The Register Exposes More Wikipedia Abuse

cyofee writes "The Register has up another article exposing abuse of Wikipedia's policies and processes. It tells a tale of a man, Gary Weiss, controlling the Wikipedia article about himself and his enemies (one of Wikipedia's biggest taboos) all under the blessing of the Wikipedia Cabal. A man who attempted to expose the affair on Wikipedia, along with his his entire IP range (some 1000 homes), was permanently blocked. This comes only days after the affair of the Secret Mailing list."

Comments

Waht do you know

[nunyadambinness]

A good idea corrupted by human execution.

We told them it would happen, but "NO! This time it's different!". Except, it wasn't.

Where's that guy who shills for wikipedia, I'd love to hear his take on this.

Re:Waht do you know

[AmaDaden]

Once as a boy I was told something about absolute power...now how did that go again?

Meh.

[SatanicPuppy]

It's not the idea. The idea was "everyone contributes, and everyone is equal." If that was still the idea, we wouldn't be hearing all these stories of editorial abuse, because things are now unequal, and that inequality is what's breeding all these problems.

Put a group in charge, and you're going to get abuse. That's just a fact. To get around this, most other organizations add some checks and balances, some oversight, some limitations on power. WP didn't do this, and now they're suffering for it.

Re:Meh.

[SatanicPuppy]

They certainly like to think so.

The problem is that their idea of merit is far better described as "prolific". If someone does a lot of decent edits, that makes them prolific. If someone creates a small number of extremely high quality original articles, they have merit. It's the second class that really adds value to WP, and they vastly outnumber the first class. But the second class isn't well represented in the admin group, and the first is.

Without the guys who only write one or two articles, WP would be tiny. But those people have no say. And worse, if they move against the groupthink, then they can be banned.

Re:Meh.

[Lemmy Caution]

If you're capable of "putting" any class into place, then you already are the ruling class.

One thing I love about geek pop political/organizational theory - it works as if politics were a god game in which systems are designed by an abstract, external power, rather than always produced by people who already have a stake in it as players.

All or nothing

[overshoot]

I'd hate for Wikipedia to be taken down over some scandal.

So there's no point in wasting cycles on Wikipedia's imperfections, since the only alternative is its total destruction?

That's good to know -- I don't need to write up that material I was going to submit since Wiki is a "love it (as is) or leave it" regime.

Re:All or nothing

[Torodung]

Hey, whoa pardner. I'm not the one with the "all or nothing" attitude. There are plenty of people saying that this "scandal" somehow affects every article on Wikipedia, even the ones on the boiling point of water, and that is mostly because they have an agenda to take it all down.

They don't like the idea of Wikipedia, or they are natural conspiracy theorists who think all power and centralized control is evil, and are willing to take Wiki down in their cause to reform it on an idealistic model of total anarchy, which anyone with a lick of sense knows wouldn't work, as evidenced by the vandalism problems Wikipedia has had.

I don't want to see that agenda served. I think Wikipedia is a good idea, but it was inchoate, as all good ideas are, and they need time and balance to sort out the problems with that idea, without someone screeching "totalitarian" at what is little more than a bunch of snotty intellectuals with little to no PR experience and/or tact.

Though they failed to mention Nazis, I am calling "Godwin" on the whole bit. I agree with you. It needs to be worked with, and praised for what it is, not assaulted.

--
Toro

Re:All or nothing

[Sockatume]

Characterising the project as ruled by a partisan elite with an army of drones at their disposal, just because of the actions of a few pissant administrators, is certainly doing a disservice to the 90% of Wikipedia admins, editors, and unregistered users who aren't complete assholes.

Precisely: you *can't* complain

[overshoot]

Actually, I'm always surprised the Wikipedia is as reliable as it is, and that so many people are willing to devote their time and effort to make it better.

... which they may stop doing if they can't complain, yes?

Re:Throwing the baby out with the bathwater

[SatanicPuppy]

So saying that there is a problem at WP is the same as destroying the whole?

The only reason people complain is because they care about it. This is a real concern; I have absolutely no problem believing that there are abuses going on. The editors are human, and, even worse, they have a strong emotional stake in the project. That gives them a lot of motivation to do some "ends justifying the means" crap like banning someone they don't agree with.

The way for WP to solve the whole problem is to address the concerns not to do as you are doing, and pretend like they don't exist, or aren't relevant.

A very good thing

[franois-do]

Wikipedia is like a garden : it is not fixed once and for all, and you have to keep fighting continously in order to keep it healthy and tidy. To this respect it does not differ much of our own organisms.

The defense or truth by presenting all point of views with the origin of each one is both the goal of the Wikipedia and of a vigorous, sane society. "Germ-free" have probably no real future in a living world.

