Slashdot Mirror
Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia
privatemusings writes "Wikipedians are up in arms at the revelations that respected administrators have been discussing blocking and banning editors on a secret mailing list. The tensions have spilled over throughout the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit' and news agencies are sniffing around. The Register has this fantastic writeup — read it here first." The article says that some Wikipedians believe Jimbo Wales has lost face by supporting the in-crowd of administrators and rebuking the whistle blower who leaked the existence of the secret mailing list.
These people will of course seek to infiltrate and take over any organization perceived as having any kind of power, whether it is over ideas, money or people. That's because, after all, this is what they are after.
It makes no difference whether it is religion, politics or an Internet encyclopedia, offer an entry for the people with psychopathic tendencies and they will come. The rant quoted in the Register article is simply typical of the breed.
To get people to do moderation work unpaid, you have to offer them something. That something is described above -a small amount of power and the feeling of being in an in-group and privy to secret knowledge. Depressingly, what I conclude from this is that the only real answer is to pay people and have competition. Payment offers rewards to people who do not care about power or exclusivity. Competition means that disgruntled customers and competitors go elsewhere, i.e. they can escape from an abusive in group. What Wikipedia needs is a commercial model and competition. That way, the psychopaths and compulsive neurotics are unlikely to take over the shop (and the ones on the staff can waste their energy litigating, which seems to be the main way we keep psychopaths out of trouble in the English speaking world.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
And as we've seen, the in crowd are not the ones who really contribute in the first place.
So what are these people good for, again?
Free Hans!
The problem in this case is two-fold, but the cause is the same: wikipedia reaching worldwide popularity.
First of all, wikipedia by it's nature is not supposed to have higher-ups, but an administrator group is a technical necessity. These administrators are motivated by the growing popularity of wikipedia in two ways: they gained more power ("Cmon! I'm an administrator on the english wikipedia! Wow!") or in other words, the social status of their administrator title got more important. This is bound to make the admins feel a lot more different, even if unconsciously or unwittingly. They try to protect wikipedia and overreact, get overly paranoid and lose focus of their true goal.
The second reason they can behave wrongly is simply that the social infrastructure didn't adapt to the popularity yet. What I mean is that administrators are not distinct, named, accountable people. They edit using their administrator account (officially, even if some of them use alternative accounts in reality), they are not named people. To fix these problems there has to be a clear separation of priviledges, and clear identifiability and accountability for administrators.
Admins should be compelled to do their actions with their real names attached to it, not behind nicknames. No non-administrator wikipedia contribution should take place on their admin accounts. They should be editing using a non-priviledged account. The regular account of admin personnel should not necessarily be revealed, but admins should be verifying each other's work.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
They're hurting Wikipedia more than the petty vandals they're trying to stop, even bad guys with admin rights. :-(
It's one thing to contribute and have someone occasionally wreck thing up -- that can be repaired easily. It's a whole other thing to feel like you're contributing to admins with this mindset. Regaining confidence in the leadership isn't done in a similar fashion by a click of a button.
Alright, now I'm waiting to hear what Jimbo Wales will do to stop this behavior. Surely that can is a reasonable expectation?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I'm sorry, but with so many whack-jobs in the world, it doesn't surprise me in the least that some people are banned from wikipedia. It's been one of the enduring complaints about wikipedia that anyone can edit it - editing existing content, removing real information, and adding their dumb ideas to the encyclopedia. I'm sure some people are ridiculously tenacious about adding bad information to the pages, and think that the rest of the world is wrong about Autism/ Bigfoot/ the Kennedy Assassination/ psychics/ global warming/ whatever. Not to mention all the publicity that occurred when the IPs tracing back to politician's offices or large corporations were caught changing pages to make their opponents look bad / make themselves look good. It doesn't surprise me that some wikipedia higher-ups feel like some particular users are like bulls in their china shop, and rather than running behind them trying to clean up the mess, think it's simply easier and better to ban certain people.
You can't simultaneously complain that wikipedia is vulnerable to edits by ignorant/malicious/troll/pro-spin users, and complain that wikipedia takes action against those users by identifying them and banning them.
In this case, one of the higher-ups banned a user who seems to be a productive contributor - which is essentially an abuse of power. But, I fail to see how the "secret mailing list" is controversial.
And who cares what 8th graders do? Seriously, this is just a bunch of useless trolls (who exist in every community) trying to present themselves as big, important, and note worthy to the world. Wikipedia works for me, I correct mistakes I see, and I add content if I see it missing and I know what goes there, beyond that there is no need for the normal person to interact further with the 'community'.
In my opinion Wikipedia should be run like the internet; by a bunch of useless people who are so tied up in their own mess they don't ruin my day and some how out of it all we end up with a magically great resource.
I ate your fish.
The Register hates Wikipedia and at every opportunity seeks to spin the tiniest thing into major news that is negative about Wikipedia.
I don't know why they do this, penis envy?
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
Editor falsifying his entire life to give more weight to his editorial views? "Eh well he was protecting himself from stalkers".
