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.
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.
Oh, I'm sorry, were we talking about 8th grade?
Hrm, I just finished posting my last comment in another thread, and now I'm thinking the quote would have been more appropriate here.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CorbinSimpson/TINC
Amazing how it still holds today, eh?
~ C.
A user on community.livejournal.com/ultimate_fashion is complaining that livejournal users mindyminx16 and sassykitty91 totally control the entire community over secret aim chats.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
No.. there's no secret mailing list - I checked Wikipedia and it said so. Said it was not "not notable" or something.
I've encountered asshat's like this before, they never learn and never go away until you hit THEM with the ban hammer
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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."
To have hierarchy breaks the Wiki model, as it breeds suspicion. Even in groups with the best of intentions eventually the suspicion will be warranted if one has power over another. Unlike the real world, transgressions in wikis can be undone. In such a case it is better to rely on the sensible majority policing a malicious minority on an equal footing by weight of numbers rather giving special powers that can be abused.
this topics has been edited to be wikifriendly Your Overlord
This is the evidence that Durova, self-proclaimed "complex investigations specialist" used to justify banning one of Wikipedia's finest contributors. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Durova's_Sekret_Evidence
Here she is on Slashdot. In what appears to be an amazing coincidence, the person she is defending here is the same person who happens to run the mailing list in question.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=256781&cid=20020479
This is one of the reasons I created the Administrators' noticeboard: to allow people to coordinate administration in an open and transparent manner. I always expressed concerns about the Wikipedia admins IRC channel, though it turns out this has been pretty benign. I still frown on closed list: it really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy ...
"Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."
It has always been like this, will always be like this
--- censored
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 agree with most of what you say, but I believe you are mistaken about payment, and I think FOSS provides a good illustration of why.
Once necessities have been taken care of, social status is probably the greatest motivation for people to make money. Paying contributors doesn't really change that. You are right that not all people crave power or exclusivity. But power is not the only social reward - there are other alternatives besides money. (Exclusivity is itself not a reword, only a way to achieve status.) Reputation does not have to be exclusive. Indeed it requires inclusion - you can't have a reputation all by your lonesome. And it doesn't have to involve negative power dynamics.
Many well-regarded FOSS developers achieved their reputations without power tripping. In this they are constrained, as you suggest, by the choices of participants (the competition you cite is a particular way of achieving this) - in the case of FOSS, forking or the threat of forking constrains projects from degenerating too much. Many projects aren't exclusive either: the whole point of the exercise is to draw in participants. Linus's reputation is largely built on the number of participants in Linux, and on his ability to manage based on consent (which I believe contributes to his reputation).
There are two kinds of gift-giving in cultures in which it is important. In both cases, people try to incur debts by giving gifts. One kind of giving is agonistic (competitive): the objective is to give gifts to people unable to return them, thereby demonstrating dominance over them. The second kind of giving also incurs debts, but it involves exchange. Even though a return gift is given, the slate is not wiped clean - both parties remain somewhat in debt. Social bonds are formed, giving rise to community. I believe most successful FOSS involves the second kind of giving.
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.
I'd do a mass sign-up of the secret list:
http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking
(as posted in another post, but up here, it'll get more coverage... here goes my karma, watch it slide!)
You misunderstand - I saw adminship as a responsibility, not a privilege. I was on Wikipedia to write articles, not engage in petty Wikipolitics. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to try to reform Wikipedia. Firstly, it's not really possible. Secondly, unless you have tried dealing with the numerous trolls, nasty editors or those who are trying to convert Wikipedia into Wikicruft then you can't possibly know how hard it is to be an admin who tries to stick to core principles.
Basically, the bottom line is: nowadays on Wikipedia you are either an admin or an editor. I tried to be both, and it sucked up all my time. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. There are systemic issues on Wikipedia, I don't know how they should be fixed, nor do I much care anymore. Unless something is done, we're going to see a lot more of this silliness. Which is sad, very sad.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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
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.
Actually, that was my point.
There is a clique in Wikipedia that has tried to censor links to sites they think are "evil". Some people don't like this.
--Dan
Web Tips
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.
