Self-reflection & New Directions
August 7, 2006 9:16 AM Subscribe
[Login required] At Wikimania 2006, Founder Admits Wikipedia's Shortcomings and Announces New Projects At this past weekend's conference, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, acknowledged that "[it] is not as good as [Encylopaedia] Britannica yet" and spurred contributors to "improve the quality of existing...articles instead of rushing to create new ones." Wales also announced a number of new initiatives involving One Laptop Per Child, Wikiversity, and the German version of the encylopedia.
Stanford University professor Lawrence Lessig cheered Wikipedia for playing an important role in "democratizing knowledge" and spurring a new burst of individual creativity.
"Some people do know more about some things than other people do," the professor said. "There is still a hierarchy of knowledge."
There may be a "hierarchy of knowledge," but if that hierarchy of knowledge is communicating its superiority to a smaller and smaller subset of people every year, does the hierarchy matter anymore? If you have a hierarchy and nobody acknowledges it, does the hierarchy really exist (other than in its own hive-mind)?
posted by blucevalo at 9:32 AM on August 7, 2006
There may be a "hierarchy of knowledge," but if that hierarchy of knowledge is communicating its superiority to a smaller and smaller subset of people every year, does the hierarchy matter anymore? If you have a hierarchy and nobody acknowledges it, does the hierarchy really exist (other than in its own hive-mind)?
posted by blucevalo at 9:32 AM on August 7, 2006
The main link requires a subscription ti the Chronicle of Higher Education -- not something I can get around with BugMeNot. All the other links are "canned" links to generic pages. And we've all heard of wikipedia. So where's the best of the web here?
posted by orthogonality at 9:37 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by orthogonality at 9:37 AM on August 7, 2006
Here's the NYTimes article on the conference. But yeah, what ortho said.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:44 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:44 AM on August 7, 2006
Strictly IMO, the biggest problem with Wikipedia right now are the admins, who have developed a class structure above the editors. This clique has pushed away some of the best and most prolific editors as the admins are effectively unaccountable to anyone but themselves, and very few even participate in conflict resolution procedures taken up against their actions.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:03 AM on August 7, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:03 AM on August 7, 2006 [2 favorites]
Given the comments so far, this newbie is asking for constructive criticism: what is the major issue with this posting?
I thought the story, particularly Wale's statement, was noteworthy, given the discussion of Wikipedia that has taken place across the blue & the green in recent days. Although some of the links are quite common, I thought that others--OneLaptopPerChild, for example--might be new and of interest to curious surfers. I tried to use discussion-provoking quotes and attribute them properly.
I look forward to feedback that will improve my postings.
posted by NYCinephile at 10:05 AM on August 7, 2006
I thought the story, particularly Wale's statement, was noteworthy, given the discussion of Wikipedia that has taken place across the blue & the green in recent days. Although some of the links are quite common, I thought that others--OneLaptopPerChild, for example--might be new and of interest to curious surfers. I tried to use discussion-provoking quotes and attribute them properly.
I look forward to feedback that will improve my postings.
posted by NYCinephile at 10:05 AM on August 7, 2006
Kickstart70 writes "Strictly IMO, the biggest problem with Wikipedia right now are the admins, who have developed a class structure above the editors. This clique has pushed away some of the best and most prolific editors as the admins are effectively unaccountable to anyone but themselves, and very few even participate in conflict resolution procedures taken up against their actions."
Exactly. I'll only add that that mash-up of Lord of the Flies and Atlas Shrugged emanates straight form Jimmy Wales's Randite anarcho-libertarianism and the Cult of Personality he's fashioned for himself. It's no accident that he's (unironically, by his acolytes) referred to as wikipedia's "benign dictator".
The end result is a lot of brown-shirt wanna-bes "on hiatus" from college, camped out in their mothers' basements, going on never-ending Inquisitions and purges to"shoot anti-Soviet wreckers" "burn the witches" "ban the trolls". (Or perhaps they're just playing Wikipedia Crusader because World of Warcraft requires a monthly fee, and playing D&D face to face would require making friends and occasionally brushing their teeth.)
posted by orthogonality at 10:17 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Exactly. I'll only add that that mash-up of Lord of the Flies and Atlas Shrugged emanates straight form Jimmy Wales's Randite anarcho-libertarianism and the Cult of Personality he's fashioned for himself. It's no accident that he's (unironically, by his acolytes) referred to as wikipedia's "benign dictator".
The end result is a lot of brown-shirt wanna-bes "on hiatus" from college, camped out in their mothers' basements, going on never-ending Inquisitions and purges to
posted by orthogonality at 10:17 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
what is the major issue with this posting?
Don't link to articles that require subscriptions that very few of us can afford and that don't have bugmenot passwords.
posted by mediareport at 10:23 AM on August 7, 2006
Don't link to articles that require subscriptions that very few of us can afford and that don't have bugmenot passwords.
posted by mediareport at 10:23 AM on August 7, 2006
[As a side note, the Chronicle has long been one of the stupider publications when it comes to online access of its content; it often has great, interesting reporting, but they refuse to make any of it available to the huge academic audience online, despite the fact that the publication focuses on academia and is easily available on campuses everywhere. It's mind-boggling, really.]
posted by mediareport at 10:27 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by mediareport at 10:27 AM on August 7, 2006
The biggest problem with Wikipedia (which I contribute to as time allows) is that crap is allowed to replace good content. Especially in the low-profile articles. To a certain degree, a democratic process is a dumbing down. Good content needs protection for Wikipedia's democratic process. I'm not sure I can think of a good solution for that.
