Swings and roundabouts, though - they're removing the peer review aspect. Wikipedia's never been amazing at it, but the {{citation needed}} tag at least gave an idication of what was true and may just be some Wikipedian's fantasy. They're replacing editor bickering with reader approval as a way of evaluating an article's quality, which will certainly make for a more pleasant writing and reading experience, but at what cost? There's a risk that it's going to be a Youtube for text, with all the pitfalls that presents. The upshot for Google, of course, is that they're abdicating any responsibility for content. There can't be a "Knol hates X" backlash if there's no oversight in place. Personally, I'll take the shaky, argumentative road to knowledge any day of the week.
I can't help but wonder if this is their way of finding a use for, or kickstarting, the MyLifeBits project. Originally (back when it was first publicised half a decade ago) it was going to be a way to store your whole life on a computer. Evidently that didn't really go anywhere.
Well, I doubt they would've been editing Wikipedia themselves. What happens with fringe topics is usually that fans of them start editing the Wikipedia, and the usually do quite well for themselves. Wikipedia certainly has is fair share of protoscience, fringe science, and outright pseudoscience covered. For example, there are large sections on biofeedback and neurofeedback which are (IMO) highly dubious, but with the addition of references to the relevant research, they're still present and welcome. Any science being promoted just by the two individuals who came up with it with no published research to back it up would be subject to summary deletion, though.
Amusing hyperbole aside, the actual copy casts a guy who got in a Wikipedia edit dispute, created an account to add "unsavoury" comments to his target's article, and was banned for it, as a freedom fighter standing alone against a sinister cabal.
The full quote is: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing." In other words, knowledgable contributions are valued more highly than idiot ones. So, yes, that's all you need to know about Wikipedia's bias - an online encyclopedia values good information above bad.
The full quote is: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing." So I assume you're an idiot, and are therefore pissed off that you don't get a fair shot at writing an encyclopedia?
Of course they're not a democracy, they're supposed to be factually accurate, not a popularity contest. Recall that they used to put article deletion to the vote, and treating discussions that way (after they'd nominally switched to a concensus basis for article deletions) was responsible for the half-assed decision that gave us Straubgate. (That's not to try and belittle Straub's ingenious plotting.)
Err, they can complain. This guy could've complained. Instead he chose to add "unsavoury" facts to his editing rival's page on the Wikipedia until he was banned for it. His excuse is that he expected the other guy to escalate it to a complaint. It's classic Wikipedia Edit War stuff, with the addition of a dubious conspiracy theory.
Before anyone complains about my numbers, I should point out that I'm including people who write fiction articles from an in-universe perspective, people who write mathematics and physics articles at a postdoc level, and everybody who has ever edited an article about Pokemon in my 10% "complete assholes" there. YMMV.
Well, Wikipedia does have dispute resolution procedures for these things, and has for ages. You're right in the general point, though. Wikipedia's rules only tend to grow when a need arises for them, so they tend to be mis-shapen, full of loopholes, and rather late on the scene. Accepting that injusticies will happen here and there, and things will sometimes work out badly in the short term, is something you have to figure out on your own when you start there.
"I did this by adding some true but unflattering details to the Gary Weiss article, expecting Mantanmoreland to object and escalate the matter to the official Wikipedia dispute resolution process, resulting in Mantanmoreland's banning from Wikipedia."
Yep, he put some "unflattering" comments into the article regarding his Wiki sparring partner, and was banned for it. We have it on his word that this was part of a spectacularly ill-advised effort to get the guy he just insulted to perform the dispute escalation. So he was an asshole, or a moron. Your pick, but either way he didn't try to escalate the edit conflict.
I read the whole thing, albeit quickly. It seemed like the only attempt at contacting the admins was made by The Register looking for comments on the argument, but I'll double check.
Second your suggestion of more transparency at the Wikipedia. There really needs to be a more obvious "these are the guys who can fix your problems or kick your ass, this is how you contact them, this is what they're working on" thing going on there. At the moment, it's mostly publicly readable, but split over various talk pages and debates in obscure parts of the Wikipedia: namespace.
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.
That's exactly it, really. If you give Joe and Jane Randoms admin priviledges, then on average some of those people are going to do dodgy things with them, or make mistakes. That's why there's a concensus structure built into the Wikipedia's higher-level administration which (much like the need for concensus in article-building) tends to weed this stuff out. Alas the subject of the article didn't bother looking at the Dispute Resolution pages and instead just extrapolated wildly as to the motives for these actions, making the usual category errors as to how Wikipedia operates (it's more like a herd of cats than The Borg).
This sort of stuff happens all the time, the only difference here is that somebody's decided to sell the idea to the general public as a devious "Wikipedia elite" rather than a couple of administrators with personal axes to grind. I notice there was no reference to using Wikipedia's own complaint processes to try and resolve the issue - just the usual edit, edit, get blocked, complain about it on your blog pattern.
Slashdot Mirror
Ack, where did I screw up? It's driving me nuts trying to see it.
