
I thought of just sending mail to her, but I know how much you dislike the phrase "the lurkers support me in email" so I'm doing it in public.
@214: I am not well-versed in rhetoric nor in debating tactics.
Points awarded for self-awareness and candor. Points withheld for charging ahead in an an unaltered manner anyway. An additional point removed for clumsy use of "nor."
Aconite @ 219:
Young Mr. Gerard pitched up here because I mentioned this thread on my LJ out of a sense of good fellowship.
Koneko #223: When you say 'in threads like these', do you mean Wikipedia threads, or threads in which there are many replies to someone who does not voice the majority opinon?
If the second, this is to some degree inherent in the asynchronous nature of a comment thread; people responding don't see the other posts in the queue saying much the same thing.
Back to the issue: Given the way that the same issues seem to arise over and over again with dysfunctional WP admins, I would argue that this suggests major flaws in the way that WP functions; merely pointing out that WP admins are only human is not enough. Has WP done any work on thinking about alternate procedures to ameliorate the situation? Like I said above, I think Greg's idea is a good one, but I'm sure there must be other possible solutions.
Zeborah, those who agree with the majority here generally get along very well. Those who disagree, but do it politely (my trolldar is not calibrated to the majority's standard here; I do not see the same early warning signs as many do), get along pretty well. Those who do not voice an opinion on major things but stick to the open threads and lighter conversation seem to get along best-- they can read the more argumentative threads, pick up the context for the fun bits, and go on.
And that is okay. This is a big party, but it is in someone's private space. Just because everyone's invited doesn't mean you can complain about the decor without some repercussions. Yes, the conversations will be biased toward what Teresa, Patrick, Jim, and Avram say. They are the ones in charge.
So yeah, while I agree that we pile on people who disagree with the majority-us, I also figure that it's not completely wrong. It's not my site, not my comment threads, I'm not the one doing any of the work. And since I don't perceive the same trolls as others do, I often can't defend them unless I know them or can see the misunderstanding.
#214:Zeborah, maybe it's because I've read the "Flamer Bingo" thread. Maybe I'm now reading everything in that context. However, it's hard for me to read your comment without thinking, "Hey, she's committing the bit of verbal jujitsu where she makes hay of her supposedly artless rhetoric and supposed unimportance."
Of course, there's nothing wrong with verbal jujitsu in and of itself. And we can always agree to differ on its proper use. I would say that the tone of your comment does not read completely genuine to me.
e.g. Then there's a noun phrase which is not nearly as polite or civil as "Wankerpedia" and the like, Surely, you did not expect me to take this at complete face value? While I'm happy you agree that David's words were despicable, not polite or civil at all, I'm struck by your curious presentation. (If I was supposed to get from your initial post that you meant that David's words were polite and civil but for a significant exception, I'm afraid I missed it.)
It's certainly quite admirable of you to defend someone whom you think has been wronged, if that's in fact what you're doing. You seem to have shifted from a defense of David to an attack on Patrick. (Incidentally, this sort of subject shift is also a common troll tactic.) I think that's unfortunate since the only reasonable interpretation of your argument is that calling someone a troll or a psychopath is wrong even when that person is, in fact, a troll or psychopath. i.e., context does not matter.
Of course, I feel context does matter. Note that I have not yet called you a troll (and don't think you are a troll) despite the fact that you have engaged in some trollish tactics, which I have pointed out in this comment for your enlightenment.
I hope you will reconsider this attack and focus on what is important. Some people said some things, not directed at you, which have hurt you anyways. The important thing here is not Patrick's justifiable actions, but whether you are able to deal with words which have unintentionally hurt you with the grace and dignity that you undoubtedly show in your other dealings.
I read this comment thread as a discussion as dissecting which parts of the Wikipedia social experiment are not working and how they might be fixed. But I can see how someone with more at stake in Wikipedia than I do might read it differently. For that, I'm sorry.
#217: Exactly. That's why I find SWATJester's complain so bizarre.
John@210: Citizendium also has rules on real names and division of labor similar to what you advocate above.
Aw, shoot, there goes my great idea for a patent.
;)
editors are required to endorse, not simply agree to abide by, a statement that ... is rather a mess
Hm, that is a bit odd. I looked at their statement here. It doesn't seem too bad, a bit vague. I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to get at by saying you must "support and endorse" this statement. I might be able to agree to it. But support? Odd.
It's also a bit odd that they put rules like divisions of power in that statement. I'm not sure how one can support that statement and also support changing it and/or improving it. Oh well.
They have a couple of different jobs penned out. authors, editors, and constables. It's not quite the same idea as mine, though, if I understand it correctly. I might have to read it again to absorb it.
I'd rather wikipedia fix it's ways than to fork the project though.
This entire thread points out how powerful the forces of community norms can be. By norms, I mean acceptable forms of behavior, accrual of reputation and the processes by which members attain status.
I find it fascinating that we have a great deal of disdain for Wikipedia's current community norms, spending a lot of time deconstructing/criticizing them while in the very same thread we smack down people who act outside the norms of this community (DGerard, Zeborah), demonstrating our very high dedication to maintaining Making Light's norms.
My point is that once these norms gel, it is almost impossible to change them or gain acceptance by acting outside their bounds. I would submit that the likelihood of changing Wikipedia's community norms to reflect the majority of opinions voiced here is about the same as Patrick/Teresa deciding to annoint an Inner Circle based on number of posts in open threads.
Like it or not - Wikipedia, Making Light, Slashdot, Digg, You Tube, et al have imprinted their community norms into their firmware, leaving the disgruntled and dissatisfied the equally bad choices of non-participation or forking.
Lance, the only problem with that is that it ignores any underlying committment that caused the community to get together in the first place.
If wikipedia is about creating a great, free encyclopedia, and the current rules and regulations are making that impossible to happen, then wikipedia needs to decide whether it is more committed to its original goal of creating a great, free encyclopedia, or more committed to counting edits and having admins maintain their little empires they've built.
I've seen other Free communities adjust and shift and change its strategies as they found their actions weren't fullfilling their commitments.
People aren't usually willing to change their failings until they see the full cost of what they're doing. Maybe citizendium will become more popular and give wikipedia a wake up call. Maybe Jimmy Wales will decide that a good encyclopedia is better than lots of editors with lots of edit counts and little empires. Maybe if enough people point out the utter failings of wikipedia, and the public begins to learn how messed up its results are, and wikipedia becomes enough of a laughing stock, then maybe enough people who are committed to creating a free encyclopedia will be willing to rewrite the rules and throw the bums out.
What's more likely to happen is Wikipedia becomes an encyclopedia of Pokemon/comics/TV/movies/anime/etc., with the occasional odd other article.
It's trending that way now, and the situation is likely to get worse, because the pop-culture editors are by and large not very knowledgable on other topics (but too many think they are).
I'd go with abi (#167) and Serge (seconding the motion in #222), except I don't think there is any way to "move the conversation on" -- not in this thread, anyway.
The devolution of Wikipedia seems to be a prime example of blatant human stupidity and folly -- nearly as blatant as politics in general -- but if all the discussion leads to is endless exchanges of ill will and frustration, what's the point of continuing?
Yes, there's the relief of venting, but that can get old pretty quickly. So I'll conclude this vent.
Faren @ 234... what's the point of continuing?
None at all. Of course, people are free to keep at this if they so desire. Me, I'd rather go elsewhere and wonder what if Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had been directed by Stanley Kubrick instead of Irwin Allen. (I imagine we wouldn't have had to suffer thru Frankie Avalon singing over the opening credits.)
Aconite @219: It's downright creepy, isn't it? It's the coordination of the attacks that is especially disturbing. They strategize them. They actually spend time getting together and planning how they're going to do this. Ick.
Well, now, that seems a little unfair to me. That a community would coordinate/strategize their response to what they perceive as attacks, or their attacks on what they perceive as attack-worthy, is not in and of itself creepy and cultish, is it? Otherwise we'd have to call the anti-PublishAmerica brigade (over at AbsoluteWrite) a creepy cult, too. And, hell, I'm part of the anti-PublishAmerica brigade. I don't think I'm part of a cult.
Coordinating one's talking points is just something that a community does to make their actions more effective towards their cause. There's got to be something else that adds the creep-factor. What, for instance, makes the coordinated actions of the PublishAmerica boosters creepy, but not so the actions of the anti-PublishAmerica brigade?
And is there some quality that the PublishAmerica boosters' coordination shares with certain of the Wikipedia defense team's strategizing?
I think, if anything, the creepiness factor comes from defense of the Thing (or attack on the Thing's detractors) without any concern for whether the Thing is actually defensible. Or, rather, defense of the Thing (or attack on the Thing's detractors) that is more concerned with Thing-as-tribal identity than with Thing-as-inherent-good.
Both sorts of WP defense have shown up here. It's only the tribally oriented ones, I think, that have pinged people's troll radars. No one, for instance, called Hob a troll or otherwise chastised him for troll-like behavior.
I know Zeborah from elsenet. She's the last person I'd consider a troll, or indeed any other sort of stirrer. As I said early on, I think she's wrong about Mr Gerard's posts; but I also think the current pile-on calling her a troll, and in particular a couple of impressive displays of passive-aggressive behaviour while accusing her of same, is drifting unpleasantly close to the sort of ganging up to squash dissent which we find so unedifying in the weirder end of Wikipedia.
Yes, I'm well aware that my reading of her posts would be different if I didn't already know her. That's something to bear in mind -- would you be reacting the same way if someone who posts here every day had said exactly the same things? This thread has, in my view, edged past legitimately viewing an infrequent poster as a potential troll, and into tribal identity.
(And I am about to duck out of the conversation. This because I am getting on a transAtlantic flight this afternoon, and will not be in a fit state to post anything more than an "arrived safely" on my LJ for a couple of days.)
(Pinches bridge of nose.)
(Looks at clock: important conference call in five minutes.)
(Holy Saint Isidore of Seville, please keep an eye on my weblog until I can come back and deal with this. Amen.)
#227 - Some of the first, some of the second, and thirdly a little because it's always intimdating going somewhere everyone agrees with each other on something and you don't quite agree with them.
Especially when not quite agreeing would put you up against people so well-worded and -phrased, and that you respect; as much as I love debates, I am a junior at that skill and an introvert to boot.
I might be a bit of a thicky,
but I find all this fuss about wiki
is all about fact
and how we should act
when the articles are a bit dicky.
I think there's an important difference between what goes reputedly goes on in Wikipedia and what happens in blogs. Some threads give the impression of piling on because several individuals are reacting to another individuals' posting at the same time. For example, when I read Zeborah's first message, there were no responses yet posted; by the time I posted mine and refreshed, there were several messages ahead of mine, all stressing the same points.
As far as tolerance of disagreement goes, check the Harry Potter thread. Now that was a pile up! And yet the person directly involved is still very much welcome here. It's not a matter of when to disagree but how.
Somebody please catch my runaway apostrophe...
Emma @ 242... Somebody please catch my runaway apostrophe...
Tonight, the SciFi Channel presents Runaway Apostrophe, followed by Disasterisk, and Semi-colonial Fleet, a special episode of Battlestar Galactica...
One important thing to consider about someone's social comfort level in this thread or any other on Making Light is that this place runs by rules with roots in fanzine letter columns, panels at sf conventions, and informal conversation at cons.
Nothing that I've seen here that was said to Gerard or to Zeborah is out of line within those traditions of discourse.
Wikipedia has different ones, which makes it very hard (or for me at least) to communicate in plain English with Wikipedia admins on their own tuff. I have yet to be banned for anything, but I'm pretty sure I would have been threatened with banning had I been candid with Dan Rosenthal (SJ), had I for example responded to his suggestion that we all depart for Citizendium by suggesting that he go edit the entry on Superstring Theory where his views on knowledge could truly shine.
Talking to admins in Wikipedia is like talking to traffic cops or customs agents. No jokes, no backtalk, or you may find yourself in cuffs in the virtual squad car. There has been some attempts to export restrictions about speech concerning Wikipedia admins to the rest of the web, but these attemts have not gone well.
I don't really understand Zeborah's role in this conersation, in that she seems to be standing in the way of bad feelings not aimed at her, and the post wasn't about David Gerard in the first place. I'm sorry if her feelings are hurt, and I certainy don' object to someone defending DG, but DG's character is not really a central issue of this conversation.
Faren asks, "what's the point of continuing?" regarding critique of Wikipedia.
I used to regard discussions of Wikipedia as one of the ultimate time-wasters, and thought that there truly was not point in discussing WP because there was truly nothing we could do, that its social disasters were uninterruptible, its cliques best ignored, etc. And further, it is only a web site.
I no longer feel that way. I have observed significant change for the better in the past few months over there. The power of one of the more pernicious cliques has been substantially eroded, and Wikipedians who are tired of the loonier side of Wikipedia politics are becoming more vocal about it.
The situation as it was a while back was that those who were in Wikipedia for the power-kick had managed to brand their critics as fanatics, and to some extent their critics had played the part.
Reasonable people with public repuations critiquing the situation there is what is most likely to cause it to improve. It emboldens the reasonable people who edit WIkipedia to stand up to nonsense.
That's the point of continuing.
"Respectable" people critiquing Wikipedia for its flaws do a service, in that they help damp down the marketing hype which it generates. The more Wikipedia gets regarded as a somewhat exploitative cult - disturbingly similar to vanity press, in fact - rather than a harbinger of the Networked Wealth of a New Era, the fewer people will get hurt by that exploitation.
#244--Serge, I have an interrobang and I know how to use it. Be warned, sirrah!