And what Kickstart70 said.
posted by Wizzlet at 10:30 AM on August 7, 2006
And what Kickstart70 said.
posted by Wizzlet at 10:30 AM on August 7, 2006
I think orthogonality spelled it out pretty well. The first link requires a login that you can't get around with bugmenot so it's not interesting to anyone that can't get around that. The rest are just generic pages that are associated with the links words but aren't interesting really. Like the wikipedia main page, the britannica main page, lessigs bio, stanfords main page, etc.
posted by bob sarabia at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2006
NYCinephile: First, you'll never make even a majority of the members happy with a post. Don't worry about it.
"I tried to use discussion-provoking quotes and attribute them properly." And that's going to irritate some members. They believe Metafilter is about sharing "The Best of the Web." They don't want someone leading the discussion. Show it and get out of the way.
In that case you just want to link it and say a couple of words so someone knows what they're getting into.
Others want multi-link posts about a topic. That's what you attempted with this post. The problem, as has been pointed out, was that the main link was unreachable to your audience. The other links weren't really anything new to a great many readers. (Stanford, Lessig, Wales, Wikipedia (even in german), and Britannica.)
Now the OneLaptop program might have been fine on its own, but that's probably a double.
Finding something new and different will be difficult with 10,000 plus people scouring the Net everyday. Think what is unique about your viewpoint and look for posts from what you know. It really isn't much different than fiction writing.
All of the above is just my opinion and someone below will contradict everything I said, but I hope it helps.
posted by ?! at 10:47 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
"I tried to use discussion-provoking quotes and attribute them properly." And that's going to irritate some members. They believe Metafilter is about sharing "The Best of the Web." They don't want someone leading the discussion. Show it and get out of the way.
In that case you just want to link it and say a couple of words so someone knows what they're getting into.
Others want multi-link posts about a topic. That's what you attempted with this post. The problem, as has been pointed out, was that the main link was unreachable to your audience. The other links weren't really anything new to a great many readers. (Stanford, Lessig, Wales, Wikipedia (even in german), and Britannica.)
Now the OneLaptop program might have been fine on its own, but that's probably a double.
Finding something new and different will be difficult with 10,000 plus people scouring the Net everyday. Think what is unique about your viewpoint and look for posts from what you know. It really isn't much different than fiction writing.
All of the above is just my opinion and someone below will contradict everything I said, but I hope it helps.
posted by ?! at 10:47 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Of course, don't spend too much time composing your comment. Otherwise I could have simply posted:
What bob sarabia said.
posted by ?! at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2006
What bob sarabia said.
posted by ?! at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2006
NYCinephile writes "what is the major issue with this posting?"
The main link the 98% who don't subscribe to The Chronicle of Higher Ed can't read.
The remaining links are filler, and uninteresting or previously FPP'd filler at that.
NYCinephile writes "I thought the story, particularly Wale's statement, was noteworthy"
Inside-baseball internal politics and the musings a cult leader to his flock are generally of interest only to members of that cult, who have already heard what Jimbo Wales, Praise Be Unto Him, thinks. Jimmy had one good idea (the gist of which he ripped off from Ward Cunningham), and which wouldn't have become a Good Idea (making wikipedia open source) if Stallman and the GNU folks hadn't threatened Jimmy with competition.
Since then, Jimmy's relied on a lot of other people doing the heavy lifting (like actually adding content, or writing code) so he can pontificate, profit, and receive the adulation of a coterie of outcast college kids and failed, angry cross-dressers awed by "supa admin powas" over compulsive list-makers, Pikachu collectors, and modern day Homers who have committed to memory not the Iliad, but every line of every episode of The Simpsons .
The rest of us find wikipedia a very handy reference to trivia ("what is Krusty the Clown's favorite soup?") and ephemera ("not Lance Bass, really??"), and not to be relied on for serious work ("John Seigenthaler moved to the USSR after helping assassinate JFK?????"), but we have no interest in what goes on in the sausage factory, or which employee's hand Jimmy mashed up in the meat grinder this week.
posted by orthogonality at 10:51 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
The main link the 98% who don't subscribe to The Chronicle of Higher Ed can't read.
The remaining links are filler, and uninteresting or previously FPP'd filler at that.
NYCinephile writes "I thought the story, particularly Wale's statement, was noteworthy"
Inside-baseball internal politics and the musings a cult leader to his flock are generally of interest only to members of that cult, who have already heard what Jimbo Wales, Praise Be Unto Him, thinks. Jimmy had one good idea (the gist of which he ripped off from Ward Cunningham), and which wouldn't have become a Good Idea (making wikipedia open source) if Stallman and the GNU folks hadn't threatened Jimmy with competition.