Mods discussing mod stuff off-site (granted, completely counter to the notion of transparency that Wikis serve to enable)? "HOLY SHIT YOU HAVE UNLEASHED THE FUCKING FURY YOU ASSHOLES".
Strange group, this Wikipedia. I go there for information on my favorite Pokemon, but for anything serious, I'd much rather google <seriousthing> -wikipedia
Exactly, this story is ridiculously sensational. It's "coming apart at the seams" "rocked"... what now??!
Again, you have no right to comment on the issue if you possess no academic qualifications. Those who can't make it in the exploration of knowledge are always ready to claim there's some problem with the academic process, when the real problem is their lack of qualifications.
I think I should respond to this. let me se, reasoned, well thought out, adult...
Your talking utter utter shite. No really, you are.
Lets look at an example, amatour astronomy. the overwhelming majority of the worlds astronomers are amatours, almost none of whome have academic qualifications. In spite of this they are the acknowledged backbone of astronomy, responsible for a huge volume of discoveries and research. The field would be a wasteland without them.
That's just one field, there are others, but I don't want to produce a huge list. This 'right to comment' you describe is rubbish. Anyone can comment on anything, and have the right to be heard. How seriously they are taken depends on how useful or informed their contribution is. That's the hard part, and this usefulness can be acheived either through academic work, or independant work as an amatour. Both are valid, although I have to say the latter is often the one with greater passion.
I'm an academic, and I bow to the superior domain knowledge of a number of my 'unqualified' freinds when it comes to things they understand well and I do not.
Jimbo Wales Slashdot sockpuppet found
One has to wonder just what is so vastly important and controversial that an administrator cannot communicate it on site for fear of the dreaded Vandals and Sockpuppets (they're everywhere oh god!!) - gasp - reading it.
Maybe they see it for what it is? A vast collection of Pokemon trivia and amateur writing that is too self-conscious and self-important for its own good?
But, hey, go on sharing your conspiracy bullshit. I'm sure life would be so much better if those goddamned reporters would just mind their own business. Just remember, no original research, k?
Personally I think they do it because it's a cheap way to fill column inches and to push a few buttons on readers who recognize it for the invaluable service it is.
It's funny and tragic. And by far not limited to Wikipedia. Try your average club and you'll see exactly the same development. Hell, try anything where some people who have nothing in common but the goal at hand aggregate.
First, you'll see people form groups. Then you'll see (some) groups trying to gain power. No matter how petty (and in Wikipedia's case it's anything but petty. People have replaced Google with Wikipedia as a source for good links).
Generally, you'll have two kinds of groups in every assembly of human beings. Those that want to push the cause along and those that want to control it. The latter will most certainly claim they belong to the first group (often even to themselves), but in general they would do anything to aggregate more power, no matter whether the group moves anywhere anymore.
With power and the lust for it comes paranoia. Because the knave thinks the way he is, they start seeing usurpators who want to control the group anywhere. So they become secretive and paranoid. Anyone who is "good" (as in, is actually pushing the cause ahead and keeps things moving) will be seen as a threat, because he will invariably be liked by those who're also in for the cause. Someone who is liked has peer backing, and that could threaten the power base of this group. So he will be mobbed until he leaves.
What's finally left is a dead hulk. Everyone who wanted to move the cause along will have left, what's left is the power hungry group and some tagalongs and posers who present no danger to said group, but who are also not getting the cause anywhere. They're just in for the "experience" and the fame of being "there" and being part of it. Because if they would actually start pushing ahead, they would be seen as a threat to the power group and removed.
Sad, really. But if you can't get rid of such power whores, you'll end up with a dead project.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."
--Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
I refer specifically to the asteroid monitoring and discovery work they do, which is essential, and involves too high a volume of observation time for most profesional astronomers to maintain. Not deep space work though, that costs money.
If all opinions are equally valid, then the opinion that that opinion is bullshit is equally valid, so what are you complaining about ? Or did you mean: "All opinions are equally valid as long as they coincide with mine" ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I suppose you also believe that evolution, intelligent design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster should have equal representation in the school curriculum? And should the page about the landing on the moon have half the text stating that it is not an accepted fact and that the landing could have been faked. There's no such thing as absolute truth, but if you include every single point of view, you end up not carrying any information either. There's a fine line here and it's definitely not easy to do a good job.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
That same #wikipedia that bans people for posting chat logs? Great company you keep.
The only objection to teaching intelligent design in schools is when it is taught in science class, as it is clearly not science. If you think it is valuable to teach it in some other class I don't see a problem.. same with the FSM, but I'd be opposed to teaching that in science class too.
It really shouldn't be necessary to explain that something isn't accepted fact.. and if you're talking to people who believe in accepted fact then its pointless how much of the text you have explaining that something is or isn't accepted fact.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Qualification in a field generally means no more than that the person being "qualified" (e.g. through a degree from an educational institute) in a certain field has shown to have undergone a systematic exposure to and a basic grounding in that previous knowledge. In addition a certain basic competence in the (established through consensus) techniques in that field has to be demonstrated.