The way you said it was funny but what you said is true. This is extremely childish behavior, and is VERY commonplace in most online communities. The only difference is that in this case, there was a written record of it and it was discovered by the community, and the community, as a collective, actually cared. I was once the victim of an almost identical situation, this is nothing uncommon. I know quite a few people who've suffered a similar treatment. Online communities are so rife with corruption, it almost makes meatspace look good. Perhaps what's worse is that the admins don't really have anything to gain from such behavior. They must get a feeling of power from it that they enjoy.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
What happened with !! (the user Durova blocked) was unfortunate because Durova was absolutely correct that the user in question was a returning user and there were in fact certain serious warning signs. However, there was a piece of data that Durova did not have access to that would have explained everything, a datum that was highly injurious to !!'s privacy. That's why after the block was overturned, Durova and other admins tried to get people to stop discussing the matter on Wikipedia- the only possible explanations to users would have hurt !!. Frankly, the attempt by admins and Durova to get people to stop backfired and created only more drama. As a result, !! has left the project. The fact that a semi-secret list was used is more or less incidental to what occurred.
Sites like this aren't democracies. They're businesses, controlled by one or a few people, who take advantage of their users generating content for free to make money for their business. All this "democracy" crap is just a bunch of "Web 2.0" hype.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
* http://www.wikipediareview.com/
* http://www.wikitruth.info/
"On-Wiki" they are already in spin control. The best thing about the secret mail list is that it is hosted on Wikia.com servers, the private for-profit company owned by Jimbo Wales, which is legally supposed to be seperate from registered charity the Wikimedia Foundation. Various people have already informed the IRS.
Dude, where's my packet?
Isn't it time for him to come in here and tell us that it isn't a big deal and how we're all being trolled?
I was going to down mod you, but I couldn't think of one that was appropriate.
Writing a justification of why you tend to take down users based on your suspicions is not a good way to gain credibility. You admit you act with flimsy evidence, but then you say, "Oh but we're doing it for the good of the whole, and you'd agree with us if only you could be trusted to know what we know."
Frankly it's horseshit, and I'm not surprised people are raising hell about it. It shows you have authority without oversight, and that you believe most of the users can't be trusted with oversight. For a supposedly "democratic" project, that sounds an awful lot like autocracy or facism. If you control the information that people need to be able to form accurate opinions, you are controlling them. That's the end of the story. It doesn't matter why you do it.
Now governments do this all the time, and they tend to be able to get away with it because they hold information that can cost people their lives. Moreover the government is set up in such a way that it watches itself, and is still accountable to the people.
Who are you accountable to? No one but yourselves, and we see here how that works. You make decisions based on information that you don't share with the community. People post damaging false info on Wikipedia all the time...What's the problem with having some damaging true information available? At least it's true.
It's almost amusing to watch power corrupt. You pitch democracy, you pitch community. But you concentrate power, you act unilaterally, and you withhold needed information from the community. That is neither democracy or community.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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
the editorial staff of any large collaboration will suffer the same trevails and useless insider versus outsider drama and cliques and power plays
but of course, the haters will come out of the woodwork trumpeting this scandal as a reason why wikipedia is wrong
this does in fact besmirch wikipedia in general, but it doesn't count as a reason to find wikipedia inferior in quality, as it is a problem that all encyclopedias or any publication with large editorial staff and the drama that comes with
so holding this scandal against wikipedia uniquely is not valid
"context"
it's a valuable concept
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... that no one invited me to the super secret treehouse mailing list. :(
Try editing anything significant on Wikipedia. It's nearly impossible to get something to stick if you haven't read all the rules and policy they've implemented. And it's not like it's just a list of guidelines or something, it's article after article (and these are MASSIVE articles) that people are supposed to read before they edit anything. It's completely ridiculous.
Also, people on Wikipedia are really caught up in the idea of deleting instead of fixing. If something isn't formatted correctly, they don't fix it, they nominate it for deletion. So then the original editor has to go spend time convincing people his article is worthy of keeping before he can do anything to it. And in the meantime the article has a giant MARKED FOR DELETION tag that gives Wikipedia oh-so-much credibility.