Since then, Jimmy's relied on a lot of other people doing the heavy lifting (like actually adding content, or writing code) so he can pontificate, profit, and receive the adulation of a coterie of outcast college kids and failed, angry cross-dressers awed by "supa admin powas" over compulsive list-makers, Pikachu collectors, and modern day Homers who have committed to memory not the Iliad, but every line of every episode of The Simpsons .
The rest of us find wikipedia a very handy reference to trivia ("what is Krusty the Clown's favorite soup?") and ephemera ("not Lance Bass, really??"), and not to be relied on for serious work ("John Seigenthaler moved to the USSR after helping assassinate JFK?????"), but we have no interest in what goes on in the sausage factory, or which employee's hand Jimmy mashed up in the meat grinder this week.
posted by orthogonality at 10:51 AM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Wikipedia is an amazing resource, and I'm grateful to everyone who's worked on it. It's great news that they're planning to release a more stable version soon.
All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out.
posted by washburn at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2006
All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out.
posted by washburn at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2006
The New Yorker: Know It All: Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise?
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on August 7, 2006
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on August 7, 2006
washburn writes "Wikipedia is an amazing resource, and I'm grateful to everyone who's worked on it. It's great news that they're planning to release a more stable version soon.
"All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out."
Well, the wiki-haters are likely the same people you're grateful to, that is, people who have worked onMaggie's Jimmy's Farm.
posted by orthogonality at 11:33 AM on August 7, 2006
"All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out."
Well, the wiki-haters are likely the same people you're grateful to, that is, people who have worked on
posted by orthogonality at 11:33 AM on August 7, 2006
orthogonality writes "The main link the 98% who don't subscribe to The Chronicle of Higher Ed can't read. "
Fuck it. Here's the article from the first link:
If any of the Wikipedia contributors who trekked to this year's Wikimania conference needed a self-esteem boost, they surely got it from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford University law professor who has become something of a guru on matters of digital copyright. Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd at Harvard University's law school, Mr. Lessig lavishly praised the online encyclopedia, which is written entirely by unpaid volunteers, for "democratizing knowledge."
Most attendees at Wikimania 2006 -- a three-day affair held here from Friday through Sunday -- seemed to agree with Mr. Lessig's assessment, and not without reason. Over the past year, Wikipedia has celebrated several milestones: The English-language version of the encyclopedia recently surpassed one million articles, and the site became one of the Web's 20 most popular destinations.
But Wikipedia has also come in for its fair share of criticism. The site drew unwanted attention last year when the journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. noted publicly that an entry about him was filled with fabrications. Scholars, meanwhile, have derided the encyclopedia as an unreliable research tool and lamented students' use of the resource.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, acknowledged that criticism as he welcomed visitors to the conference. Mr. Wales urged contributors to improve the quality of existing Wikipedia articles instead of rushing to create new ones. And he played down the significance of a study, conducted by the journal Nature, that found Wikipedia's articles on science nearly as accurate as those that appear in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
"We got pretty lucky," Mr. Wales said of the study, noting that Wikipedia's articles on science are typically much stronger than its entries on the humanities. "Although we have that as a goal, we are not as good as Britannica yet."
The self-reflection continued later that day, when Elijah Meeks, a graduate student at the University of California at Merced, presented a paper that touched on many of Wikipedia's flaws -- including often-indifferent prose and some serious problems with accuracy.
Mr. Meeks decried academe for its "unseemly" and "provincial" response to the Web site. "The university needs Wikipedia more than Wikipedia needs the university," he said. But a professor in attendance sparked a heated exchange by accusing Mr. Meeks of shrugging off misgivings about Wikipedia's reliance on amateur scholars. "Some people do know more about some things than other people do," the professor said. "There is still a hierarchy of knowledge."
Throughout the conference, Wikipedia contributors mulled over the Web site's growing role in that hierarchy. Mr. Wales announced and provided details about several new Wikipedia projects on Friday, and each seemed designed to amplify the encyclopedia's academic relevance. At a press conference, he appeared with members of One Laptop Per Child -- a program that aims to ship low-cost laptops to developing nations -- to announce that the project's machines would come loaded with a smattering of articles from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia officials also announced that they would soon unveil Wikiversity, a Web site proposed last year that will store teaching activities and other instructional materials. And in a development that may interest scholars, Wikipedia's German-language version will experiment with a method for marking sections of text that are well-written enough to be frozen in time. German Wikipedia editors will identify parts of articles as "stable versions" -- passages that are cataloged so they are tougher for pranksters to vandalize and easier for researchers to cite.
Several hundred people -- including Wikipedia contributors, open-source advocates, and a smattering of professors and graduate students -- showed up for this year's conference, Wikipedia's second.
The attendees -- sporting laptops and T-shirts emblazoned with open-source-software logos -- bounced among briefings and workshops on technical issues, legal concerns, and educational projects. But many conference-goers were particularly excited about the Wikimania's broadest big-thinkers: Mr. Lessig and Brewster Kahle, director and co-founder of the Internet Archive. Both placed Wikipedia in the context of a wider movement advocating free access to information online that included open-source programmers, book scanners, and amateur cinematographers who post their work on YouTube.