Swings and roundabouts, though - they're removing the peer review aspect. Wikipedia's never been amazing at it, but the {{citation needed}} tag at least gave an idication of what was true and may just be some Wikipedian's fantasy. They're replacing editor bickering with reader approval as a way of evaluating an article's quality, which will certainly make for a more pleasant writing and reading experience, but at what cost? There's a risk that it's going to be a Youtube for text, with all the pitfalls that presents. The upshot for Google, of course, is that they're abdicating any responsibility for content. There can't be a "Knol hates X" backlash if there's no oversight in place. Personally, I'll take the shaky, argumentative road to knowledge any day of the week.
I can't help but wonder if this is their way of finding a use for, or kickstarting, the MyLifeBits project. Originally (back when it was first publicised half a decade ago) it was going to be a way to store your whole life on a computer. Evidently that didn't really go anywhere.
I think he just coined a term for "the most lobbying corporate lobbyists".
I recall there's a Trillian Pro plugin which does this, using your own chat logs to build the database. It was quite fun.
Twice, one skim one close. Any particular questions or do you just not like my conclusions?
Oh, the word is discursive. I think you were close enough. ;)
Well, I doubt they would've been editing Wikipedia themselves. What happens with fringe topics is usually that fans of them start editing the Wikipedia, and the usually do quite well for themselves. Wikipedia certainly has is fair share of protoscience, fringe science, and outright pseudoscience covered. For example, there are large sections on biofeedback and neurofeedback which are (IMO) highly dubious, but with the addition of references to the relevant research, they're still present and welcome. Any science being promoted just by the two individuals who came up with it with no published research to back it up would be subject to summary deletion, though.
Amusing hyperbole aside, the actual copy casts a guy who got in a Wikipedia edit dispute, created an account to add "unsavoury" comments to his target's article, and was banned for it, as a freedom fighter standing alone against a sinister cabal.
The full quote is: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing." In other words, knowledgable contributions are valued more highly than idiot ones. So, yes, that's all you need to know about Wikipedia's bias - an online encyclopedia values good information above bad.
The full quote is: "Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing." So I assume you're an idiot, and are therefore pissed off that you don't get a fair shot at writing an encyclopedia?
Of course they're not a democracy, they're supposed to be factually accurate, not a popularity contest. Recall that they used to put article deletion to the vote, and treating discussions that way (after they'd nominally switched to a concensus basis for article deletions) was responsible for the half-assed decision that gave us Straubgate. (That's not to try and belittle Straub's ingenious plotting.)
They do, where people bother to use the complaints procedures. You can read up on past arbitrations against dodgy administrators in the archives.
Err, they can complain. This guy could've complained. Instead he chose to add "unsavoury" facts to his editing rival's page on the Wikipedia until he was banned for it. His excuse is that he expected the other guy to escalate it to a complaint. It's classic Wikipedia Edit War stuff, with the addition of a dubious conspiracy theory.
Before anyone complains about my numbers, I should point out that I'm including people who write fiction articles from an in-universe perspective, people who write mathematics and physics articles at a postdoc level, and everybody who has ever edited an article about Pokemon in my 10% "complete assholes" there. YMMV.
Well, Wikipedia does have dispute resolution procedures for these things, and has for ages. You're right in the general point, though. Wikipedia's rules only tend to grow when a need arises for them, so they tend to be mis-shapen, full of loopholes, and rather late on the scene. Accepting that injusticies will happen here and there, and things will sometimes work out badly in the short term, is something you have to figure out on your own when you start there.
For clarity:
"I did this by adding some true but unflattering details to the Gary Weiss article, expecting Mantanmoreland to object and escalate the matter to the official Wikipedia dispute resolution process, resulting in Mantanmoreland's banning from Wikipedia."
Yep, he put some "unflattering" comments into the article regarding his Wiki sparring partner, and was banned for it. We have it on his word that this was part of a spectacularly ill-advised effort to get the guy he just insulted to perform the dispute escalation. So he was an asshole, or a moron. Your pick, but either way he didn't try to escalate the edit conflict.
I read the whole thing, albeit quickly. It seemed like the only attempt at contacting the admins was made by The Register looking for comments on the argument, but I'll double check.
Second your suggestion of more transparency at the Wikipedia. There really needs to be a more obvious "these are the guys who can fix your problems or kick your ass, this is how you contact them, this is what they're working on" thing going on there. At the moment, it's mostly publicly readable, but split over various talk pages and debates in obscure parts of the Wikipedia: namespace.
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.
That's exactly it, really. If you give Joe and Jane Randoms admin priviledges, then on average some of those people are going to do dodgy things with them, or make mistakes. That's why there's a concensus structure built into the Wikipedia's higher-level administration which (much like the need for concensus in article-building) tends to weed this stuff out. Alas the subject of the article didn't bother looking at the Dispute Resolution pages and instead just extrapolated wildly as to the motives for these actions, making the usual category errors as to how Wikipedia operates (it's more like a herd of cats than The Borg).
This sort of stuff happens all the time, the only difference here is that somebody's decided to sell the idea to the general public as a devious "Wikipedia elite" rather than a couple of administrators with personal axes to grind. I notice there was no reference to using Wikipedia's own complaint processes to try and resolve the issue - just the usual edit, edit, get blocked, complain about it on your blog pattern.
(I'm just being all offended by the vagueness and content-free nature of the verb form, it's nothing serious. New-fangled usages, grr.)
Ah, I assumed from the mention of FBI warnings. I can only apologise. *ducks*