It's interesting that several people have talked of the "hive-mind" here, as though we all said the same thing. Although there has been a lot of criticism, there have also been people saying they use Wikipedia, and pointing out that the reason these discussions go one is because we *do* care about Wikipedia, as well as several suggestions (Greg's being the best, I think) for how to fix the site so it works. Before Mr. Gerard showed up, there were people complimenting him!
Zeborah, I think it may be a matter of knowing your limits. I love ML, but I avoid all the comment threads on posts about religion. While I might have something interesting to say, it's not good for my blood pressure.
For those with strong stomachs and wondering how Wikipedians talk among themselves I suggest reading the thread The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: Self-sensorship, how far should it go?) (sic). The victim in question is an admin whose identity was Slashdotted. (Her identity had been easily accessible via Google for quite a while before that).
For those of extreme intestinal fortitude, read this one.
Greg London's #232 touches on something important that I want to expand on a bit. Katheryn Cramer's already been here, but...the conventions that tend to prevail here have been tested for a long time (decades, in fact) and found to help support a creative community in producing works of commercial and amateur value and in allowing a rather motley crew of folks to enjoy time together creating, appraising, discussing, and using those works, and having other fun together.
They're not perfect. In fact sometimes they suck a lot, as witness discussions in the Making Light archives over institutionalized sexism and other prejudice, the problems in defining good standards of eligibility, responses of the fannish community to crimes and abuses by fellow fans, and a bunch more. The Making Light style is recognizable as a descendant of the fannish communities running back to the 1920s or so, but is also recognizable as not just like them in all kinds of signficant ways. They evolve, and sometimes there are genuine revolutions in what's accepted and how what isn't gets responded to.
Despite all, they work very well. Look over the Making Light archives. There is an astounding wealth of information, of actual research and scholarship being done, and of various kinds of fun being had.
In recent years I've come to the tentative conclusion that one sign of an actually healthy community is the ability of its members to recognize others as healthy even when those folks don't want to do things at all like the other community does - to distinguish "my taste" from "what must be". Likewise, it's just a simple sign of charity to tell people that you've seen where the road they're on goes, particularly if it leads to trouble.
That's how I read the Wikipedia criticisms here. As nearly as I know, every single Making Light regular would like Wikipedia to fulfill its potential. Virtually all of us have used it, and we'd like to keep doing so. We'd also like it to work well for people whose interests may have nothing in common with ours. And we're seeing structural/behavioral problems that we have dealt with before. Wikipedia isn't inventing brand new human behavior breakdowns; it's going sour in ways that countless conventions, fan clubs, BBSes and other organizations have before. We point this out not to glory in its collapse but to maybe help folks doing good stuff skip trouble that they can avoid, if they're willing to do the work now.
Now, the Wikipedia community may decide that the price is worth paying. Fannish groups like Making Light have decided similarly in some matters. But this attitude that folks who have a continuous organizational and social experience crossing most of a century simply have nothing to offer and must just be jealous poopyheads...that's big trouble right there. That's the seed of implosion. It makes me sad to see it. I wish it could be plucked up and tossed out, but I'm not in a position to do the plucking.
Since it seems to be a day for the lurkers to come out and play, so I'll join in.
Marc at #224 -- I disagree. I don't think Zeborah's treatment has been genrally rude. She offered a reading of the thread that did not seem to be supported by the text, and people pointed this out. Unfortunately, in an online community of this size, when someone posts something that appears off-base, many people will respond. Mostly they will be making the same points, often without having yet seen the other responses. The cumulative effect is quite overwhelming, even if each individual response by itself is reasonable.
(For this reason, when I see a post that seems obviously wrong, I tend to leave it alone for a while and let someone else respond. If it just hangs there unrefuted, I can always post later.)
Lance at #231 -- Wikipedia is meant to be a public information resource, and its community norms are getting in the way of that purpose. Making Light is basically Patrick and Teresa's permanent floating room party, and _it's_ community norms are generally helpful for that purpose.
Fidelio @ 249... I have an interrobang and I know how to use it. Be warned, sirrah!
Does the interrobang gun simply stun its targets, or does it render them commatose?
On a bit of a tangent: Kathryn, what exactly is the BADSITES phenomenon? Following your links, I see that it's explicit WP terminology; where is it described in greater detail?
(From context, I am presuming it to be shorthand for "list of websites WP Admins have designated as WP haters that should be considered a threat to the tribe." But that's not a flattering description, as it's heavily colored by biases common here. So I'm trying to learn more.)
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little @ 236: That's a good distinction. I was trying to figure out just what it was that felt so creepy about those types of responses, and using PublishAmerica (on both sides of the issue) as a test case helped clarify it. Part of it is, as you pointed out, the defense of the Thing as the Thing, regardless of whether or not the Thing is defensible. Another part, I think, would be a sense of proportion: what lengths the participants go to defend the Thing. That would be the difference between showing up on a board on which someone has criticized the Thing to say "That's not my take on the matter; here are my experience and my thoughts" and classifying a site with negative statements as an attack site and the participants as evil people worthy of harrassment or harm, for example. Even when the Thing is worthy of defense, the response can be disproportionate. And that's where it starts feeling cult-like for me: when the defense is coordinated and disproportionate, founded on the belief that the Thing is more important than people involved, and anyone who speaks against the Thing is evil.
I wrote this once, and the computer battery died.
I really hate that I can't judge my tone until after I hit post -- even previewing doesn't seem to help. Sigh.
My comment to Zeborah came across as condescending, now that I read it. I am sorry. I honestly intended to only relate my experience to hers. I do realize that people may end up in comment threads which upset them, even knowing beforehand they will be upset, for a whole host of reasons -- correcting misinformation, e.g.
*wanders off to the open thread, where the likelihood of putting one's foot in one's mouth is somewhat reduced*
The tool "Charles Dodgson" cites in comment #131 has been used to learn other interesting things, this one about the Al Franken entry:
Finding out that someone from the Fox News network changed this:
The lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken's book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the [[National Public Radio]] program ''[[Fresh Air]]'' on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was "literally laughed out of court" and that "wholly (holy) without merit" is a good characterization of Fox News itself.
intoThe lawsuit focused a great deal of media attention upon Franken's book and greatly enhanced its sales. Reflecting later on the lawsuit during an interview on the liberal [[National Public Radio]] program ''[[Fresh Air]]'' on [[September 3]], [[2003]], Franken said that Fox's case against him was the best thing to happen to his book sales.
I suppose the policy of open edit privileges means this kind of nonsense is unavoidable, but it does seem to run counter to the goal of creating a neutral "encyclopedia."
Has someone here done some editing on citizendium? After poking around citizendium for a bit, I can't seem to figure out where all the articles are. For example, if you go to an article like Black Hole, you'll see a whole bunch of red links, which are links to nonexistent articles.
Do those articles not exist in any form? Does the article exist in some unreleased form that only editors and authors can see?
If the former, then did citizendium start from scratch rather than copy over all the wikipedia articles? That seems like a bad thing to not leverage wikipedia as a starting point.
If the latter, erm, that might actually be worse. Most people start contributing to wikipedia because they were reading an article, saw something that wasn't right, and made a little tweak. If the articles are behind a firewall, then people aren't going to read them. People don't register to read and edit wikipedia. People read wikipedia and then end up editing it, and then end up creating an account.
Either way, the barrier to entry for working on non-existent articles seems to be much higher than it needs to be.
And their editor/author distinction is still a little unclear to me.
Nicole@255,
the policy page is here.
I should note that the BADSITES policy was rejected.
On the other hand, the note says chunks of the proposal were rolled into No Personal Attacks.
215 mds: "...a brittle veneer of faux civility..."
Very nice. If you dashed off that phrase without a fair bit of effort, I'll be overcome with envy.
182 tnh: I love this site. I seldom have much to add, but I visit every day, to read and laugh and learn. It's always good, but that was special.
Thanks, Greg. That clears things up for me.
I have nothing further to add here, other than to compliment Heresiarch @ 195 for using the word "Tarrasque". :)
As I said on the last thread, this is all part of the natural development of the infosphere. If somebody does manage to produce a viable replacement for Wikipedia, it will in due course grow and displace Wikipedia. (Admittedly, that's a tautology, because "viable" has to include issues like sponsorship/funding and growability.)
The scheme that Greg London is working up here (with it's contributions) seems perfectly reasonable. It needs some more elaborations, like a conflict-escalation ladder and a High Council structure (to constrain the founders and backers themselves), but it certainly could work. Of course, it also needs resources and a secure source for ongoing support! Anyone want to be an angel?
#255, regarding the BADSITES phenomenon - I am not Kathryn, nor was meant to be, but the details are here. It's a failed policy, ie. one that explicitly doesn't have the support of the community and shouldn't ever be cited. It references 'no personal attacks', but that's specifically restricted to onsite ones. I still find it hopelessly optimistic, but that's a practical rule as much as anything else - akin to mud-wrestling pigs.
Similarly, I'm not David Gerard (and definitely was not meant to be) but I'd commend this post on his Wikimedia blog to your attention. (Shorter: collaboration difficulties and the expertise problem.) Disclaimer: whilst he's a personal friend, this comment should not be taken as any endorsement or indeed condemnation of his comments here. My first comment to this post very much stands.
So, according to wikipedia No personal attacks policy, launching personal attacks on a non-wikipedia site or linking to a site that launches personal attacks, is policy violation. i.e. you can be banned or blocked. Also note that the definition of personal attack is open to "creative" interpretations.
Greg London @ 206: "One difference is that two admins can quid pro quo without a lot of work."
True. I think that your solution will cut down on the strictly quid pro quo alliances enormously. However, like you bring up in #207, there's still the ideological POV-ers that need dealing with, and they, I think, would still find it tempting to become a jurist just to babysit their pet article, relying on others of a similar ideological bent (or a sockpuppet of their own) to do the editing side of it. Trusting people to report their own biases seems idealistic at best. Putting a docket in place would eliminate the temptation entirely.
Zeborah @214
I am a little divided at my feelings on Teresa's comment. I admire her crisp delivery and style in analysing a piece of text, even as I am aware that you, the writer, are pained by it. I'm therefore a little ashamed at my admiration.
But, though I suggested that the pile-on stop, I can't say that I disagree with the gist of Teresa's comment: you were defending rudeness by pretending it wasn't any such thing.
It's not a strong position to argue from.
Lance Weber 231:
I like this comment.
#254--Serge, if you define "commatose" as "A state of confused overexcitement" then I'd say that it does do just that.
To bring this back to the main point of the current discussion, I'm someone who uses Wikipedia at times, but hasn't made much of an effort to edit any of the articles. A good part of the reason for this is that I have, in looking over edit histories, seen too much rules-lawyering and POV-pushing to feel that this would be the best use of my time*. I'm a civil servant who spends a lot of time dealing with rules lawyers, and a lot of time finding tactful ways to tell my co-workers that they've done something wrong and need to not only fix what they've done, but learn from their mistakes and start doing things differently, often with little good result. I can't see adding more of that as a hobby, or part-time unpaid work, or whatever editing Wikipedia is considered to be.
I would add that the suggestions Greg London and others have made for separating administrators from editors is simply good policy; it comes down to a matter of Quis custodet ipsos custodes?--you really do need to handle these as two distinct jobs--they call for different skillsets, and years of work in the bowels of the bureaucracy have taught me that while the quality checkers and the managers have to work together, it's not often anyone can manage to do both jobs at the same time and do them well, and do them even-handedly. Humans are highly likely to try and game any system they use, and a good system limits our chances to do this, as it's a hard temptation to resist.
*Time's winged chariot is hurrying near, and all that. I'm middle-aged enough to know there's a limit to my hours, and to want to use them well. Perhaps not enough Wikipedians have reached this point in their lives.
#267: Good point, I was entirely wrong.
Whilst I positively hate the 'suck it up' school of thought, this particular incarnation of the reverse seems almost worse, and rather depressingly binary.
Oldsma @ 216
There is a reason the Holldander in the university library gets "vandalized" every so often with a tag on the front cover- "Do not use for scholarly research. Do not cite. You will be laughed at." We aren't particularly certain who does it, but the librarians seem to object.
The prof who does the Norse Myth class has a list of "Books to Avoid" for each of his classes and commentary about why one should avoid them. Since he's generally quite witty, this list has been the source for much amusement.
Now that is a Making Light thread I'd love to see: Scholarly works to avoid citing at all costs. It would be fun and useful, with all the experts/proffesional amateurs running around here.
Zeborah, I have to say if some stranger accused my spouse of "tlkng lk bckt f ccks" on my blog, I wouldn't have just disemvowelled the one sentence but the whole post, maybe even have banned his IP. David Gerard has got off lightly, considering.
About that, I think one of the principles of this permanent free-floating party called Making Light is that the guests here are entitled to freedom from abuse, but not freedom from having to defend their opinions. Disputation is not to be avoided, but rather welcomed as a tool for testing our ideas and improving them. Or breaking them, if they are defective.
Greg at 267, the Wikipedia "no personal attacks" policy that you linked to made me mildly queasy, but at the same time, I can understand it and respect it. If one view teh interwebs as one big not-so-happy community, then personal attacks on a popular and much visited blog are going to be hard to ignore, especially if you are the person attacked. Attacks on or criticism of Wikipedia in general (its rules, policies, etc.) are both easier to disregard and easier to defend against.
I recognize that the "no personal attacks" policy might be misused by Wikipedia admins, but softening this policy doesn't strike me as the way to deal with such misuse -- not that you were suggesting that, BTW. You were not, I think.