I started the Antec page on Wikipedia. I haven't worked on it much, but literally moments after I started it some ill-informed deletion monger marked it for speedy deletion (this is the kind of deletion that people use when they think a page has no place on Wikipedia and doesn't need much debate) because Antec was not notable enough. Not because he actually thought a major computer hardware manufacturer wasn't important for an encyclopedia that includes a massive page on Jedi fighting styles, but because he hadn't ever heard of Antec, and couldn't be bothered to search around for anything. So he decided to delete it. It didn't get deleted, mind you, but it's a pain in the ass to convince people not to, because apparently the fact that there are pages for every other smaller case manufacturer isn't not justification for having a page on Wikipedia (that is an official Wikipedia policy, and is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard; if there are pages for every company LESS notable than Antec, then that is damn good justification for Antec having a page also).
If you have some magic technique to find sockpuppets I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
I just don't think there is an actual need. Supposedly anyone can edit WP, but apparently that just means anyone who edits it in a manner that the admin minority approves of.
Either the community can take care of itself, in which case there is no problem, or it can't, in which case the problem is insoluble. The solution is not for a self-appointed minority to wield police power with no oversight on flimsy pretexts. Far as I'm concerned, you're all sockpuppets.
And as for a "popular target" you (And by "you" I mean "you the administrators." You can't just say, "Hey that was the other guy, it has nothing to do with me!" when you're here defending the system) banned someone, and people checked up on it, and found you'd done it for obviously crappy reasons...You banned !! because that person was karma whoring (in your opinion) and because you were afraid they were building their credit to get into the sort of power position you're in. To me, that shows that you're worried about the abuse of the power position (which is what everyone in this thread is also worried about) which means you ought to be admitting that, yes, there are issues, and not just defending your rights to abusable power.
Security through Obscurity applies to a lot of things outside of crypto, though I'll grant you that's where the term was coined. If I hide a key under my doormat, that's "Security through Obscurity". If you hide your seeeecret methods for sock-detection, that's "Security through Obscurity". A non-crypto example is bayesian spam filtering; it's open, it's available, it's still effective at stopping spam. What are you afraid of releasing? Certainly in this case, insight into the "process" involved in identifing malicious users has been revealing.
Internet anonymity is something we all like to believe in, but if someone is sufficiently determined, they will find you out, and in this case, you're the people trying to break the user's anonymity! Talk about your hypocrisy! You dig down and figure out who the user is, then have to make this huge backpedal because it turns out you're outing the wrong person! Well done.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If you have some magic technique to find sockpuppets I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
Yeah: Don't.
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Hell, I don't even know what a "sock puppet" is, but trying to find them and ban them certainly goes against that cute little slogan on the homepage. Maybe you should modify it to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone but sock puppets can edit", which a link to the definition of sock puppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
(BTW, I'm not going to edit Wikipedia out of principle, but saying that the word "alt" is universally considered "a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to" among all online services is simply wrong. In World of Warcraft, for example, the word "alt" has no negative connotations at all, it's just an alternate character you play sometimes. Despite its obvious importance to Wikipedia editors, I've never heard the term "sockpuppet" heard anywhere except in connection to Wikipedia.)
Comment of the year
go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=secret+mailing+list&go=Go
and you get:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You searched for secret mailing list [Index]
[snip]
No page with that title exists.
If true the fallout is very damaging from this.
As the saying goes, and is confirmed here in black and white so to speak, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The very idea that a small group of people control this information basically makes these people a propaganda machine, not unlike NAZI Germany.
They simple have more advanced tools at their disposal.
I must admit I was not aware how the Wiki manages itself internally.
But clearly, there has to be a more public review of the process and these individuals cannot be trusted to police themselves.
Even a 75 minute ban is unacceptable. Given the remarks by the power structure, I am inclined to believe that this will only continue to become worse without:
1) A complete review of the policies in public used by the admins.
2) A restructuring of the decision making process to include public debate and review. I mean after all, we are talking about book or reference information, much of which doesn't change over time.
Edits made should be suitable for public or peer review and this process should be open, in similair fashion to edit made to software projects, which anyone can join a list to observe or participate.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.