Over the course of the 20th century, Mr. Lessig argued, "read/write culture" -- in which consumers felt empowered to generate their own creative product -- was replaced by "read-only culture" -- in which corporate tactics and legal developments discouraged individuals from doing so. Wikipedia, according to Mr. Lessig, has the potential to "enable free culture in schools and colleges and universities everywhere."
"Freedom is a bigger, more important value than proprietary instinct," he said.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:40 AM on August 7, 2006
Fuck it. Here's the article from the first link:
If any of the Wikipedia contributors who trekked to this year's Wikimania conference needed a self-esteem boost, they surely got it from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford University law professor who has become something of a guru on matters of digital copyright. Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd at Harvard University's law school, Mr. Lessig lavishly praised the online encyclopedia, which is written entirely by unpaid volunteers, for "democratizing knowledge."
Most attendees at Wikimania 2006 -- a three-day affair held here from Friday through Sunday -- seemed to agree with Mr. Lessig's assessment, and not without reason. Over the past year, Wikipedia has celebrated several milestones: The English-language version of the encyclopedia recently surpassed one million articles, and the site became one of the Web's 20 most popular destinations.
But Wikipedia has also come in for its fair share of criticism. The site drew unwanted attention last year when the journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. noted publicly that an entry about him was filled with fabrications. Scholars, meanwhile, have derided the encyclopedia as an unreliable research tool and lamented students' use of the resource.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, acknowledged that criticism as he welcomed visitors to the conference. Mr. Wales urged contributors to improve the quality of existing Wikipedia articles instead of rushing to create new ones. And he played down the significance of a study, conducted by the journal Nature, that found Wikipedia's articles on science nearly as accurate as those that appear in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
"We got pretty lucky," Mr. Wales said of the study, noting that Wikipedia's articles on science are typically much stronger than its entries on the humanities. "Although we have that as a goal, we are not as good as Britannica yet."
The self-reflection continued later that day, when Elijah Meeks, a graduate student at the University of California at Merced, presented a paper that touched on many of Wikipedia's flaws -- including often-indifferent prose and some serious problems with accuracy.
Mr. Meeks decried academe for its "unseemly" and "provincial" response to the Web site. "The university needs Wikipedia more than Wikipedia needs the university," he said. But a professor in attendance sparked a heated exchange by accusing Mr. Meeks of shrugging off misgivings about Wikipedia's reliance on amateur scholars. "Some people do know more about some things than other people do," the professor said. "There is still a hierarchy of knowledge."
Throughout the conference, Wikipedia contributors mulled over the Web site's growing role in that hierarchy. Mr. Wales announced and provided details about several new Wikipedia projects on Friday, and each seemed designed to amplify the encyclopedia's academic relevance. At a press conference, he appeared with members of One Laptop Per Child -- a program that aims to ship low-cost laptops to developing nations -- to announce that the project's machines would come loaded with a smattering of articles from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia officials also announced that they would soon unveil Wikiversity, a Web site proposed last year that will store teaching activities and other instructional materials. And in a development that may interest scholars, Wikipedia's German-language version will experiment with a method for marking sections of text that are well-written enough to be frozen in time. German Wikipedia editors will identify parts of articles as "stable versions" -- passages that are cataloged so they are tougher for pranksters to vandalize and easier for researchers to cite.
Several hundred people -- including Wikipedia contributors, open-source advocates, and a smattering of professors and graduate students -- showed up for this year's conference, Wikipedia's second.
The attendees -- sporting laptops and T-shirts emblazoned with open-source-software logos -- bounced among briefings and workshops on technical issues, legal concerns, and educational projects. But many conference-goers were particularly excited about the Wikimania's broadest big-thinkers: Mr. Lessig and Brewster Kahle, director and co-founder of the Internet Archive. Both placed Wikipedia in the context of a wider movement advocating free access to information online that included open-source programmers, book scanners, and amateur cinematographers who post their work on YouTube.
Over the course of the 20th century, Mr. Lessig argued, "read/write culture" -- in which consumers felt empowered to generate their own creative product -- was replaced by "read-only culture" -- in which corporate tactics and legal developments discouraged individuals from doing so. Wikipedia, according to Mr. Lessig, has the potential to "enable free culture in schools and colleges and universities everywhere."
"Freedom is a bigger, more important value than proprietary instinct," he said.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:40 AM on August 7, 2006
The main problem with Wikipedia is that it does represent a hierarchy of knowledge--and one's place in that hierarchy is determined not by how much one knows about a certain subject, but how tenacious one is pushing what may be a limited grasp of some area of knowledge onto the website.
As Lore Sjoberg writes here:
The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
posted by Iridic at 11:55 AM on August 7, 2006 [2 favorites]
As Lore Sjoberg writes here:
The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
posted by Iridic at 11:55 AM on August 7, 2006 [2 favorites]
Good point, Iridic. Although how exactly would a community like Wikipedia go about validating or determining "how much one knows about a certain subject"? And how is anyone who edits supposed to tell whether the pissy expert who's been made unhappy by the edits of Randy in Boise is someone who has actually spent "40 years learning everything they can about the Peloponnesian War" or is simply a crank who thinks that his or her "limited grasp of some area of knowledge" constitutes expertise? Do I take the pissed-off self-appointed expert's word for it?
posted by blucevalo at 12:20 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by blucevalo at 12:20 PM on August 7, 2006
Well, experts are often scum. They deliberately make up massive amounts of irrelevant jargon, and generally try their hardest to make things as difficult for outsiders to understand as possible -- because if everyone understood it, then they wouldn't get to be an 'expert'. Scum, I tell you.
posted by reklaw at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by reklaw at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2006
At the risk of derailing this thread further, I am wondering whether recent issues--the Viswanathan scandal, the matter of accurate content on Wiki---stem from the fact that many high school students and some college students do not receive a solid grounding regarding the concepts of plagiarism and proper citation.