Re: 273
(sigh) Reminds me of an article published in a scholarly journal some years ago, where the author cited a Bible translation not available to the creator of the work she was studying. Since a great deal of the article (not to mention its value to me) was based on that translation, it was very annoying to discover this.
And this was in a reviewed journal, and the author was a professor in California! Taught me the importance of verifying secondary sources - preferably early on in the writing process.
Which is why I don't use Wikipedia for much beyond, "Where is Andorra, anyway?" and "So whatever did happen to Jean Grey?" It would be nice if it were more reliable, but if you have to be careful with peer-reviewed papers, I don't know what you could do about something organized like that is.
Oh, and Greg, I'd think about having two classes of editor in your scheme - one for content, and one for style.
I started to wonder what was motivating my intensity on this topic. Bruce's excellent comments on the collective leadership and experience (#252) could be applied to any failing community, so why do I care more about the decline of Wikipedia versus, say, Slashdot? I realized there was a deeper more passionate reason in this particular case and I suspect it applies to many of us here.
I'm an optimist at heart, a dreamer and free-thinker who values knowledge and learning above almost anything else. Like all great strengths, it is also a great weakness. I was seduced by visions of Wikipedia as Encyclopedia Galactica in all its Golden Age of Science Fiction glory. Now that those visions have been shattered by harsh human reality, my disillusionment is that much more profound, hence my disdain and harsh judgement of the wikipedians. This judgement, no matter how well deserved, is as much my own fault as it is theirs and I'll own that.
I wouldn't have come to this introspection without the dialog here, it's one of the reasons I lurk so regularly (yes, I need to commit to decloaking more often).
Thanks for, well, making light.
Ed@253:
You have a good point, and I did overreact a little. The general response looked like an escalating response to a de-escalating one, and gave the impression of a pile-on. I probably escalated some in my reply, for which I apologize. The point many have made about the amplifying effect of response lag is well taken, as well.
I was struck by the Badsites proposal's repeated mention of "Wikipedians," that being the class of persons the proposal was intended to protect. Its concept of a Wikipedian is at odds with Wikipedia's prime directive. If anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn't that make everyone who interacts with Wikipedia a Wikipedian? But that can't be the sense of the word intended by the Badsites proposal. They'd be obliged to keep track of half the Internet, which is clearly impossible.
I think it was talking about people who self-identify as Wikipedians, and are in a position to invoke and enforce the (draconian!) provisions of the Badsites proposal. That's not the everyday users and occasional writers and editors. That's the administrative community. And while the proposal in theory covers various kinds of harassment, it's primarily focused on preserving the anonymity of Wikipedian pseudonyms.
If I behaved myself like some of those guys, I wouldn't want to be outed either.
276- Those are my uses for wikipedia. Also, studying for IDs on exams. "When the hell did Osman II live and why should I care again? - Oh yeah. Early 17thc. and he disliked coffee and the Poles." It's a good place to remind me of some of the high points while I'm studying.
I've got one article getting published that will be much more solid when I get footnotes in it and cleaned up. At this point, I am well aware of *all* its issues, including some poor scholarship on my part. I tried to refrain from using secondary sources as much as possible, though, which is both easier and harder when dealing with renaissance textiles and creates its own pitfalls. But it does mean that I'm not dealing with the situation that you discribe.
Abi's a better human being than I am. Must try harder.
If I were going to articulate a rule that covers both the aversion to rudeness, and the expectation that participants can (when appropriate) defend their own opinions, it would be that words matter.
Ascertainable meaning that passes from one person to another is something of a miracle. There's not much I'd trade for that.
Kathryn 245: Dan Rosenthal (SJ)
No WAY is that guy a Jesuit.
Margaret@276:
"I'd think about having two classes of editor in your scheme - one for content, and one for style."
I second that suggestion. I've had plenty of negative experience with copyeditors who are perfectly qualified to correct spelling, grammar and other technical errors, but get out of their depth when they take it upon themselves to "correct" reportage or factual information that they do not have the knowledge to appropriately edit.
Permit me a tangent: I worked for a company (which I shall leave nameless) where a very immature early-20s guy was given blanket authority as a copyeditor to demand things far beyond what the role should have allowed (and as a guy now working as a newspaper editor who started as a copyeditor, I know where the boundaries should be). He sent out a weekly style-guide email to everyone in the company, with the bosses' blessing, that included tips like not misusing a particular grammar error (I forget what) or he'd "get so mad I want to RIP MY HEAD OFF AND THROW IT AT YOU!" (I'm paraphrasing, but the gist and the all-caps bullying is accurate.) The experience was incredibly frustrating. He was really a very smart guy, and usually right about style issues, but he extended that to think he could call himself an expert on everything else, and he was often a real jerk about it. The company later imploded, I think in no small part because it did things like that. The Wikipedia troll-editors (who I'm sure are a small percentage of all Wiki editors, but a loud percentage) remind me a lot of this guy.
Also, I think the notion of letting Wikipedia editors be anonymous or pseudonymous is a very bad idea, despite the fact that I am posting here pseudonymously. My real name is on the pages of everything I write for my paid gigs, in part because that puts a greater emphasis on the fact that what's in those pages is my responsibility.
Teresa @281
Abi's a better human being than I am.
Abi's a different human being than you are, with different weaknesses - quite serious ones - and gifts. Abi would give her eyeteeth to write like you, or to have your intellectual strength and rigour.*
Must try harder.
You're right. Abi must.
-----
* Abi is now stuck in the mode of writing about herself in the third person. Send rescue.
I'm not a frequent poster, though I'm a consistent reader. I hope I'm not about to make an ass of myself.
Someday someone needs to teach a course on being sociable on the internet while still having opinions. It's a long, slow process... learning to avoid pejoratives and absolutes. Learning when to argue and when to ignore. In my other internet lives I am an old greybeard, and the master of tactful phrasing. Here I'm but a babe in the woods, and have put my foot in on several occasions. I think one of the fundamental problems with Wikipedia is not that many admins haven't graduated from such a course, but rather than they don't even admit that one would be useful. They're not even trying.
And that may be one of the issues here, really.
Honestly Zeborah, I really don't understand your posts here. But I do know one thing: people here aren't denying your right to disagree, and they're not criticizing you for disagreeing. They're criticizing you for being discourteous while doing so.
I'd like to tell a little story, and drop some internet experience. Take this not as an attack on you, but an effort to give a general set of instructions to people who would venture into somewhere where something you like or love is being maligned, and hope to stem the tide or bring up the positive.
Another community I belong to often comes under attack. Let's say I'm part of a club called the SFCA (made up name). This club has kicked people out in the past, or others have left over policy arguments, so there are some people who feel the SFCA are a bunch of jerks, and seek to establish that as a fact on the internets. When that happens, I try to appear on the attack thread as the first representative of my community.
I usually say something in they key of "Hey folks. The SFCA is really not as bad as anyone says. If you have specific problems, please let me know, and I'll pass them along appropriately. Yes _____, ______ and ______ are concerns, but unless we have specific names and references, we can't really do a lot about it."
If there are legitimate complaints, or anything I've personally encountered, I make sure to acknowledge at least some of them. If there are actual flaws that I am in a position to report to important people, I do so.
I usually try to end on a joke. And you know what? 80% of the time the people trying to spread negativity against the SFCA are left flabbergasted, the neutral people start saying things like "oh, so the SFCA are monsters, are they? Full of bile and hatred? Yeah, reaaaaaaaaaal scary." And generally the problem goes away, or is in some way reduced.
The problem gets WORSE when someone like David Gerard gets there first, and says to our detractors. "The SFCA is better rid of scum like you. Why don't you whiners go start your own club where you ________ each other's _______ all day."
When this happens, the "First Mistake and Thing That Will Make Sure it All Goes Wrong" is to defend the David Gerard. My choices are to 1. confront him privately asking him to rephrase 2. ignore him as best I can 3. publicly distance myself from his statement and make my own. Our pre-existing relationship (or lack of one) will determine which action I take.
Basically... if someone had appeared here and made a positive case for Wikipedia that did not involve putting down the people with legitimate complaints and defending people who had already acted negatively, I don't think there would be a pile on. It's a hard lesson to learn on the internet. But most lessons about dealing with people and organizations are hard, and a good number are learned with a bit of pain and embarrassment (for more information see: everyone in the world's high school experience).
Something else: context matters. Not all insults are equal. Calling someone who punched you in the face for no reason a "jerkwad" is more acceptable then calling someone who says they don't like your favorite TV show a "jerkwad." It is one thing to stand on your home turf and vent against someone specific who has caused great pain to a friend. It is another to barge into someone else's home and make a blanket statement against anyone who complains about your pet project.
There are a thousand more nuances to those particular posts and exchanges, based on past history, action, other rudeness, the value of a good introduction... I could go on. It's all very fascinating socially.
It's all well and good to admit you don't understand how social systems and debates work, or to claim that you cannot stomach any insults leveled against anyone associated with projects you hold dear. But that will not help you survive here.
I have traveled the internets as a member of its native generation, and I have only ever been involved in one community that was more welcoming and kind than Making Light. It was the community for Pinky St, a certain variety of Japanese doll. However, there was a catch to the welcoming kindness... a limitation. One day one girl tried to create a thread on the topic "Who is your least favorite Pinky design?" The topic was locked, with the idea that someone's favorite doll being insulted might lead to hurt feelings.
It was totally appropriate to the site's purpose and current style. But that's what you get when calling a troll a troll is seen as being rude, or when saying you don't like something is seen as cruelty. That's not what Making Light is about, thank goodness. Take context, roll a little, when you get out of hand admit that you have been out of hand.
This doesn't mean you have to back down, or go away. It just means you have to think that there might actually be something that's not coming through in the phrasing... ask a friend "does this sound ok to you?" Reread everything you write three times. Find a way to say it more levelly, and you will be listened to. It's not about playing by the rules or agreeing with the prevailing opinions, it's about communicating.
Abi #284: One would send the third-person rescue squad, but one understands that the squad is still working on Bob Dole.
#253 Ed:
Proposed rule-of-thumb for a pile-on: When you see something that p-sses you off, you aren't the first commenter to say something, and you're pretty sure many others will also react this way, roll a 10-sided die (yes, I'm geeky enough to want to write that as d10). If the result is a 9, post. Otherwise, say nothing.
This is only partly a joke. Distributed pileons are a big problem in this kind of community, and not posting to something that makes you mad when you think there are other peopel who will respond about as well might decrease them.
albatross @ 287
I think there's a store at my friendly local mall that has them, and it's also 'mall and cat visitation' this evening. Something to look for, and forward to!
albatross: My own version of that would be to roll a 20-sided die and wait that many minutes before hitting F5/Refresh and then, if the point still needs making, making that point.
Leah's words here are wise: But I do know one thing: people here aren't denying your right to disagree, and they're not criticizing you for disagreeing. They're criticizing you for being discourteous while doing so. I would further submit that anyone who wants not to be mistaken for a troll must, must, must come to some level of proficiency in differentiating these things. Because actual bona fide trolls act as if they can't, and the strife this inevitably causes is their deliberate aim.
#255: BADSITES refers to this WP policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES
I gather that the policy didn't really get a through hearing until after the Making Light situation in which this blog was designated a BADSITE. After a more transparent discussion, the policy was apparently rejected. (I haven't been following this closely and so my have mangled the details. Despite its rejection, there remains a contingent that would like to behave as though it were still in play.
TNH in #279: If I behaved myself like some of those guys, I wouldn't want to be outed either.
Anonymity is disinhibiting. And because of that, the choice to live under a pseudonym can be a one way street until soneone outs the person or the person accidentally outs herself (ala Tiptree).
I am pleased to say that our boy SwatJester told the NYT some time ago that his name is Dan Rosenthal, and hence has not at least fallen prey to that particuar bit of groupthink.
I can't match Fragano, but how about haiku?
Revert my edit
ban me for a week or two
I've still got your vowels
or maybe
Wikipedia
comment thread on Making Light
Disemvowelment
Kathryn #290:
The hard thing is that anonymity* is disinhibiting in both good and bad ways. You're not inhibited from telling the world you're gay, but you're also not inhibited from showing the world you're a jerk.
* Really pseudonymity, right?
Something I try to do, and fail at, far too often (there's always the "Ready, Go, Set" problem in any action I take) is to differentiate between being touchy and being sensitive. Touchy is knowing how I feel about something someone else has said,and replying based on that, sensitive is being aware of how others are responding to my words and trying to change my form of expression to produce the effect I intend.
Part of being sensitive is choosing context; interrupting an ongoing conversation, even a group I'm a member of is the subject of that conversation, and being accusatory, is not likely to convince anyone to my side.
Shorter JESR: I agree with Leah Miller, and call that "knowing the difference between being touchy and being sensitive."
People have made far too many comments for me to address points individually. This is probably a good thing; I always get hopelessly tangled when I try to do that.
I've made three posts in this thread. I've just reread them again. The word "nastiness" was the wrong choice. Not being really explicit from the start that I agree that David Gerard's offensive remark was most deserving of being disemvowelled was foolish. For these, and for all other offense I unwittingly gave, I apologise unreservedly.
But I never intended offense. I never tried to attack, and I never tried passive-agressive jujitsu. I can understand why people who don't know me think I did, but I do not know how I could have phrased things differently to prevent it. Boggle you as it may, I told at all times the truth as I see it. If someone is able to grant that premise and explain to me how I could have communicated my views and most particularly my feelings more effectively, I would be very grateful.
