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.
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.
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 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
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'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!)
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??!
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.
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
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
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.
*Ahem*
http://xkcd.com/263/
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.
* 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?
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.
No, seriously, I want to know. Preventing "vanity pages" and "ads" is one of the major justifications for the periodic 'notability purges' which basically amount to book-burnings; untold hours of people's effort being put to the torch by Wikipedia admins who don't like something about the content. (And they really go out of their way to destroy the information, too; it's not just a logical delete, the database is apparently scrubbed, it's as if the articles in question never even existed except in the delete logs.) And of course it opens the door to all types of censorship via selective enforcement.
All to keep the precious namespace clear of "low quality" articles (as if there aren't enough low-quality articles already -- it's kind of par for the course when you have user-editable content).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."