Since Wikipedia is So Popular

[Apple Acolyte]

I think it's necessary for those who are in decision making positions step out from behind the shadows and start making decisions in a more transparent way as part of some sort of formal Wiki council. It doesn't make sense for such a popular public resource to be controlled behind the scenes without any mechanism available to promote responsibility and accountability of the powers involved. And while I'm on the subject, am I the only one who absolutely detests the name Jimbo?

Stories like this are hurting credibility

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Look, stories like this are seriously hurting The Register's credibility, and now Slashdot's as well for reposting this nonsense credulously. I can't believe anyone is even able to say "The Wikipedia Cabal" with a straight face. Wikipedia is fractured into many small groups and cliques just like the rest of human society (trust me, I know, I'm a Wikipedia administrator). All that's going on here is there is some dispute between a certain group of Wikipedians and some other people. I'm not going to say that either side is innocent because neither is. But to paint it as some gigantic conspiracy, with Wikipedia being ruled and dictated by some secret monolithic cabal, is hogwash.

Quote

[owlnation]

This Jimmy Wales quote: "We aren't democratic."

That's one for future generations. That quote should haunt him for the rest of his career. It's right up there with all the ones Bill Gates and Ballmer have made, that are repeated here often.

Two words: "true colors".

I was going to add in the usual references to nazis and Ayn Rand and all the rest -- but honestly, Jimmy's quote says it all, and says it clearer. It's all you ever needed to know about Wikipedia.

sounds like

[Spazmania]

Sounds to me like the central problem is that after banning an abusive user with a genuine beef they then failed to take reasonable action on the genuine beef. As a result, two or three articles have become hopelessly corrupted and instead of freezing them in that state they should be declared hopelessly corrupted and removed.

The Register's humor

[SuperBanana]

Yes, but is this relevant to 85% of the body of work? Do we really need to throw the word "totalitarian" around, or "black helicopters?" Jeez.

Relax, chief. It's The Register's odd British humor. Go look at any of their articles about robots- they usually insert jokes about robots being one step closer to world domination/human enslavement.

Nevermind that this is the paper that runs the Bastard Operator From Hell series. I can't believe you got modded up to 5 for not realizing a joke on a famously snarky-humor-laden technology news sites.

Also, your comments were a lovely bit of straw man crap: nobody is seriously suggesting (or is it really even possible to) "take down" Wikipedia.

The Register has less credibility than Wiki, if only for this idiotic smear job.

Says you, chief. I think they're one of the best sources for technology news around and I love their (obvious to any idiot) twist. CNET and others happily parrot press release after press release; only the good 'ol Reg actually views 'em with an eye of skepticism.

The problem is discourse.

[CodeShark]

At some point my thought is that there has to be some way that Wikipedia can have discoursive (is that a word?) articles, i.e., if there are competing arguments, set up a Wiki Page that can't be altered so easily that points to both. And it may be important to prevent the antagonistic groups from editing each other's pages.

An example -- and I don't think this will be off topic when you see where I am going with it: for years a set of researchers in Australia insisted that most peptic and duodenal ulcers were caused by a bacteria called helicobacter pylori. Problem was, the treatment for the bacteria was a simple and very cheap course of antibiotics and pink bismuth (brand name is usually Pepto Bismol) for about two weeks -- which negated the value of some very expensive American-developed medicines who basically trashed the research in the medical community for years. The end of the story is that the researchers, Warren and Marshall were correct, and 80% of all ulcers ARE caused by that bacteria. In fact these two were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori.

So what would happen if Wikipedia were available back then and the powers that be basically chose the wrong side and banned Warren and Marshall from editing articles on stomach ulcers, because another group had a vested interest in keeping the status quo? Which is where the real ruckus lies and why I am now backing Citizendium instead of Wikipedia.

Godwin.

[SatanicPuppy]

Actually, no.

I think the biggest benefit of an oligarch/monarch is that they have the capacity for intelligent long range planning, of the sort that everyone goddamn HATES, but which really does good things for the world.

As an example, I think we should have a higher tax on gasoline to drive down consumption, and increase public transportation and help fund alternative fuel research. Is this possible in our democracy? Not really. Everybody votes against anyone who would even suggest it. During World War II, there was mandatory recycling in a number of cities, and that has benefits, but people hated it, and it got repealed as soon as the war ended.

An absolute ruler has the ability to switch policy overnight. Democracies are unwieldy and take years to come to a new policy, and often they contain so many exceptions that they're practically useless.

If you could insure the whole "philosopher king" thing, make sure you have a person as absolute ruler who is both capable and worthy of it, then that would be by far the best system. Since you can't, we go with democracy, not because it's in any way better, but because it limits the possible harm that can come out of government toward the people. However democracy can't save the people from their own shortsightedness, and it's just damn inefficient.