I note in passing that shirt versions of John Gabriel's Internet Dickwad Theory (normal person + anonymity + audience = total dickwad) are now available.
My silly responses aside, Teresa, this is an important thing you've said, and it bears repeating.
words matter...Ascertainable meaning that passes from one person to another is something of a miracle. There's not much I'd trade for that.
If you'll pardon the expression, word.
Greg #120:
It's spooky how nicely this tracks to publication count for academics, or size of budget/staff in bureaucracies. As abi pointed out, this is a very common problem with managing anything--any imperfect measure of what you care about is imperfect, and most are subject to elaborate (if sometimes expensive) gaming. So you get academics wringing six publications out of one idea that wasn't really all that good to begin with, empire-builders in bureaucracies establishing their importance by the size of their empire (and thus getting more resources and promotions), etc.
I think the overarching problem of automated rating of comments and commenters and reputation is really, really hard.
#279: I was struck by the Badsites proposal's repeated mention of "Wikipedians," that being the class of persons the proposal was intended to protect. Its concept of a Wikipedian is at odds with Wikipedia's prime directive. If anyone can edit Wikipedia, doesn't that make everyone who interacts with Wikipedia a Wikipedian? But that can't be the sense of the word intended by the Badsites proposal. They'd be obliged to keep track of half the Internet, which is clearly impossible.
During the BADSITES debate, I pointed out that Wikipedia linked to at least 4 sites that had harassed me personally -- LGF even has its own vanity WP entry! -- several in the context of my editing of Wikipedia. I asked, hypothetically, what they proposed to do about this in context of the BADSITES policy. The response I got was that SlimVirgin archived my remarks in under 24 hours as "old". I was clearly not one of those the policy was intended to protect.
Damn, I meant of course to thank those who've jumped in to say that they agree with at least part of what I've said, and/or to say that I don't normally act like a troll. Most particularly I'm grateful to the (de)lurkers.
I was a gung-ho (high-editcount!) Wikipedia editor for several years and recently stopped editing. I'm intimately acquainted with both the strengths and the weaknesses of Wikipedia.
One strength that folks here haven't mentioned is that if you take your editing seriously, it's an educational process. I started by editing the Muhammad article and ended up owning shelves full of scholarly texts on early Islamic history. Every argument sent me to the books and I learned more and more. I'd say that I have at least the equivalent of an MA in Islamic studies after that experience.
The grind sets in when you start having the same arguments over and over, with endless new waves of idiots who don't intend to learn anything. If you're just replaying old fights, you aren't learning anything yourself.
I've also had some great experiences working with intelligent, thoughtful editors who greatly expanded my horizons. It is FUN to see a good article emerging out of a back-and-forth with someone who disagrees with you, but does so productively.
Strange how most of them left eventually :(
The POV warriors, however, were tireless. They drove me out. I was losing my temper and wasting my time trying to keep controversial articles respectable. I ended up feeling as if I were shoveling dung, and hating it.
I'm still convinced that the wiki process, with appropriate social controls, could be a great way to learn. It's one thing to write a paper for a bored professor whom you know doesn't care deeply what you say. It's entirely another to argue something hammer-and-tongs and scour the books for citations to prove some @#$!@#$!@ wrong.
par'me if someone's already posted this and I missed it - changes to Wikipedia entries from the Fox News IP address
julia @ #302, that's a welcome supplement to the item I posted @ #258.
#285 Leah Miller : I have an urge to print this out, frame it and hang it over my monitor or somesuch. Posts like this are great for putting out flames.
Zeborah @294
"If someone is able to grant that premise and explain to me how I could have communicated my views and most particularly my feelings more effectively, I would be very grateful."
Is this a literal request? And would you prefer this request be filled via email, or would it be ok to post it in the thread? I have done this in the past and quite enjoy it... but I don't want to make you any more uncomfortable if you didn't mean it literally.
Alex @304 (& others who have been kind)
Thank you! Whenever I post here I have a bit of stage fright, so it's good to hear people understand and even like some of it.
Kathryn Cramer @ 295 writes: "...I am pleased to say that our boy SwatJester told the NYT some time ago that his name is Dan Rosenthal, and hence has not at least fallen prey to that particuar bit of groupthink."
Really? Well, that makes my question at #35 even more pointed then, doesn't it? How many pseudonyms is Mr. Rosenthal using? And, why isn't Swatjester one of the ones listed for members of the Communications Committee, on which he currently claims to be serving?
And I'll repeat my earlier sentiment: it seems to me that having any pseudonymous members of the Communications Committee at all is kinda weird, no?
Leah@305: It's a literal request, and I'm happy for it to be either via email or on here. I'm off to take my cat to the vet right now and my work hours are wonky for a while but I'll do my best to reply when I can to anything you can offer.
Lance Weber@277:
Always remember, a cynic is just a frustrated idealist....
Heresiarch@268, yeah, some sort of automated ticketing system would do nicely. People file requests for jurists and those requests get queued. as jurists log in and sign up to spend some time on a new case they request a ticket. Software randomly assigns them a ticket, perhaps based on user priority or something.
Jurists are allowed to "pass" on a docket assigned to them for whatever reason, (they recuse themselves, they don't know the topic and the problem requires understanding the content, whatever) but these passes are publicly visible so jurists don't pass until they get some axe they can grind. Maybe have a short wait after a pass so they have less control over what tickets are in the queue.
Lizzy@275, no, it's not NPA that's a problem. It's the "hard to pin downedness" of NPA combined with admins who suddenly realize that if they declare statements like "You're abusing admin privileges" as an attack, then they can block this editor that's getting in their way.
NPA is a good idea. It's just that it needs humans to interpret it, and those humans can't get personal rewards if they interpret it a certain way.
Margaret@276: copyedit and content editors would probably be good distinctions. Probably could add something about "experts" as well.
So, it seems everyone supports the idea of Janitors/Jurists combined with some sort of docketing/ticketing system. (And hints for an editor distinction like Copyeditor/Content) Now, if we took this proposal and smelted it into a gold ring of power in the heart of Mount Doom, then give the ring to Jimmy Wales, wikipedia could live happily ever after.
Which way to Mordor?
Kathryn Cramer #246: Reasonable people with public repuations critiquing the situation there is what is most likely to cause it to improve.
I am particularly encouraged by Cory Doctorow's attempts to Bring Light to the Wikipedians.
Listen to the Leah. The Leah has wisdom.
I haven't seen such a clear, warm, friendly discussion of that topic in ages. You should post more often.
Greg at 309:
Second star to the right and straight on till morning!
Um, no, that's not right. Let's see...
Follow the Yellow Brick Road...
Nope. That's not right either...
Oh, yeah. The road goes ever on and on, Down from the door where it began...
Ths g s prck vrywhr h gs. H's mdrtr n mssg brd tht frqnt nd h's jst s mch f slf-cntrd, pmps ss thr s wll.
T sm p SWTJstr, h's spld rch jwby wh hs hd vrythng hndd t hm n plttr. H'll s th fct tht h srvd s n xmpl f hw h sn't pmprd twt, bt tht's n bvs qvctn tht's bt s trnsprnt s glss.
Fck tht g, nd hs btt-bdd KllrFlff.
[Posted from 70.16.73.159]
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. You, sir, are disgusting. Teresa should be along any moment now...
313 isn't worth a disemvoweling, Teresa. Just delete it.
Ths g s prck vrywhr h gs.
It would appear to be contagious.
Yeah, that's over the top. sshls can fight sshls, and here's an example.
Xopher #317: I just spent a half-minute or so trying to figure out this cool new unix zen master humor/insult based on SSH before the lght blb went off. I am a such a geek...
KillerFluffy may be some sort of Wikipedia in-joke. It's a user page that has no core page, but has a discussion page. Odd.
Side perspective: last month a friend pointed me at an online essay entitled "Trollspotting", by David C. Petterson:
http://home.comcast.net/~bichaunt/Trolls/index.html
This is a long and detailed guide to practical housekeeping in the presence of trolls. The context is not any sort of Internet forum, but small pagan covens. But all the case studies will be immediately recognizable to longtime Net citoyens.
The solutions that Petterson talks about are not always meaningful for Net forums. They presume a particular community structure; he's writing for the coven leader, who can back up decisions with an irrefutable power of "You're outta here." That maps well to a mailing list, but not so well to a blog-with-comments -- the moderators here can throw out postings, but not people. And unmoderated Usenet groups will have to look elsewhere. (Primarily to each other, since Usenet continues to stagger along, despite itself and everything.)
However, it's still worth a read, and the sections on recognizing trolls and their modi operandorum are useful anywhere.
Guy can't be all bad if he's got enemies like Snb.
Yes, didn't you just love "jwb"? That's got to top out at about 8.5 on the trollometer. A wonderful example of not only not getting the point, but of falling thirty floors to impale himself on it and still not noticing. This is a black hole calling the kettle beige.
Re Snb: On second thought, I smell a rat.
I'm reminded of #219 Aconite: "It's downright creepy, isn't it? It's the coordination of the attacks that is especially disturbing. They strategize them. They actually spend time getting together and planning how they're going to do this. Ick."
Do they have any history of, say, cooking up evil racist trolls to join threads/discussions they find inconvenient, so as to discredit their critics by association?
Laertes #323: I'm with you on this one. This is no random troll, and the attack is far too convenient in too many ways. If I were still inclined to invest time in troll hunting* I'd love to see the weblogs, referrers, etc on this one.
*I have to echo Fidelio's #270 sentiment in this regards - life is too short.
Folks, I wrote up a stand alone document which describes the whole Janitor/Jurist thing along with the ticketing system idea. It got rather long so I didn't go into the other suggestions like editor subtypes and whatnot.
You can read it here.
The idea was to explain the whole idea to someone who hadn't read this thread, but had working knowledge of wikipedia and it's problems.
It's licensed CC-BY-SA, so you can cut and paste it as you wish.
Enjoy.
Abi (284): "* Abi is now stuck in the mode of writing about herself in the third person. Send rescue."
How are you doing, Abi?
Can Abi read about herself in the second person?
Seth, if she's reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book, she can!
I am afraid for Abi that the rescue squad will never turn up in person.
You are reading a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book. The outer edges of each page are lightly browned with age, reminding you of toast. Your stomach makes a slight growl of Pavlovian response.
If you ignore it, turn to page 4.
If you carry the book with you into the kitchen, turn to page 6.
If you need to buy a toaster, turn to page 7.
If you decide to put the book down and make pancakes, implode into a small *poof* of metatextual paradox and then start over.
Although #313 did trigger a 1980's BBS Flamer Bingo nostalgia hit, it does also occur to me that this particular troll may have hair of astroturf.
#330: You don't have a small poof.
Julie at 330, this is Abi we're talking about. The choices really ought to be organized in verse.
My pages are all toasted on the edges.
My toast is spread with butter on one side.
My book's a twisty maze of stairs and ledges,
Disjointed 2nd-P plot threads inside.
I'm hungry, but I *must* find out what happens
Should I tread on from pillar unto post--
What adventure waits upon page seven?
"THE END!" Oh well. I'd better make more toast.
(Dear Fluorites: Help, I am stuck in the hamster wheel behind the PREVIEW button. Send someone with a toilet plunger and some soap.)
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little:
Gently turn the wheel in the opposite direction three full turns. When the PREVIEW button pops out, quickly but firmly press the POST button and hold for at least half a second then release. If you hear theremin music and see a smoky red light you have held the button too long, and must roll 4d4 under 10 or miss one turn. Good luck in your next life.
Zeborah @ 294
This is a truth it took me several decades of residence on the net to learn: there are two critical actions everyone should take with every post on the net. One: when composing, and before posting, think about how another person reading your post might take it, and especially try to think of ways in which they might be hurt by their construal. Two: when you realize after posting that someone has taken it in a way you didn't intend, apologize and try to clear up the misapprehension.
I see from your post that you do understand this, and that, at least in my book, makes you welcome here.
Please consider carefully what Teresa and abi were saying about the importance of words. Most of the posters on Making Light are deeply involved with communication in some form or other, professionally or personally or both, and therefore committed to making the best use of words they possibly can. That may explain to you why we write as we do, and why it matters what words are used in that writing.
Ok, Zeborah @294, you asked for it. I've attempted here to provide both a rephrase and some general pointers. I'm going to do it here so people can tell me if I'm wrong, and because I'm awful at checking my email.
What follows is how I'd phrase posts with similar content and emotion to the ones I gathered from the posts as a whole. If I misjudged your meaning anywhere, let me know. I've also not resorted to the lame attempts at humor I normal pepper posts with to "lighten the blow" because humor isn't for everyone or every situation. It's good to try, though. Humor or verse lightens any conversation.
Post @ 50: my version
"Whoa. It's sort of weird coming in here, especially as Nicole has predicted the appearance of someone who supports wikipedia - as if that person would automatically be unreasonable. I'm not an admin, and hopefully I'm not unreasonable. I'm just someone who really loves Wikipedia, and who dedicates a lot of time to it. I've never run into the things you describe, so far. Maybe the subjects I edit are simply less controversial, but I've had good luck with citations upholding edits, and reason winning out in disputes. I've done a lot of work on subjects where I am not an expert, but I feel that I've contributed a great deal. Some people have grouped together all non-expert edits as unproductive and I feel that is unfair. The fight is really between people willing to do research and be educated and people who are stuck with one Point of view."