That, and the fact that the Web, as Sjoberg, states "[is] a place where anyone with a browser can go, pick a subject that interests them, and without even logging in, start an argument."
posted by NYCinephile at 12:27 PM on August 7, 2006
That, and the fact that the Web, as Sjoberg, states "[is] a place where anyone with a browser can go, pick a subject that interests them, and without even logging in, start an argument."
posted by NYCinephile at 12:27 PM on August 7, 2006
I actually think wikipedia's main problem is that it's far more about wiki than about pedia.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:31 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by jacquilynne at 12:31 PM on August 7, 2006
"All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out."
Then try writing some articles or making some extensive additions to articles that you feel you can help with. Pick something you care enough about to do a good job. Pick something that you feel is under developed, but that you may have some quality knowledge about. I had no trouble finding several things like that. Please. No matter what I might say, Wikipedia can certainly use more bright, well-intentioned editors.
Try staying with it for a few months. Then get back to us on whether you feel the sentiments expressed here are weird. To be completely honest, there are times at least once a month where I look at an article I helped with and immediately think, "You fucking sack of shit". And this is typically directed at people who are making good faith contributions. Too many of those sorts of things go unrevised, or worse yet, get revised in a piece-meal fashion that tries to somehow include the crappy content.
I'll keep contributing to Wikipedia. But until their model for allowing edits changes to "block by default" rather than "allow by default" it will continue to be the performance art of the encyclopedia world. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by Wizzlet at 12:36 PM on August 7, 2006
Then try writing some articles or making some extensive additions to articles that you feel you can help with. Pick something you care enough about to do a good job. Pick something that you feel is under developed, but that you may have some quality knowledge about. I had no trouble finding several things like that. Please. No matter what I might say, Wikipedia can certainly use more bright, well-intentioned editors.
Try staying with it for a few months. Then get back to us on whether you feel the sentiments expressed here are weird. To be completely honest, there are times at least once a month where I look at an article I helped with and immediately think, "You fucking sack of shit". And this is typically directed at people who are making good faith contributions. Too many of those sorts of things go unrevised, or worse yet, get revised in a piece-meal fashion that tries to somehow include the crappy content.
I'll keep contributing to Wikipedia. But until their model for allowing edits changes to "block by default" rather than "allow by default" it will continue to be the performance art of the encyclopedia world. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by Wizzlet at 12:36 PM on August 7, 2006
Bluecevalo: I don't know. By and large, Wikipedia manages to stay afloat on a kind of honor system in regards to how competent its writers and editors are. I do appreciate it when an author thinks to include outside links to in-depth info or alternate opinions--I think that's a good indicator of no-bullshit familiarity with a topic.
Still, it's that 3% (an admittedly well-publicized 3%) of times when Wikipedia's content is warped by its internal machinations that make me uneasy about how much I've come to depend on it. One example is the fracas that ensued when an editor who wasn't terribly conversant with the webcomics universe proposed to delete the significant and well-respected webcomic Checkerboard Nightmare on the grounds that it was "non-notable." The record of the voting and arguing on the proposal is interesting for the way that it highlights a key (and often troublesome) Wikipedia mechanic--what you say for or against an article is nowhere near as important as how many edits you have under your belt. The comments of "Drhot" towards the end of debate is especially interesting:
I'm fascinated how lack of coverage in Websnark is being used as reason to delete, and when Eric Burns, the writer of Websnark, votes to keep, his vote is discounted because of a low edit count. If the President of the United States voted "Keep" by announcing that Checkerboard Nightmare was America's Official Webcomic, the Wikipedia admins would cross it out: "only one edit." I imagine a good way to build an edit count is to nominate as many things as possible for deletion.
posted by Iridic at 12:47 PM on August 7, 2006
Still, it's that 3% (an admittedly well-publicized 3%) of times when Wikipedia's content is warped by its internal machinations that make me uneasy about how much I've come to depend on it. One example is the fracas that ensued when an editor who wasn't terribly conversant with the webcomics universe proposed to delete the significant and well-respected webcomic Checkerboard Nightmare on the grounds that it was "non-notable." The record of the voting and arguing on the proposal is interesting for the way that it highlights a key (and often troublesome) Wikipedia mechanic--what you say for or against an article is nowhere near as important as how many edits you have under your belt. The comments of "Drhot" towards the end of debate is especially interesting:
I'm fascinated how lack of coverage in Websnark is being used as reason to delete, and when Eric Burns, the writer of Websnark, votes to keep, his vote is discounted because of a low edit count. If the President of the United States voted "Keep" by announcing that Checkerboard Nightmare was America's Official Webcomic, the Wikipedia admins would cross it out: "only one edit." I imagine a good way to build an edit count is to nominate as many things as possible for deletion.
posted by Iridic at 12:47 PM on August 7, 2006
Strictly IMO, the biggest problem with Wikipedia right now are the admins, who have developed a class structure above the editors. This clique has pushed away some of the best and most prolific editors as the admins are effectively unaccountable to anyone but themselves, and very few even participate in conflict resolution procedures taken up against their actions.