By being aware of previously established techniques people can avoid treading in the same pitfalls as those before them (in the case of Mathematics, the Sciences and Engineering often centuries before them). In areas where previous knowledge is plentiful, well-established, and being proven on an hour-by-hour basis, a lack of that knowledge is usually enough to ensure that the odds of that someone saying of thinking anything worthwhile or even coherent about the theoretical size of that common background knowledge (the theory of that area) is really rather slim. There *are* exceptions, but they are mighty rare (the mathematician Ramanuyan was one).
That is as far as thoughts on theory go. However, there is something that generally trumps theory, and that is (valid and careful) observation. Raw data if you like. Precisely how valid an observation is is something an amateur unfortunately often cannot tell because he doesn't know enough of the pitfalls that have been taught to qualified people. However, if he uses an established observational methodology (e.g. pointing a camera at the sky and carefully noting down when and where they did that) there isn't all that much they can do wrong.
If the camera subsequently shows flying saucers, then this bit of "evidence" has to be weighed against all the other bits of evidence that qualified practitioners know about, and may be discounted on that basis alone (it wouldn't be the first hoax). But this is hardly something that a serious amateur astronomer would do ... or even want to do. Amateurs can be as dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge as any qualified practitioner.
For this reason alone, amateur astronomers can contribute without academic qualifications. Simply because they can contribute instrumental observations. Such observations as a rule are highly reproducible (and may be objective, valid and valuable even if they are not reproducible because they record one-of-a-kind phenomena), and their value is one of *discovery*.
This however does *not* contradict the idea that an "amateur" in a certain field is unlikely to be able to fruitfully contribute to thoughts about the theory of that field. As such "amateur astronomers" are a very poor example.
The same holds for Chemistry, Physics, Biology and any kind of engineering. As long as someone can come up with an interesting (and reproducible) observation, they can make a contribution to the total stock of knowledge. When it comes to interpreting that observation, and/or fitting that observation into a theoretical framework one simply needs to know the theory, which is quite unlikely without qualification.
Precisely.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I wouldn't agree that wikipedia is worthless. Go back just a short 10 years ago, maybe even just 5 for that matter, and the "easy" way to get information about some topic was to ask your drunk uncle, or some other old fart at the family picnic. Want to know about WWII the easy way? Ask grandma/pa, want to know about Vietnam or JFK, ask mom and dad, or your uncle. Sure, you could have gone to a library, searched for some books that are hundreds of pages long, mostly filler, to get the 5 sentences of information you're looking for or you could have flipped open your dated set of encyclopedias and read what the "historians" said, which lacks the quick and easy references to related topics and in book form means that you still need to go the library to lookup the references and get any real details.
In other words, I like to consider wikipedia my non-kid touching, molestation free drunk uncle of information, maybe, or maybe not, more accurate, but at least I can get quick answers on a lot of topics and I can see how topics are related and then just search google for more information or confirmation of the information I've found, and best of all, it doesn't even cost me a 6-pack.
Most people have no idea what they are doing, and are silently panicking on the inside.
That was pretty funny, but you hit on a sore spot of mine: notability deletions. See, there are destructive bastards who like to brag about the articles they've deleted and delight in destroying Wikipedia. Because these "notability" jackboots are tolerated and you're only allowed to see the articles that meet their nebulous standards, Wikipedia is useless to me as a resource. It may cover a lot of the common information on a subject but there's a good chance all the interesting dark corners have been labeled as "cruft" and removed.
I don't mind flame wars. There's nothing you can say to hurt my feelings. Remove my words and pretend they never existed, though, and now we've got a problem. To hell with Wikipedia and the arrogant bastards that patrol it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
And yet a simple null-experiment will show that both will agree on the color if given a chance:
Give each of the men a card with gradations of reds and greens, with different values, chromas, and hues. Given standard lighting, any full-sighted person would be able to pick out regions of strong reds and greens on the card, except near the dividing line (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system#Chroma). What's more, both men, upon holding the card up to the tree, will be able to pick out the region on the card where the difference between the tree's color and that on the card is the least.
By definition (remember that normally-sighted people will all agree on whether a given point on the card is a red or a green, except for border cases, and very rarely will a singly-colorblind person argue that a color could fall in a few regions), the tree can have only one color, and even moderately-sighted people can figure out what color it is using such a null technique. It's very powerful.
This attitude kills so many articles. People with an academic background in a topic will work on something for months and then some punk wikipedia cultist with maybe an undergrad degree will crap all over it and scream NPOV when someone tries to repair the damage. This results in the people who normally get paid to write about the topic at hand being run off in favor of idiots.
If you have to do research to understand what the topic even is, leave it the fuck alone.
That's why I love Slashdot. It has never pretended to be anything more than Cmdr. Taco's personal blog. Yet it works better, and this little dictatorship is more open and free than Wikipedia. What does that say about human nature?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What? Wikipedia is supposed to be an open organization and it's a public irc channel. There are no concerns which justify that. It would be like kicking someone out of the country for posting logs of what was discussed in an open session of congress.
Also that doesn't keep people from discussing what was said ther on a bolg, forum or whatever you like.Yes, actually, it does, and the fact that it does is the reason that fair use law allows quoting as much of something as necessary for the purposes of critique.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"