(General points: specify exactly what you found unsettling, don't accuse: explain. Make it clear that you're only disagreeing with some people, not everyone. If possible, you might want to give some examples of the kind of things you edit on wikipedia. Most people who have commented so far on edits getting destroyed or surviving have given at least some idea of what category their article fits in. This will also seem less dismissive of the experiences of others. In general, defining your area of experience helps.)
This section consolidates a point made both in 50 and 134
"Previous threads relating to wikipedia on Making Light have gotten sarcastic and dismissive. Sarcasm and dismissiveness isn't everywhere in those threads, but it appears often enough to make me uncomfortable. I'm a little scared to post disagreements, because you all have poked some pretty harsh fun at individual Wikipedians before. It's intimidating, to say the least. I was a bit bothered by the easy dismissal using terms like "wankerpedia." While some criticism may be fruitful, a mocking dismissal of that sort makes me want to retreat."
(Note that I've moved your comment about the term wankipedia up here. If something bothers you, point it out as soon as you are able, rather than referencing it in response to something someone else says. Point out that it is bothering YOU, try to see the other side of it/if it was meant in jest, and say specifically what about it troubles you.)
Post @ 134: my version
"Look at the pile on David Gerard. While he may have been quite rude, it's hard to start out being polite when something you care about is under attack. I wish some of you had contacted him directly rather than all of you replying in public. I would have liked to see us recruit another voice with the potential to be positive about wikipedia, even if it took a little work to get him civilized. People who have the fortitude to speak positively about wikipedia in a thread where so many others are obviously hurt and angry may start out a little egotistical. If we don't give them more leeway in the future, we may never fully understand the opposing viewpoint. It's possible he couldn't have been civilized, but I had hope."
(be very careful when defending someone. Assess how closely you want to associate their actions with your own. Also, I have no idea from your posts which replies/comments you felt were out of hand and which you felt were edifying. When you don't specify, it sounds as if you believe all the replies on a specific subject were inappropriate.)
Post @214
(This one is hard for me, as I'm having a little trouble determining exactly what you're trying to say. Also, if the earlier posts had been differently phrased, I don't know if this one would have occurred. Still, I've come this far)
I've taken a wrong turn somewhere. I am sorry for anything I did that made you all feel I needed such a harsh talking-to in order to set me straight. I just wanted to have a conversation, and disagree.
(The third paragraph regarding your intentions reads fine to me)
I can't argue any of what you said point by point. Your dissection is based on my previous statements being read in a way other than I intended them. I'm not sure if this is because we have different rhetorical styles or because I'm arguing against prevalent views here, but I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to be convincing and expressive. I think both sides have used offensive terminology periodically here, from the aforementioned "wankerpedia" to the more recent use of "whining." While I'm not arguing that the disemvoweling wasn't justified, and I don't know the circumstance of the original use of the word psychopath, it seems that everyone is reacting to negative words rather than actual arguments.
(This last statement is harder to rewrite. You're obviously upset, and because of that your intentions are a bit less clear to me. I'm also tiptoeing around the last two paragraphs. I'll explain why in a moment. Generally, If you want to comment about a particular statement, it's best to go into some detail. If you're going to remark that someone is out of hand in an argument, make sure you have a good understanding of the argument. If both sides of an argument are out of hand, confront them both instead of picking one side.
I'm hedging the heck out of this last bit though... because I DO know the circumstances of the use of the word psychopath... simply from keeping up casually with this blog. Patrick was angry at someone for acting bureaucratic and nasty in the face of bereavement, thus calling that person a sociopath. The person called a troll appeared and made light of the situation. Whenever something as serious as the death of a friend is involved, your best bet is to not comment unless you're sure you understand every aspect of that situation. That's the gentlest I can say THAT one.)
You are in a featureless corridor.
You see here:
Lawyers
Guns
Money
Get Lawyers
The Lawyers keep wriggling out of your grasp. Maybe you could use some bait.
Get Money
You pick up the Money.
Get Lawyers.
You pick up the Lawyers. They buy you an expensive meal, and lot of interesting cocktails. When the waiter comes with the bill they take your money, pay the bill, and run off with the rest. Your money has gone.
Get Guns.
You pick up Guns
Shoot Lawyers
There are no Lawyers here.
abi @ 284: Heresiarch attempts a rescue, only to find that the trail of bread crumbs leding home was eaten by rats. Curses! Heresiarch mutters.
Leah Miller @ 285: "Take context, roll a little, when you get out of hand admit that you have been out of hand."
I think that this is a key point. Apologizing when you realize that you've been behaving poorly is just about the hardest thing there is. The internet is particularly harsh in this respect--words hang around forever, interminable and unforgiving. It is so much easier, in the short run, to simply pretend like you've done nothing wrong and blunder forward. Yet stopping things right when they start saves immeasurable grief in the long run.
Nicole @ 289: "I would further submit that anyone who wants not to be mistaken for a troll must, must, must come to some level of proficiency in differentiating these things. Because actual bona fide trolls act as if they can't, and the strife this inevitably causes is their deliberate aim."
I find that more than anything else, trolling is just inept argument treated as a performance art. (Being defensive is just a sort of projected ad hominem.) Thus, it's disturbingly easy for someone who isn't paying too much attention to what they are saying--treating their comment like oral conversation--to come across sounding quite trollish without any bad intentions. (Every sloppy phrase or weak logical leap looks like a planned irritation to an eye trained for troll detection.)
Standards for spoken argumentation are much looser, and the pace is much faster. You can get away with a lot more. This isn't a bad thing, just different. But when you transition from speaking to writing, words can pick up an unexpected amount of weight, and easily throw writers off their rhetorical stride.
Leah Miller @ inter alia 285 & 337
You can has a internet. Use it wisely and wear it in good health.
Zeborah,
Despite the fact that we got off on the wrong foot, I have never thought you a troll or passive aggressive. You were defending incivility, which is not something I'm fond of.
Indeed, when I end up in conflict with people on this site, it is almost always about this very topic. I've clashed with both Jim and Patrick over it at times (very politely, of course.)
I can't put my finger on which comment in particular makes me think it, but I feel that you are someone fits in well here. Don't let this awkward incident put you off.
Do you write poetry, by any chance?
Actually, the book is called Kies je eigen avontuur*, and is written in a mix of Dutch and English.
Opening it at random in a few places:
- o0o -
3. The commute
You wheel your beloved bicycle out of the garage and get on. You are wearing a long, flowing skirt. You do not have a helmet on. You check to see that your rain jacket is in the panniers.
If you want to take the quick route to the office (15 minutes), turn to page 6.
If you want to take the scenic route to the office (25 minutes), turn to page 10.
(glances at page 6)†
You ride through a pleasant suburban district. It is flat, except when you are going over a canal. Although you are riding on the road, cars give you a wide berth. You feel very safe. You are in Critical Mass's vision of heaven.
(turns to page 10)
You ride through the local recreation area, shared with dog walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, and other cyclists. An old man in a black cap says "Morgen" at you as you pass each other near a windmill. A morning glory shocks you to stillness with the purity of its blossoms. A bridge thrums under your wheels as you cross the canal. The skies look like something out of a Dutch Old Master painting††.
The bike hums as you ride, and you laugh with joy.
- o0o -
15. Je koffie ziet er uit als een eend.
You look in the dictionary, and determine that it really does mean that your coffee looks like a duck.
- o0o -
21. Conversations with colleagues.
Your colleagues are having a casual conversation in Dutch. They're laughing. You are obviously welcome in the group, judging by their glances and their body language.
If you let them continue in Dutch, turn to page 33.
If you ask them to speak English, turn to page 25.
If you wander off to be by yourself, turn to page 22.
(turns to the well-thumbed page 33)
You are in a maze of twisty Dutch comments, all alike.
- o0o -
40. I can has internet access!‡
You have internet access at home (without recourse to any unsecured networks in the neighbourhood). The children are in bed, the dishwasher is humming in the background, and your laptop is warm on your lap. Your better half is a comfortable presence in the room, but he is doing his own thing.
You owe 25 people very long emails. If you write one this evening, go to page 45.
You have a blog post you would like to write. If you decide to do that, go to page 46.
You want to order a number of items online. If you start the market research on that, go to page 47.
You have some work-related things that you would like to do this evening. If you do that, go to page 48.
You have been woefully remiss at posting on Making Light. If you choose to read the threads and write all those replies you've been brewing, go to page 49.
You really should call your mother. If you just want Mom, turn to page 50.
A friend is visible on Skype. If you chat with her, go to page 51.
If you say fsk it and watch some TV, go to page 52.
(flips through pages 45-52, which all say the same thing)
The evening disappears in a flash. It is now midnight, and you still have to wash your hair. You realise you are behind on your laundry as well, and have very little to wear tomorrow.
You go to bed, knowing that your adventures tomorrow will lead you right back to page 40.
-----
* Despite the Dutch fondness for diminutives, it is not Kies je eigen avontuurje; an avontuurje is an affair.**
** I am sure this book also exists, particularly in Amsterdam.
† Everyone does it. Bet you even did the thing where you choose an outcome and trace your way back to the beginning so you can end up there. I certainly did.
†† Not very surprisingly.
‡ This is actually one of those pages that you can only get to by reading back from the end. Coming to it any other way violates the laws of probabilty and several internal KPN procedures.
abi@341:
That was beautiful and made me very aware that I've not spent anything like long enough in the Netherlands.
Abi inquires of Zeborah: Do you write poetry, by any chance?
If you hang around ML long enough, you will, even if it's haiku, limericks or the occasional double dactyl. (cackle)
By the way, I would contribute a double dactyl to the thread centered around the word "wikipedanticly", but I'd rather not unnecessarily increase the Attack Site Rating of ML as a result. heh.
Zeborah #294: I have a slightly different perspective on "ways to be the only voice of dissent" than Leah Miller #337. Before I go into answering your question, though, a tangent.
*****************************
Anyone else notice how disproportionately "passive-aggressive" is used to put down females? It's a great multi-layered insult that often makes people shut up, and in common usage its meaning is so vague that it can be applied to almost anyone... And yet, I'd guess it's 4:1 applied to females:males doing the exact same stuff.
Pisses me the fuck off.
*****************************
Anyway, back to Zeborah. So, at 32, Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little says, "So, when is an honorary WikiAdmin going to show up and tell us how we're all wrong to diss the light and wonder of the world that is WP?"
You come into the thread at 50, "Sorry to disappoint you, Nicole, since I'm not a Wikipedia admin, but I'll come along anyway and say... Well, no, I won't, because hey, I said it last time and there's no reason why anyone who may not have agreed with me then would agree with me now."
This opening is just all kinds of wrong.
1. You accept the mantle of nutcase honorary WikiAdmin that Nicole left lying around. Why claim to be a nutcase in your first post? Ignore any insults that aren't directed specifically at you. Also, read very carefully when you throw yourself into a debate. Looking sloppy attracts more piranhas than looking perceptive. "honorary WikiAdmin" is not blocked by "not a Wikipedia admin".
2. You claim that no one here has the intellectual integrity to grapple with your cutting and incisive argument, so we're not worthy to hear it. Note: one of the dangers of getting into a debate with people who bear the scars of a hundred flame wars is that they see the ultimate form within your proto-argument.
3. "may not have agreed with me"? Hedging is fine and can be polite, but not when you're casting doubt on whether the people who disagree with you know their own minds.
Next, "Also because you guys as a collective are as intimidating when discussing Wikipedia as intelligent when discussing anything else."
4. You're directly contrasting Making Light intelligent discussion with Making Light Wikipedia discussion, and thus saying that Making Light Wikipedia discussion is unintelligent.
5. "intimidating". Is that a compliment? It could be, but not in this context, where it's paired with unintelligent.
6. "you scared me away from presenting my incisive and brilliant argument." What are we supposed to feel, here? Guilt? "Not in the face?" As mentioned above, looking weak attracts attacks.
You came out swinging, with attacks and offensive implications. What was your intent? I'm guessing it was to push back against the tide, clear yourself some defensible space, and present your argument. Pushing back against the tide is best done with your argument, which you should trust to stand alone against a sea of dissent. A better way to clear yourself defensible space is with something complimentory. More flies with honey, etc. Perhaps, "Man, I've been lurking here for a while, and you guys in full cry scare me shitless with your eloquence... But I have to say about Wikipedia, my experience has been nothing but gold blah blah specific examples writing about how WP makes you feel good and how for you the dream is still alive."
As Accordion Guy said, "People don't remember what you said, they remember how you made them feel."
Moving along to #134. "Good God. <looks for a bucket in which to hold my temper> Trying very hard to remain calm; please excuse any mild hyperbole or figures of speech that cannot be substantiated."
Again with the attack + 'not in the face'. The attack? "You have pissed me off". It's a mild one that could easily be part of a grey area. For 'not in the face', "please excuse hyperbole" is common enough that it's generally written off, too, though "figures of speech that cannot be substantiated"? That's a bit baffling, are we supposed to excuse crazy disproportionate metaphors? Anyway, it's still an opening that weakens your argument and poisons your interactions with your fellows.
Then you fail to grasp the nature of David Gerard's interaction with the thread. "On the whole" means considering the whole of his output, and writing off "whiners" and "bucket of cocks" with it makes you look crazy. Which further undermines your following attack of "you all lie ('truthiness') and you're scary bullies". Your opinions hold far more weight if you seem to be based in reality.
*****************************
Tangent! Think of it as an intermission from a ridiculously long comment.
Once, I got the chance to hang out after dinner with Steven Brust and Elizabeth Bear. (This came about because I knew Elizabeth Bear from the mailing list devoted to the roleplaying game based on Roger Zelazny's Amber.) They were talking about how to make characters sympathetic or unsympathetic without telling people "Oh this guy is so great/this guy is a wanker".