Absolutely. The root of Wikipedia's problems is a disconnect in accountability & the solution is to create a reputation-based voting system for editors & admins, where the value of each user's vote is weighted by his reputation as rated by other users. Peer-to-peer networks have had similar systems tested under extremely adverse conditions, they'd serve as a good source to draw from. One trust metric I'm personally fond of is the one used by Advogato.org (which is actually a meta-blog not a p2p, but that's besides the point). Putting such a system in place would make it more truly democratic while saving it from the excesses of demagoguery & populism as well as a host of other attacks, which I believe would ultimately lead to a dramatic increase in fairness & signal/noise ratio in content. Yet another instance of problem solving through social self-organization.
posted by scalefree at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2006
Absolutely. The root of Wikipedia's problems is a disconnect in accountability & the solution is to create a reputation-based voting system for editors & admins, where the value of each user's vote is weighted by his reputation as rated by other users. Peer-to-peer networks have had similar systems tested under extremely adverse conditions, they'd serve as a good source to draw from. One trust metric I'm personally fond of is the one used by Advogato.org (which is actually a meta-blog not a p2p, but that's besides the point). Putting such a system in place would make it more truly democratic while saving it from the excesses of demagoguery & populism as well as a host of other attacks, which I believe would ultimately lead to a dramatic increase in fairness & signal/noise ratio in content. Yet another instance of problem solving through social self-organization.
posted by scalefree at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2006
Again, good point, Iridic. You're right that edits from people with fewer than an arbitrary number of edits under their belts often get discounted, even when the contributions are good ones. This tends to discourage new contributors and ossify the contributions of "established" editors. Which, as examples picked almost at random could prove, is not necessarily good for the enterprise as a whole.
posted by blucevalo at 1:08 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by blucevalo at 1:08 PM on August 7, 2006
Doesn't everything2 have a reputation-based rank system?
posted by blucevalo at 1:11 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by blucevalo at 1:11 PM on August 7, 2006
"the solution is to create a reputation-based voting system for editors & admins"
I have serious reservations about this. As a caustic and opinionated person I find that Wikipedia folks quickly develop a dislike for me, even though they tend to compliment me for my content. I fear my reputation for being an asshole would overtake my reputation for contributing good stuff. I'm quite the minor player over there, but just saying...
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think reputation systems tend to stifle the influx of new content and perspectives which is Wikipedia's strength.
In addition, I spend a lot of time back in the day pondering Slashdot's moderation system (which is obviously different that what you're talking about) when it was getting started. One of the things I noticed was that people tend to mod up things they can't understand. I worry that your reputation system might suffer from the same pitfall.
posted by Wizzlet at 1:28 PM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
I have serious reservations about this. As a caustic and opinionated person I find that Wikipedia folks quickly develop a dislike for me, even though they tend to compliment me for my content. I fear my reputation for being an asshole would overtake my reputation for contributing good stuff. I'm quite the minor player over there, but just saying...
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think reputation systems tend to stifle the influx of new content and perspectives which is Wikipedia's strength.
In addition, I spend a lot of time back in the day pondering Slashdot's moderation system (which is obviously different that what you're talking about) when it was getting started. One of the things I noticed was that people tend to mod up things they can't understand. I worry that your reputation system might suffer from the same pitfall.
posted by Wizzlet at 1:28 PM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Just from a quick reading, everything2's system looks kind of like a hybrid between a Slashdot-style point system & a true reputation system where recursively calculated voting values are used system-wide. It's closer to what I'm thinking of but IMO for this kind of thing to really work you've got to let completely go of the reins of power & trust the ability & goodwill of the community as a whole to protect the system. I understand how scary that can be, but I don't think half measures are the answer. This looks to me like they're trying to have the best of both worlds, letting go without letting go. But I hadn't heard about it before, thanks for the pointer.
posted by scalefree at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by scalefree at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2006
Wizzlet: I don't think there is such a thing as the perfect, one-size-solves-all-problems solution that can initiate Wikitopia & make everybody get along in cyber-harmony as we prepare for the Singularity. But I think the right reputation system can go a long way towards solving some of Wikipedia's core problems, most of which seem to revolve around the origin & legitimacy of authority, which right now is essentially arbitrary & based on the whim of its owner.
posted by scalefree at 1:45 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by scalefree at 1:45 PM on August 7, 2006
Dayum! Wikipedia's made a break-through in AI; they's smarter than Alan Turing and John von Neumann put together!1!11!!eleventy!