To make a character sympathetic: show him caring for something. "Like Jaws in the Bond movies! As soon as he got that little girl, everyone's like, 'Noooo! Don't kill Jaws!'"
To make a character repugnant: make him whine about stuff.
*****************************
A better way to defend David Gerard would be to 1. make sure that first you know what you're defending... What was the disemvoweled bit? Does the fact that everyone but you found offensive stuff in DG's comments have some basis in reality? Next, 2. appear level-headed. 3. Acknowledge everyone else's points. I assume you're going to use the same defense of DG here that you used in #214 once you looked more into what DG was saying, so the better post #134 looks like, "It pisses me off the way you went after David Gerard. Sure, he was a jackass, but I've seen him in other places being very smart, as someone earlier said. In a thread full of insults like 'Wankerpedia' and 'psychopath', 'bucket of cocks' didn't seem beyond the pale."
Then leave off the part about how we're driving away dissenting voices. It might be something to bring up elsewhere in cooler threads, but bringing it up here is making a bid for "persecuted" status, and thus again with the attack on us + preemptive defense which inspires disgust.
On to 214. Your opening bit to abi is an old tactic, the "praise the one who's maybe sorta on your side to separate her from the herd so that it looks like you have allies." The social dynamics are such here that it's clear to everyone that abi is on the side of politeness, so it didn't work to set us against abi, so you looked a bit weak for that failure. On the other hand, thanking people is always nice. On the other other hand, only paying attention to the one person who sortof maybe was nice to you disses all the people who were being nice by pointing out where you went wrong, and makes it look like you can't face the people who were outright attacking you. On the whole, a wash.
"it would be a pity for a master's work to sadden more than cheer." What? This is clearly a sotto voce kind of comment... Sounds like it means that Teresa made you sad and abi should maybe feel guilty for taking pleasure in that. "Well, I'm glad someone enjoyed it" would be more direct about what you're feeling, but it sounds a bit snippy, eh?
Then you grovel to Teresa, which... grah. See above. Then you say, "you're making me not like you" which again with the what, are we supposed to feel guilty? Then "this stuff hurts me" which is a valuable point.
Too much with the "honestly/sincerely". What, are you saying that we're going to be questioning your honesty? Are you questioning your fellow debaters' honesty? Then you fail to apologize for missing DG's content, tone, and drive; thus remaining in the "crazy" category. If someone says "Don't you see anything wrong here with this thing you're supporting?!" the best response is, "I'm looking... Oh crap! I didn't see X! Sorry for supporting that." The quicker the apology, the more goodwill goes to the apologizer.
Instead, you drag in new attacks like "but you said Wankerpedia", "but Patrick called someone a psychopath." What you're using here is the "it wasn't that bad, and also you deserved it" defense, which will never win you an argument, nor goodwill. And by using it in defense of DG, you're aligning yourself even more firmly with his "whiny bucket of cocks" attack: his attack is your attack now.
Then, "Your other questions do appear rhetorical, so I'll leave them alone." Best not to get snarky in questions of whether Teresa's rhetoric is clear.
A better way to write that post would have been a much shorter and clearer, "Thanks, abi, and blah and blah also. Teresa, I'm sorry for arousing your wrath. The tone of ML's WP threads really does hurt me."
On to 294. You apologize! Brilliant! It really is a good move.
But then... You never intended to attack? What was running through your mind when you wrote all those attacks? You never tried passive-aggressive jujitsu... I'm afraid one of the real definitions of passive-aggressive is "attacks that you can pretend to yourself weren't attacks." Frex, attempting to give guilt is a classic attack defined as passive-aggressive. So regrettably, you're wrong there.
"I can understand why people who don't know me think I did". Blaming us for getting mad because we don't know you is ridiculous on the internet. We can't possibly all know you. You have to be clear.
"Boggle you as it may, I told at all times the truth as I see it." Here again you're edging towards "persecuted for my heroic stands". (And you've stabbed yourself in the back already by recanting your support for the cocks.) Also, why would we boggle that you weren't lying? Are you saying we're accustomed to lying, as you said in 134 and 214? Are you saying we've never listened to a word you said, as you said in 50? There are few non-insult ways to read the sentence. And think: even if it wasn't insulting, a focus on the "honesty" of your opinions is pointless. It doesn't matter to anyone but you what you think in your heart of hearts: only what you say here.
And now we're to the start again. Upshot: present strong, do your research, own your attacks, don't borrow trouble by grovelling, be direct about your feelings, brevity is the soul of wit.
Strangely enough, this thread has led me to make my very first edit to Wikipedia:
Someone linked to the article on Usenet. The article on Usenet links to an article on the Legion of Net.Heroes. I hadn't the slightest idea that an article about the LNH existed! Looking at it, I noticed that Squidman (a character near and dear to my heart) was incorrectly called Squid Man.
(The character did start out as Squid Boy, so the error is understandable. Squid Boy had a name inspired by classic Legion of Super-Heroes characters such as Sun Boy and Chameleon Boy. When Squid Boy was revamped to be more like Batman, his name became more like Batman's, too.)
So I corrected the error. Hasn't been reverted yet...of course, I can't imagine that the LNH article gets many views.
In other news: I want to testify that I know Zeborah from rec.arts.sf.composition, where she is sensible and interesting. Although she has gotten off on a bit of a wrong foot here, I want to urge everyone to give her a chance.
OT - I was pleased and amused to see that the McClatchy News Service site moderates the comments on stories using disemvowelment.
albatross #291 - You pronounce disemvowelment with five syllables? It sounds to me like I pronounce it with four.
On the other hand my haiku would be rubbish if I did that, so your accent is clearly superior in this case.
abi #341 - Everyone does it. Bet you even did the thing where you choose an outcome and trace your way back to the beginning so you can end up there. I certainly did.
I still have the decision tree flow charts for some of them in my parent's loft (Or I did last time I came across that file... what? Doesn't everybody file their 20 year old choose your own adventure notes? But what if you needed them again?)
#338: You are in a featureless corridor.
That's wonderful. Thanks.
Regarding David Gerard: I have read other forums in which he participates and simply don't believe that he is an easily bruised fragile creature that desvered careful nurture before exposing him to the hazards of candor.
What I think underpins his reaction to comments addressed to him is perhaps an attitude that, well, we Makilinglightians have got all our links back and been a factor in the defeat of the BADSITES policy. Why are we still complaining? Aren't we ever saisfied?
There is a lot that is actually good and/or functional about Wikipedia. In some ways, it is too good at what it does, and so many people with legitimate interest in various subject matter areas are drawn into the Wikipedia political situation whether they like it or not.
I prefer to avoid deeply dysfunctional social organizations, especially those whose governance structure compares unfavorably to the government of Somalia, but Wikipedia has become an important repository about subject matters traditionally currated by sf fandom. The existence of Citizendium does not solve this problem. There is no particular reason a site housing and curating such information should be a wiki. The reason Wikipedia is important in this area is its relationship to Google, in which a wikipedia entry on something will usually top a google search. Can that be changed? I doubt it.
We're stuck with then and they with us. He should deal.
Abi #341: You have got to have the word 'fiets' in there somewhere, preferably in a bilingual pun. Then you have to explain why a moped is a fiets that goes vroum (I know it's a 'bromfiets' and not a 'vroumfiets', but still...).
::: Sisuile @ 273:::
Now that is a Making Light thread I'd love to see: Scholarly works to avoid citing at all costs.
Rydberg!
I would love to see that thread here. AKICF.
MAO
This old .sig quote of mine pushes its way to the front of my mind:
"They know the truth but cannot get recognition; those in power conspire to suppress them; anyone who disagrees is deluded or lying. If you argue against them, you're shouting them down (which proves their point); if you dismiss them as crackpots, you're resorting to name-calling for lack of a better argument (ditto.) If you're educated on the subject, you're part of the conspiracy, which explains why you disagree. The more effort you expend on them, the more they are supported, because you're demonstrating how hard the conspiracy is working to cover up the truth." -- Andrew Plotkin
It seems to me that the Wiki ideal suffers from getting these kind of saddle-burrs from content and editing obsessors. Then "bad cases lead to bad edits / laws"; iterate.
MAO
Thank you to both Leah and Madeline. I need to read those again a few times after I've had some sleep, then won't have a chance to reply until after work. There are a few things I want to clear up but obviously I want to be careful how I go about doing that (and once I've slept on it there may be fewer than there are now). There are other things that are quite startling and I need to think about more, and other things still that I immediately see where I went wrong.
Abi, I write poetry rarely, and I don't think ever quickly enough for the speed Making Light threads proceed at. (Practice might improve that, of course, but practising in public feels weird on a number of levels.) Most of the time, partly to do with timezones, if I have anything to say on a thread here (and often I don't because it's all beyond my experience) someone has already said it before I've even read the original article, let alone had time to consider metre and rhyme. Wikipedia articles are the most prominent exception, but there I suspect concentrating on metre and rhyme would only distract me from the other things I should be concentrating on....
abi @ 341... your coffee looks like a duck.
How would you say in Dutch "Your coffee looks like Cthulhu"?
(Yes, Mary Dell, this is an invitation for more photoshop-fu.)
Serge #355: 'Je koffie ziet er als Cthulhu uit', or 'Je koffie ziet er als een gruwelijk tentakelmonster uit'.
I have had Dutch coffee that could be described as a black pit, but have never caught even a glimpse of any of the Old Ones...
Madeline F, @345: No, you're not the only one who's noticed how much more often charges like "passive-aggressive" are thrown at posters who seem to be female. It does suck.
Zeborah, three suggestions out of my own ongoing experience to fight only about the things I actually want to fight about. :)
#1. Don't imply things about the people I'm disagreeing with. When I feel confident that I can undertake a defense of a charge and that it's important enough to risk displacing discussion of my other points, then I make the charge clearly. If one or both of those conditions doesn't apply very strongly, then I aim to cut it out.
(This isn't to say I don't think such things. Lots of stuff simply belongs somewhere other than the present locus of contention - email or instant message or chatty phone call with friends, for instance. I say a lot of things to select audiences I don't say in public, and so do most folks I know.)
#2: The more heated I feel, the more important it is to keep my sentences simple. I get rather Dickensian or Faulknerian if I don't police myself. But rambling sentences invite misunderstandings; short simple ones don't force clarity and ease of correct/desired reading, but they help. If I do allow myself some rambling room, I need to at least make sure my key sentences are pretty simple: if I want to make a statement, declare, and if I want to ask, get interrogative, and then stop.
#3: The more I'm tempted to say things about people's motives, generally the more important it is I not yield to temptation. When faced with boggling, hurtful, or otherwise not-happy-making prose, I tend to get best results if I can cool myself down enough to ask "What led you to that conclusion?" or "My experience of X is like this; what experiences of X did you have that make you think that?" or something.
I, um, I don't always manage to follow these. But my life is happier when I do. If there's anything you can scavenge or swipe, help yourself - and if these aren't what you need, maybe they'll help in figuring out the stuff you do need. (A professor of mine called that being usefully wrong.)
Bruce #357: Usefully wrong
I believe that fully captures my wife's perception of me...
Lance Weber @358:
What, are you a software tester too? I make a living out of being usefully wrong.
Jakob @ 356... I have had Dutch coffee that could be described as a black pit, but have never caught even a glimpse of any of the Old Ones...
To quote Richard Benjamin in Saturday 14th after he notices eyeballs floating in his coffee cup:
"I don't like the way it looks."
Zeborah, how did the visit to the vet go, and how is the cat?
David Goldfarb @ 346:
Likewise I made my first WP edits yesterday: some minor revisions and additions to the entry on "Redowa." I have resolved to think more seriously about the entry, which is still not what it could be.
If my Power Twin ever needs another way to spend time (*snrk* ... as if!) she could do some serious good to some of the historical dance entries. As it is, I have resolved to check the entries for whatever my danse de la semaine happens to be, and see if they match my understanding of the dance in question. This should keep me off the streets for a bit.
::: Sisuile @ 273:::
Now that is a Making Light thread I'd love to see: Scholarly works to avoid citing at all costs.
If it happens it should be called "If you read it in Stanley-Browne" for the eponymous H. Beam Piper chapter from Uller Uprising dealing with the same sort of scholarly work.
Zeborah, best wishes from me too about the vet stuff. That's just tough on the emotions, at least for me. It does remind me of one more of my own rules that may or may not help:
#4. Be up front about sources of stress, distraction, etc., outside the exchange. Statements like "I have a feeling I'm forgetting something, but I've been waiting for a job offer call all day" and "I've got a friend coming for a visit from Australia, and between meal planning and housework, I think I vacuumed up some of my brain by mistake", and "I can't really be fair in discussing Company X when it comes to Policy Y because they did tremendous harm to someone I love, never made amends, and continue to deny it long after the facts have been established to everyone else's satisfaction, and I'm just a ball of hate about it", all deliver the message "Hi, I'm not a detached observer bot about this, my feelings are engaged too." They always are to some degree, of course, but sometimes much more so than others, and sometimes it's feelings about the subject, sometimes about something else important to youa t the moment.
Some people will take that as a sign of weakness and try to exploit. In doing so, they mark themselves as losers and assholes, and will earn scorn from decent bystanders. Being thought of as one of the decent folks when it comes to basic human respect no matter what your stance on a particular disagreement may be is a good thing, and so is having a clear boundary between yourself and the losers and assholes.