They have an automatic bot (well, the edit summary says "Automated archival of 1 sections with User:Werdnabot", fer sure!) that can automatically and without human intervention delete any criticism of Jimmy Wales.
posted by orthogonality at 1:52 PM on August 7, 2006
They have an automatic bot (well, the edit summary says "Automated archival of 1 sections with User:Werdnabot", fer sure!) that can automatically and without human intervention delete any criticism of Jimmy Wales.
posted by orthogonality at 1:52 PM on August 7, 2006
I just reread my last comment & realized it sounded kind of snarky. I just want to clear up that it wasn't directed at anybody here, I just get a bit carried away sometimes. Carry on.
posted by scalefree at 1:53 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by scalefree at 1:53 PM on August 7, 2006
I think Wiki is a wonderful repository of common knowledge among mankind, and in a pinch it's often been a great reference for me, but you kinda gotta take it with a grain of salt now and then. You get what you pay for. No it's not encyclopedia brittanica but if i wanted encyclopedia brittanica I'd pay for encyclopedia brittanica. Which is very expensive. Wiki doesn't cost anything... at the moment. Again, we get what we pay for.
"All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out."
All the hating on the Internet kinda freaks me out. All the hating among mankind kinda freaks me out.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:01 PM on August 7, 2006
"All the wiki-hating here is in fact a little weird and is freakin me out."
All the hating on the Internet kinda freaks me out. All the hating among mankind kinda freaks me out.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:01 PM on August 7, 2006
You get what you pay for. No it's not encyclopedia brittanica but if i wanted encyclopedia brittanica I'd pay for encyclopedia brittanica. Which is very expensive.
Well, you get what you pay for, this is true ..... but as a frequent user both of Wikipedia and Britannica I would assert that as vaunted and as expert-ridden as Britannica is, it is by no means the be-all and end-all of the information superhighway. Its articles are often biased, fusty, obsolete, abstruse, and, in the case of many areas and topics non-British and non-European and non-historical, actually fairly skimpy as far as providing worthwhile information. There may be cases in which those qualities are okay, even preferable. But that doesn't make Britannica the apex of knowledge.
posted by blucevalo at 2:12 PM on August 7, 2006
Well, you get what you pay for, this is true ..... but as a frequent user both of Wikipedia and Britannica I would assert that as vaunted and as expert-ridden as Britannica is, it is by no means the be-all and end-all of the information superhighway. Its articles are often biased, fusty, obsolete, abstruse, and, in the case of many areas and topics non-British and non-European and non-historical, actually fairly skimpy as far as providing worthwhile information. There may be cases in which those qualities are okay, even preferable. But that doesn't make Britannica the apex of knowledge.
posted by blucevalo at 2:12 PM on August 7, 2006
(Not that I'm saying that ZachsMind said that Britannica is the apex of knowledge.)
posted by blucevalo at 2:13 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by blucevalo at 2:13 PM on August 7, 2006
ortho, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but werdnabot is a bot any wikipedia user can utilize to automatically archive old sections of their user talk pages.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:15 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:15 PM on August 7, 2006
monju_bosatsu writes "ortho, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not,"
Ah, my mistake, I thought it was another WP:Office shenanigan.
posted by orthogonality at 2:20 PM on August 7, 2006
Ah, my mistake, I thought it was another WP:Office shenanigan.
posted by orthogonality at 2:20 PM on August 7, 2006
The real problem isn't the accuracy, it's the quality. The writing gets all fucked up with multiple people hacking at it.
posted by delmoi at 2:55 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by delmoi at 2:55 PM on August 7, 2006
delmoi: this is why I'm talking about a better permission scheme, but one where authority is derived from the community as a whole & distributed throughout the community based on how good of an author, editor, admin, mediator, etc., those around you perceive you to be. It won't eliminate conflict, I don't think any system can do that. But it will provide a more sound basis for deciding who's allowed to access which functions, namely whether your reputation merits it. You need to pick the right algorithm, obviously, to avoid a system that can be gamed. But there's a lot of practical testing going on in live fire systems under pretty intense scrutiny, with p2p networks & elsewhere. I'm just a casual user but I think it's worth consideration at least.
posted by scalefree at 3:17 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by scalefree at 3:17 PM on August 7, 2006
Delete - NN, wikicruft
posted by BeerFilter at 3:26 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by BeerFilter at 3:26 PM on August 7, 2006
scalefree: It sounds like a good idea. I think the open-ness really helped wikipedia get started, but now there's a need to tamp down. I wonder how many articles are written by the hard-core and how many are written by people cruzing around with bits of information they happen to know? I think those people probably helped a lot, but with the need for a citation it gets to be more work.
posted by delmoi at 7:02 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by delmoi at 7:02 PM on August 7, 2006
I don't know, but every article I try to work on gets deleted within a couple months by the deletionists. I have given up, and shall not lift a finger to fix a comma for those fine people over there.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:18 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by BeerFilter at 7:18 PM on August 7, 2006
Ok, so Wikipedia isn't always accurate because crap floats. But which should I trust?
a) Wikipedia
b) FoxNews
choose one.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:01 PM on August 7, 2006
a) Wikipedia
b) FoxNews
choose one.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:01 PM on August 7, 2006
BBC, The Guardian, CBC.
posted by orthogonality at 9:04 PM on August 7, 2006
posted by orthogonality at 9:04 PM on August 7, 2006
I'm still there, still haven't given over to complete cynicism although there are days. Today, for example, I've been wrestling with a problem where an editor keeps wanting to add what is basically gossip into a political figure's biography. He just doesn't get it, seems not to know what some terms mean, seems to think that a personal relationship trumps a political ideology. I want to catch more flies with honey, so I've been writing a Talk page piece in my mind all day. We'll see.
I moved my list of MetaFilter Wikipedians to its own page -- if anyone wants to use the Talk page there to communicate, feel free. If it becomes useful we can look at another arrangement.
For what it's worth, I haven't seen admins becoming an unaccountable cabal. I have seen sub-par behavior by admins who should know better. And even admins are accountable to ArbCom -- it's just that ArbCom is such a ginormous hassle that the effort cost may be greater than the hassle of dealing with the misbehavior.
I'm inclusionist by nature, but I've been spending time at AFD/CFD and people create crappy articles by the metric buttload.
The place has been changing. The new restrictions on biographies of living persons, a stricter eye on things like The Game, a warpath against external links to blogs or MySpace or YouTube -- it's taking itself more seriously than it used to, most definitely. That has been changing attitudes and not always for the better. Featured Articles used to be just "hey, this is pretty good" and are now needing to meet some pretty stringent technical standards (e.g. citations) before even being considered.
posted by dhartung at 12:56 AM on August 8, 2006
I moved my list of MetaFilter Wikipedians to its own page -- if anyone wants to use the Talk page there to communicate, feel free. If it becomes useful we can look at another arrangement.
For what it's worth, I haven't seen admins becoming an unaccountable cabal. I have seen sub-par behavior by admins who should know better. And even admins are accountable to ArbCom -- it's just that ArbCom is such a ginormous hassle that the effort cost may be greater than the hassle of dealing with the misbehavior.
I'm inclusionist by nature, but I've been spending time at AFD/CFD and people create crappy articles by the metric buttload.
The place has been changing. The new restrictions on biographies of living persons, a stricter eye on things like The Game, a warpath against external links to blogs or MySpace or YouTube -- it's taking itself more seriously than it used to, most definitely. That has been changing attitudes and not always for the better. Featured Articles used to be just "hey, this is pretty good" and are now needing to meet some pretty stringent technical standards (e.g. citations) before even being considered.
posted by dhartung at 12:56 AM on August 8, 2006
Wizzlet writes: "I have serious reservations about [a reputation-based voting system]. I fear my reputation for being an asshole would overtake my reputation for contributing good stuff.... I think reputation systems tend to stifle the influx of new content and perspectives.... One of the things I noticed was that people tend to mod up things they can't understand."
Welcome to academia. Here's your banjo.
posted by erniepan at 2:15 AM on August 8, 2006
Welcome to academia. Here's your banjo.
posted by erniepan at 2:15 AM on August 8, 2006
I must be operating under the radar. I've been on the Wiki for about eight months, though only really active (spending too much time) since the last three months. I've yet to encounter any of the bad experiences that people hold up as why they dislike/hate/can't stand Wikipedia. Perhaps its because I've been sticking with articles which are relatively out of sight and not frequented often by the majority, but so far so good.
~~~~
Arrr.
posted by Atreides at 5:56 AM on August 8, 2006
~~~~
Arrr.
posted by Atreides at 5:56 AM on August 8, 2006
ZachsMind: No it's not encyclopedia britannica but if i wanted encyclopedia britannica I'd pay for encyclopedia britannica. Which is very expensive.
Actually, it's not. You can buy the complete text of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on DVD (with a bunch of other reference materials as well) for $24.
posted by russilwvong at 5:23 PM on August 11, 2006
Actually, it's not. You can buy the complete text of the Encyclopaedia Britannica on DVD (with a bunch of other reference materials as well) for $24.
posted by russilwvong at 5:23 PM on August 11, 2006
As a caustic and opinionated person I find that Wikipedia folks quickly develop a dislike for me, even though they tend to compliment me for my content. I fear my reputation for being an asshole would overtake my reputation for contributing good stuff.
Yeah that could be a problem. Here's something I serendipitously just ran across that addresses your exact concern: Social networks of jerks and fools. This is very bleeding-edge stuff & I don't think there's any one solution, application or algorithm that can solve all the problems of people working in groups. But what I'm hoping is that we can move the ball in the direction of larger numbers of people working more effectively with less unproductive conflict. I think using reputation-based voting systems to self-organize trust networks goes a long way towards that, in wikis & other collaborative systems.
posted by scalefree at 6:07 PM on August 12, 2006
Yeah that could be a problem. Here's something I serendipitously just ran across that addresses your exact concern: Social networks of jerks and fools. This is very bleeding-edge stuff & I don't think there's any one solution, application or algorithm that can solve all the problems of people working in groups. But what I'm hoping is that we can move the ball in the direction of larger numbers of people working more effectively with less unproductive conflict. I think using reputation-based voting systems to self-organize trust networks goes a long way towards that, in wikis & other collaborative systems.
posted by scalefree at 6:07 PM on August 12, 2006
« Older "The idiots I work with all think I'm in love with... | Because Stupid Is As Stupid Does Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Plutor at 9:22 AM on August 7, 2006