It's also a good hook for other conversations. Common interests and bonds turn up in the most surprising places, and in my experience, a lot of social disagreements get solved when a problem area pit can be surrounded by boardwalks of shared other connections. Then it gets bounded, quarantined, and filled in, by people who've learned how to see each other in other terms. It can also just be fun in its own right, of course, and trying to be too utilitarian about these things is (for me, at least) a mistake. It's still true, though - I will more likely get to a solution or at least a comfortable place of argument rest with someone who's also a cat fancier, or shares my fondness for Thomas Ligotti, or agrees about the merits of the Sierra Nevadas national parks, or who knows what I mean about just really not enjoying the super-hot foods so popular in sf fandom and likes rich but not hot seasonings, or whatever.
The easier it is to attach some humanity to the text, basically, the easier it is to get out of the really nasty thickets and into better argumentative terrain.
#273 Scholarly works to avoid citing at all costs.
Not exactly a scholarly work, but it's been observed that the fact that Herbert Schildt's "The Annotated C Standard" was cheaper than the actual ISO standard (whose text it includes) correctly reflected the value "added" by the annotations.
Foo. I lost a long message last night when our hosting service went screwy.
Lance (318): Secure shell, list file? That's some heavy-handed security.
General: I think part of what's happening at Wikipedia is a process I've seen in many times and places, where people mistake a thing one does for a thing one is.
I first spotted it in clubs and concoms. In the beginning, you have a task-based system: "Okay, Ferdy's running the huckster room and Lulu's doing hotel and banquet. Mo's just about got the program pulled together. We're not doing a daily newsletter, so Felix, your work is finished when the pocket program's delivered. Think you can take charge of the fruit punch in the consuite in the evenings? It's just a little bit more than Margie can handle." Felix says yeah, sure, and does fruit punch duty at the convention. As a joke, someone sneaks the line "Fruit Punch Czar: Felix" into the published committeee list.
The job's not a lot of trouble -- arrange for fruit punch, keep an eye on the punchbowl, police the area -- and it gives Felix a reason to hang out in that end of the consuite in the evening. That works out well. Felix is an amiable soul, and a lot of people hang out in that area. The "Fruit Punch Czar" thing gets immortalized when Felix wades into an incipient fight, and one drunk and belligerent would-be-combatant says "Who the bleep are you?"
Felix instantly replies: "Fruit Punch Czar, with powers of High and Low Justice anywhere within fifty feet of the punchbowl."
"Oh," the drunk says meekly, and subsides. So after that everyone refers to Felix as the Fruit Punch Czar. But really, that's just the way Felix is. If given the job of hanging out in the main corridor wearing a rubber duck tied to a string, Felix would do it -- and would still be wading in to stop fights and sort out problems, and would still accrete a random group of cheerful conversationalists.
(Why sort out other people's problems and adjudicate disputes? Felix would say, because it's a good thing to do; also, that anyone can do it.)
After a few years, the job is up for grabs. Felix and spouse have had their first kid, and are busy. This is where the saga of Yorick begins. Yorick is no Felix, to put it mildly, but he has a flaming yen to be Punch Bowl Czar, dispense High and Low Justice, and be at the center of the coolest gathering at the convention. At the annual committee meeting where everyone settles out who's doing what job, he and his like-minded crony Jan make a real push for the jobs of Consuite Coordinator and Fruit Punch Czar. Margie says fine; she'll run the Green Room instead. Someone else takes on publications.
Yorick is way into being Fruit Punch Czar because he thinks it makes him Felix. Do I need to describe the whole dysfunctional sequence of events that follows, winding up with a bitterly destructive committee fight four years later because Jan and Yorick are upset that plain convention attendees have been "usurping the powers" of the Fruit Punch Enforcement Squad, who wear matching FPES t-shirts and have (according to Yorick and Jan) "paid their dues" by working as gophers and dogsbodies for the Fruit Punch Department?
Isomorphism: I recently had a long, interesting conversation about moderation with Ken Fisher, one of the bloggers and forum-minders at Ars Technica. I mentioned a bizarre phenomenon I'd seen on various forums: longtime regulars being sharply reprimanded for explaining local customs to newbies. The term used to describe this supposed misbehavior was "backseat moderation."
Ken said he certainly didn't agree with that policy, but he knew what prompted it: busybody users running around on boards playing pretend-moderator, telling other users that You've Been Bad, and The Moderators Are Gonna Get You For That. It tended to happen, he said, in forums where the moderators were a separate class from common users. He may have also credited it to another one of his bêtes noires: boards where moderators aren't part of the general conversation and community, but instead are semi-anonymous figures who appear out of the darkness, distribute reprimands and penalties, and then disappear again.
The thing about Wikipedia is that almost anyone who hangs out there regularly and identifies as a Wikipedian is going to run out of expertise. Most people are going to start out there by writing and editing articles about subjects they're familiar with. But the longer they hang out, the smaller the remaining stash of hitherto unapplied general knowledge they have to expend on articles, and the more they know administrative policies and procedures. Wikipedia grants status for activity. They have to do something. So they go around looking for material which they can declare to be inadequately sourced or significant or encyclopedia-like, or which they can pretend they understand well enough to edit.
I mean, look at Swatjester. Lord knows he's no rocket scientist, and he's not a broad generalist, but over the course of this year he'll probably commit more than 6K "User Contributions" upon Wikipedia. Judging from the edits of his I've seen, in many of those six thousand cases he's not going to know what he's talking about.
***
I need to get this posted. But before I do: Leah Miller, message #285 was luminous with good sense. More on this anon, if I get to it.
OK, I just got this package from UPS, its addressed to Making Light, c/o me. Return address says "Iurker" or something. Can't quite make it out. I open it up, and it's full of, like, maybe a thousand capital "I"s. You wouldn't neccessarily think a capital "I" would weigh much, but when you a thousand of them in one place, well, suffice to say, Iurker spent a lot of money on shipping. No instructions were included though. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with them.
Did I miss something?
The bad scholarly works thread is up and running. Have fun!
Greg @367:
It's because you've been appointed Official Rescuer of People Trapped in Third Person Mode, with powers of pronoun dispensation within 50 feet of a browser window open to Making Light. Did you not get the memo?
Teresa picked them out of her vowels box, accumulated from all those disemvowelments over the years.
Use the power wisely. And if Teresa finds out you're selling them on on the black market to people named Trey, she'll get you.
(You don't get to hand this power on; see comment 366 for details of why).
Kathryn (somewhere way upthread) noted that these kinds of discussions are useful because they *do* help Wikipedia to start cleaning up its act. That would be great, though from other comments I get the feeling that such optimism is uncomfortably close to Shrub's proclamations that things really are turning around in Iraq, thanks to the Surge. (Sorry to say anything negative at this point. Ignore at will.)
What I like best in this thread is the way the bile is finally leaking out as people go off on interesting tangents in recent posts. "Making Light" tangents are some of this site's greatest features!
Teresa@366: a bitterly destructive committee fight four years later because Jan and Yorick are upset that plain convention attendees have been "usurping the powers" of the Fruit Punch Enforcement Squad, who wear matching FPES t-shirts and have (according to Yorick and Jan) "paid their dues" by working as gophers and dogsbodies for the Fruit Punch Department?
I can't stop chuckling at the scene stuck in my head.
;)
Making Light: it doesn't matter how angry we are, we will eventually drift into a spiral of poetry, recipes, obscure references, and puns. Eventually.
Zeborah @354:
Wikipedia articles are the most prominent exception, but there I suspect concentrating on metre and rhyme would only distract me from the other things I should be concentrating on....
If there is ever a Wikipedia spinoff that demands all of its articles be written as poetry, please let me know. I will once again fail to contribute due to my lack of skill, but I'll certainly spend a long time admiring the whole thing. My Han Dynasty research would have been much more interesting if the history had been written in heroic couplets.
Abi #359: At the risk of shattering a burgeoning friendship, I must shamefully confess that I am no software tester. I'm a...*whisper* programmer.
Yes, its true, I'm one of _those_ people who consider a successful compile to be the extent of their software testing. Before you other programmers welcome me as one of your fellows, I have another admission to make: I'm really more of a software architect than an engineer.
Teresa, could you send Frank over here before both sides shred me?
Diatryma @ 373... it doesn't matter how angry we are, we will eventually drift into a spiral of poetry, recipes, obscure references, and puns.
You forgot knitting, the knit-pickers will say.
Diatryma (372), it's the mulch of happy thoughts.
Lance (374), will any Frank do?
Greg, Abi: Have fun with them. There are always too many of those in the vowel box.
abi #369: It may be too late. My co-worker is named Fulmer, but calls himself Tra (with a long "a").
Dang! I meant Felix! But I'll settle for anyone...just don't send Yorick :)
I can be Frank with Lance. I am practiced at being frank with developers and architects.
Teresa @366
...is a process I've seen in many times and places, where people mistake a thing one does for a thing one is.
Ach, piffle. I came up with that all on my own, but now I'll find myself attributing it to you.
It's how I remain in charity with obnoxious comments, by remembering that a person who trolls is not necessarily a troll.
(I have been in Yorik's position, by the way, inheriting the job title of TSA from a wise and clever man. The letters usually stood for Technical Support Analyst, but if you held them to the quarter moon on Durin's Day, they meant Technical Smart Ass. The trick was to do both things at once, which Peter managed much more gracefully than I.)
Fade Manley @ 373
There is the OEDILF aka The Omnificent English Dictionary In Limerick Form - http://www.oedilf.com
A dictionary rather than an encyclopedia but with limericks! They have over 42.000 definations now. It's rather impressive.
367:OK, I just got this package from UPS, its addressed to Making Light, c/o me. Return address says "Iurker" or something. Can't quite make it out. I open it up, and it's full of, like, maybe a thousand capital "I"s.
I dub you Sir Greg of London. Arise, Sir Greg.
Why? Well, isn't it obvious? He must be a knight, because everyone knows the knight has a thousand "I"s.
#351, Fragano Ledgiste wondering about why a moped is a bromfiets: because, in Dutch, that's the sound it makes. There's also the snorfiets the decidedly unhip for decades [1] bike with electromotor usually only ridden by the blue rinse brigade, which makes a purring noise.
#356, Jakob : better to use 'Je koffie ziet er uit als Cthulhu' or even "Je koffie lijkt op Cthulhu".
[1] now new and improved and becoming cool amongst the grachtengordel as a replacement for a car, due to concerns about global warming. Also because everybody has a bakfiets now and you need to have something else to be hip.
Ow ow ow ow ow! Make ajay stop doing that!
Martin Wisse, have I mentioned noticing how often it happens that when stupid Wikipedia snarls get untangled, the untangling has your name on it?
#370 Kathryn (somewhere way upthread) noted that these kinds of discussions are useful because they *do* help Wikipedia to start cleaning up its act. That would be great, though from other comments I get the feeling that such optimism is uncomfortably close to Shrub's proclamations that things really are turning around in Iraq, thanks to the Surge.
Where is Peter Watts when we need him? Clearly what is called for is some pure unadulterated bracing gloom!
Peter would probably say something like, Wikipedia doesn't matter anyway. We're all on the road to extinction and shortly the planet will be under the control of canny giant squid!
Or perhaps he would suggest a method of indentifying psychopathy in teenagers that we could use to our advantage: 14 year-old psychopaths can be identified and then specially trained to fight all our net battles for us: the uninformed 20-somethings with narcissistic tendencies could not possibly hold out again such an awesome army, or . . .
(Never mind.)
Martin Wisse #383: Ik weet. I was trying to make a very bad joke. It didn't work. I hadn't, however, heard of the 'snorfiets', mostly because I don't think I ever saw one in Surinam.
#385 Kathryn:
Thus providing the plotline for the alternate universe SF classic, _Sender's Game_.
Heh.
Here's a great quote from Peter Watts that I'm not even making up. (Maybe this should go in Wikiquotes?):
Teresa @366: Foo. I lost a long message last night when our hosting service went screwy.
I was experiencing trouble as well; for a moment there, I thought, great googly moogly, ML's enemies have finally launched a denial of service attack. Whew!
In other news:
Fox News Changes Wikipedia To Smear Rivals; Comprehensive List of Changes
List anonymous wikipedia edits from interesting organizations
Diatryma @ 372: Making Light: it doesn't matter how angry we are, we will eventually drift into a spiral of poetry, recipes, obscure references, and puns. Eventually.
One thing newcomers might not know yet is that if you want to delight people here, ask them to explain an obscure reference.
elise @ 390... Do you think the newcomers seldom if ever ask us to elucidate those obscure references because they're afraid of looking ignorant? I hope not.
I hope not as well, but it suddenly occurred to me that maybe this route to delight was not obvious.
It might also not be obvious that we correct each other to be polite, if I am recalling the button correctly. (If I'm not, somebody will correct me, and I'll be glad of it.)
elise @ 393... Well, let's hope that our bringing this up makes newcomers realize that a request to explain references to Irwin Allen's oeuvre (for example) will not result in their being ostracized.
Christopher Davis @ 392: [*]
Dang! I just knew somebody was going to ask me to explain the asterisk panel, and I have to go do some work and errands.... OK, I'll try to keep this short and accurate, but I can't vouch for my memory, because I was there. (That makes sense if you're in my head. Really.)
Um, before a Minicon a few years back, some of us were talking about those tantalizing moments in discussions and panels where you want to ask somebody to explain the reference they just used, but you don't want to derail the main discussion, and so sometimes you don't ask, but you wish that you could. One of us expressed a desire for real-time footnotes, where a little glowing asterisk would flash and then the text would appear. A person got the idea that we could do this as a panel, one that was designed to be entirely digressions, if we got the right people on it. We'd print out sheets of paper with a big asterisk on each one, and hand them out to the audience as they came in. When somebody wanted a footnote, they'd hold up their asterisk. It was a great galloping good time.
I can't remember who all was on the panel there. I think I was. I know Mike was. (For them as just came in, Mike = John M. Ford.) Teresa was. Singer was, right? And.... OK, now I need help remembering. (And I'm off to get more work done and then do errands. Will check back later.)
And Serge @ 394, just try saying "Irwin Allen's oeuvre" five times fast and see what happens. I had a train wreck of the lips halfway through the second iteration.
Elise #396: I blew up on my third iteration, either referring to Irwin Allen's ulvula or vulva, I'm not sure which.
#398: Wasn't the Seaview attacked by a giant uvula? And sparks flew out of the control panel, too.
Leah 337: Wise, kind, and patient. You're impressing me more and more.
abi 340: Hear, hear.
____ 341: Back in form, I see! We love you, abi!
Kathryn Cramer @ 388: Oy. You tempt me sorely. I've been itching for an opportunity to air my rebuttals of the theories in Blindsight since the moment I finished reading it. Surely, I thought, if I simply bide my time the topic will come up on Making Light on its own. But it never has. What a brilliantly, excitingly, fascinatingly wrong book that was. How I'd love to discuss it.
elise... Hmm... My lips suffered no damage from repeatedly saying Irwin Allen's oeuvre, but my brain is still protesting.
Jon Meltzer... Is there anything that didn't attack the Seaview? Giant humanoid goldfish? Check. Lobster men? Check. Kelp monsters? Check. Blackbeard the Pirate? Check. Michael Dunn made up as a clown? Check...
Ow!
I think I just sprained a few synapses.
Oooh, Heresiarch, please rebut. I'd love to hear it.
Maybe in the open thread?
TNH @384
Make ajay stop doing that!
Ain't no power in the 'verse.
abi @ 403... No power in the 'verse? Not even Flash Gordon?
And it's time for another Round-up Response, as is so inevitable in these fast-moving threads. (I'm convinced the only reason I got that verse in directly after verse was called for was that temporary problem with the site that put everyone's posts on hold. cf. "hamster wheel," "preview button.")
...
First, foremost, most importantly, I owe Zeborah an apology. If you got off on the wrong foot, my post was undoubtedly a stone in your shoe. Both Leah and Madeline have quoted or made reference to that post in their excellent dissections above, but neither seem to be taking me to task for it, which is more than I deserve...
What I was referring to was a well-established pattern in previous Wikipedia threads, in which someone will come along, identify as an admin or at least an enthusiastic editor of WP pages, and scold the entirety of the Fluorosphere for criticizing WP. So my swipe was only intended in the direction of those whose argument consists of "WP can do no wrong and y'all are just hatahz!" Permutations of that argument involve "You have no right to criticize because you're an outsider" or "You have no right to criticize here; if you want to do some good bring your gripes to the Talk Pages" or "You got a problem? Citizendium is that way."
Unfortunately, my post was a bit too gleeful and too little specific, so it came across as unnecessarily provoking. And I'm sorry for that.
My best wishes for your cat's health. Pax.
...
Teresa, I admit to feeling snarky about "backseat moderation" myself, and I'm not a newbie (except in comparison to others). I think the reason it rubs me wrong is, I often see it as an attempt by someone trying to assert an authority they haven't earned. There are places all over that sentence for me to be wrong, of course. "Trying to assert" is one place; "they haven't earned" is another. As always, the bad feeling arises somewhere between infelicitous phrasing and incorrect interpretation. But, if I'm not alone here, this could be one reason why you and Ken see backseat moderators getting chastised in various fora.
...
So, recently, my writing group enjoyed responding to the prompt "write something using only one vowel." If you're wondering what to do with your "e"s post-disemvowelment, I could put them to good use that way.
...
"Keys To The Fluorosphere: 101 Useful Ways To Delight The Natives" is a thread title that comes to mind.
Re: ajay #382
because everyone knows the knight has a thousand "I"s
Darn, that earwormed me with an Old English riddle, so I'll share the joy of it:
A weird creature came to a meeting of men,
Hauled itself in to the high commerce
Of the wise. It lurched with one eye,
Two feet, twelve hundred heads,
A back and belly -- two hands, arms,
Shoulders -- one neck, two sides.
Untwist your mind and say what I mean.
And he'll freeze you
He'll enquease you
All to film-disaster cheese you.
He's atrocious, and he's discussed
What he fakes to make a block bust
He casts Bujold where you'd cast Deneuve
He's got Irwin Allen's oeuvre.
Although the BADSITES proposal is officially defeated, there is a clique of powerful Wikipedians who insists on enforcing it anyway, citing an ArbCom decision from last year banning links to a particular site (Encyclopedia Dramatica) on the grounds of it being a "harrassment and outing site". In my opinion, that was a bad decision, exceeding the proper bounds of the ArbCom which is explicitly barred from making policy or intervening in content decisions, and it was made worse by the way it's been misused ever since to suppress criticism. I wrote an essay about this on Wikipedia.
I was formerly one of the "fanatical" supporters of Wikipedia, who referred to critics as "Wiki Whiners" and generally took the pro-Wikipedia party line. What "turned me" away from this was my strong dislike of censorship, which led me to strongly oppose the "BADSITES" policy in all its forms (ironically, the way I first ran afoul of it was in my tendency to post links to sites like Wikipedia Review in order to criticize and make fun of them; the draconian interpretation of the no-link policy bans even that).
At present, I'm still not an "anti-Wikipedian"; I still generally like the site, and haven't really had major disputes over its actual content, and I still participate in editing it. However, I really wish that annoying clique would go away.
Do we have another internet to award to Chris Clarke? I do believe Chris Clarke wins an internet.
Which will then be given to me in recompense for the earworm, kthxbye.
I also owe Zeborah (and the rest of you) an apology... My dissection was too long, too repetitive, and thus needlessly heavy-handed. I did not resist the urge to re-tread ground already thoroughly covered wrt DG's meaning. I used tendentiously insulting words like "grovelling". I was, in fact, tacky. I'm sorry about that, Zeborah. The number of people saying, "I know her and she's cool" is really impressive, and I really do hope you hang around.
By way of reparation for the rest and useful contribution to the thread, I'm going to try a haiku with no vowel but E. Cripes.
The end never seen,
Esteem ebbs, men enter hell...
Whence seeds emerge.
Eeek! Grim! These are words I thought up, if anyone else wants help for a try.
The best french ten hen when send ken keen seen been be breed bleed feed freed seed ends enter rent ever never except between esteem ebb edge lessen recede geyser whence emerge descend
Argh! I'm imploding under the weight of my own stupidity! I can fracking sing Chris Clarke's little ditty at #407, but I somehow can't make the leap to figure out what it's based on. And...it's...driving...me...mad!
#400: I've been itching for an opportunity to air my rebuttals of the theories in Blindsight since the moment I finished reading it.
My illustrious spouse is Peter Watt's editor. My favorite anecdote about PW: We had dinner with him at the Toronto WorldCon, and brought out small son, also named Peter. Peter Watts is trained as a marine biologist.
When I mentioned that our son wanted to grow up to be a marine biologist, he replied: "You'd better hurry or they'll be nothing left out there to study but squid."
And then we had a discussion of how the squid will inherit the earth; and we may or may not have then ordered ourselves a pate of calamari.
Glee! The freeze recedes.
Bees, ever fennel-seekers,
flee the nettle-trees.
Chris Clarke (415):
::applause::
Xopher @ #412, Gah. The first three lines work for Carole King's "You've Got a Friend," so that's what I assumed (yeah, yeah, I know the aphorism).
Xopher, Lizzy L: Duh. OK. Thanks.
That song is fun, but hard, to sing at karaoke.
Serge @401: [..] Irwin Allen's oeuvre [..]
One of the markers for me is those Irwin Allen computers. You've seen them in all the TV shows, and even in his movies (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Towering Inferno).
I'd thought it would be interesting to create panels of blinking lights that would simulate that look. Hang them up on the wall to create the illusion of rooms full of computer. 'IA Computer Co', or 'Cargo Cult Computers' (since that would be what they would be).
Madeleine, #345: A bit of elaboration on the following:
Instead, you drag in new attacks like "but you said Wankerpedia", "but Patrick called someone a psychopath." What you're using here is the "it wasn't that bad, and also you deserved it" defense, which will never win you an argument, nor goodwill.
For me -- and I suspect I'm not the only one -- that tactic comes across as a variation on the political "But Clinton did it too!" To which my response tends to be, "Okay, so if you think it was so wrong when HE did it, why are YOU doing/defending it here?" (Or sometimes, "And if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?") Two wrongs don't make a right, and someone else's bad behavior doesn't give you free license to do the same thing... although the temptation to respond so can be very strong indeed.
ajay, #382: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! *holds nose and runs screaming into the night*
ethan, #418: Don't feel bad; if you can't sing it, that just proves you have both a voice and an ear. (Meee-ow!)
FYI:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece
"Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds"
JW reaction:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/079209.html
> "The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of
> Wikipedia's culture."
This is preposterous.
> "It combines the free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right with
> the anti-intellectualism of the populist Left. "
Nonsense.
It is hard to know how to coherently respond to ignorant ranting which
appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts
of reality.
--Jimbo
That line makes almost no sense out of context (at least to me it didn't). The bit leading up to it helps explain:
The problem is not that there are too few voices in the editorial process, who can skew the result, but the opposite. Participation is prized more than competence. When a prominent Wikipedian who claimed to be a tenured professor of divinity was revealed instead to be a young college dropout, the site’s founder Jimmy Wales responded that he was unconcerned. The notion that a false claim to knowledge is wrong is not part of Wikipedia’s culture.
This reference to the Essjay Controversy may be incomplete. At first, JW didn't see anything wrong with Essjay's false claim to knowledge, but then at some point JW asked for his resignation. Whether this was due to a sense of moral obligation or an attempt to avoid more bad press, I'm not sure.
I think wikipedia portrays it as JW didn't realize how bad it was, but then found out and canned him. But then, wikipedia has in the past attempted to report JW's previous work in porn as "Glamour Photography", so maybe using wikipedia as a reference regarding its own behaviour isn't a good idea.
Here, by the way, is the statement you need to sign off on to join Citizendium. While a lot of this sounds good, it also sounds half-baked, and unexpected insistence that I must agree to this stuff was off-putting enough that I didn't complete my registration.
The Citizendium's Statement of Fundamental PoliciesVersion 1.0, September 29, 2006; 1.1, October 7; 1.2, October 9; 1.3, October 10; 1.4, October 11; 1.5, January 22, 2007
The Citizendium project is launching with some fundamental commitments, articulated in this document. Those who support these commitments are invited to contribute to the initial shaping of the project. Those who reject any of these commitments are hereby asked to abstain from participating.
I. The nature of the project.
The ultimate goal of the Citizendium community, a global group of collaborators, is to create the most reliable and largest encyclopedia that they can.
If an "approved" or "certified" version of an article is available, that version will be presented to the public by default; in that case, viewing unapproved versions will require further mouseclicks for the public, and such versions will be clearly labelled as unapproved, and users will be instructed not to rely upon them.
The Citizendium will be a wiki. Edits will not be required to be approved by editors before appearing on the wiki.
The Citizendium will be owned and ultimately controlled by a non-profit organization.
The Citizendium will not sell advertisements. There may be unobtrusive non-profit sponsorship statements, but sponsors will have no editorial influence over the project, and enforceable, adequate oversight of this rule will be in place. Similarly, no grants that make specific editorial demands will be accepted.
The Citizendium will be devoted to simplicity, both in presentation of content and in the organization of the community. Many features as implemented by Wikipedia, such as subject categories and so-called user boxes, may be eliminated from (or never included in) the Citizendium. Special roles will not be created without excellent reason, and bureaucracy will be kept to the absolute minimum necessary.
II. Fundamental policies concerning content.The content of the Citizendium will always be open content.
It will be the project's aim to make the content of the Citizendium:
accurate
based on common experience, published, credible research, and expert opinion
neutral in this sense
legal and responsible
family-friendly
III. Fundamental policies concerning community governance.All contributors to the Citizendium must do so using their own real names, unless special and unusual permission is granted by project management.
The Citizendium will be open to contribution by anyone (tentatively, "authors") who is able to make a positive difference and who is willing to work collaboratively under the policies and management of the project.
The Citizendium will invite subject area experts to serve as editors. The term "editor" is, however, used in a restricted sense. Editors will be expected to work "shoulder-to-shoulder" with authors in the wiki. Among the things that editors will be empowered, singly or collectively, to do are (1) to make decisions about specific questions, or disputes, concerning particular articles in an editor's area of expertise, and (2) to approve high-quality articles. Editors will not have the right, except perhaps in very unusual cases, to "lock" articles and thereby prevent the collaborative process from continuing. Finally, editors will be expected to share authority with other editors who are expert on the same subjects.
The Citizendium will have a set of persons of mature judgment specially empowered to enforce rules, called (at least tentatively) "constables." The enforcement of project rules--up to and including the ejection of participants from the project--is to be carried out using common sense and leniency while following "the rule of law."
There will be a separation of powers: enforcement officials ("constables") will not be able to make editorial decisions, and editors will not have the ability to enforce their own decisions, though they will be able to make recommendations.
IV. Statement of rights.Con
Comments on From correspondence: Top this!: