Secret Mailing List Rocks Wikipedia 531
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.
Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I'm sorry, were we talking about 8th grade?
If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:5, Informative)
http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking [wikia.com]
(as posted in another post, but up here, it'll get more coverage... here goes my karma, watch it slide!)
Re:If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Wikipedia is supposed to be an open organization and it's a public irc channel. There are no concerns which justify that. It would be like kicking someone out of the country for posting logs of what was discussed in an open session of congress.
Yes, actually, it does, and the fact that it does is the reason that fair use law allows quoting as much of something as necessary for the purposes of critique.
Re:If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I were still in the eighth grade... (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, here's one. [techcrunch.com]
never mind. [techcrunch.com]
Re:Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:4, Funny)
You got a citation for this?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Buddy and I went cross-country in it. 74 hours from the western edge of Idaho to Rhode Island. Leaky valve cover gasket--took a quart of oil every 750 miles. Drove on the top half of the gas tank, never shut it off longer than it took to gas it, as there was some doubt she'd turn over from cold iron. We had paid something like $500 cash for the beast. Odometer read ~80,000 miles, but an old registration in the glove compartment revea
Re:Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this matters...why?"
Because when I search for something on Wikipedia, I am looking for a different sort of result than if I search for it on LiveJournal, Blogger, or the Web at large. Currently, I generally find it. (Thanks Wikipedia admins!)
"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
Re:Yeah, that's about what I thought (Score:4, Interesting)
But, what you're missing is that if his vanity page was more true than the content that it was replaced with or that challenges it on wikipedia now, then we *ALL* lost something of value. The loss is not confined to the person who pushed to have the material published. When people play such an active role in shaping the views of reality for other people, human psychology can play starring roles in the theories that we develop. I think that's the point of why all of this matters.
If you are so fortunate that everything you believe corresponds with what you currently read in wikipedia, then you can also count on eventually being wrong about a good number of things you believe as time goes on -- if the history of science is to have any bearing on how we currently judge things to be "mainstream" and "fringe". In this way, wikipedia miserably fails on controversial scientific issues because there are many things in science that are simply controversial. But wikipedia has no good process for presenting an intelligent discussion of divergent views (or at least, no mechanism for preventing censorship of the lesser popular view). There is a mismatch between wikpedia's model and the never-ending scientific process of moving ideas between the "fringe" and "mainstream" sects.
It used to be that the natural sciences thrived on disagreement and debate. I think that wikipedia indicates a cultural shift towards a communal desire to generate consensus, but I also believe that there are many scientific issues which we should not prematurely develop consensus on before more data is acquired, and that wikipedia is abandoning a rare opportunity to change the world into one that is not so black and white. In my own humble opinion, the end result is that many of our own most inquisitive children will one day observe the apparent existence of so much certainty within the sciences as reason to not go into science. Wikipedia acts to redirect peoples' curiosities about various controversial subjects. Rather than the focus being on the arguments, with full appreciation of the ongoing debate, they have instead opted to favor those ideas that are most popular. They invite people to just accept the most popular published "facts" rather than inviting people to understand the intricate details of the various debates (so that they can decide for themselves). It is truly an encyclopedia, but in an Internet era when something much more is needed to counter the perception in science that everything has been figured out.
It is a squandered opportunity that some other startup company will have to spend a large amount of effort and funds correcting before the people who run wikipedia will wake up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's linked to on every freaking page of the encyclopedia. Everybody knows what Wikipedia is, because the media and people like you can't shut up about how unreliable it is. But the official look and tone of much of the content - and the fact that the vast majority of it is accurate - fools many people into thinking it's the Word of God.
That's the people's fault, not Wikipedia's. It's not the project's responsibility to hold everyone's hand and constantly remind them at
Mod parent INSIGHTFUL (Score:3, Interesting)
Appropriate (Score:4, Funny)
I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing how it still holds today, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It seems like Wik
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
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" ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
It really shouldn't be necessary to explain that something isn't accepted fact.. and if you're talking to people who believe in accepted fact then its pointless how much of the text you have explaining that something is or isn't accepted fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:4, Insightful)
Give each of the men a card with gradations of reds and greens, with different values, chromas, and hues. Given standard lighting, any full-sighted person would be able to pick out regions of strong reds and greens on the card, except near the dividing line (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system#Chroma [wikipedia.org]). What's more, both men, upon holding the card up to the tree, will be able to pick out the region on the card where the difference between the tree's color and that on the card is the least.
By definition (remember that normally-sighted people will all agree on whether a given point on the card is a red or a green, except for border cases, and very rarely will a singly-colorblind person argue that a color could fall in a few regions), the tree can have only one color, and even moderately-sighted people can figure out what color it is using such a null technique. It's very powerful.
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:5, Funny)
*Ahem*
http://xkcd.com/263/ [xkcd.com]
Re:I wrote this essay over a year ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If my opinion is that gravity not applicable to me, jumping off the top of a five-story building will result in my falling, despite my opinion. I will be falling just as fast and as far as if I beleived, and held the opinion, that gravity did in fact apply to me.
My opinions mean
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like I said: I can have the opinion that jumping out from a fifth-story window, I will be able to fly. You will be hard pressed to explain why this is equally as valid as Newton's laws of gravity.
In related news: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true - I checked (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not true - I checked (Score:5, Insightful)
That was pretty funny, but you hit on a sore spot of mine: notability deletions. See, there are destructive bastards [wikipedia.org] who like to brag about the articles they've deleted [wikipedia.org] and delight in destroying Wikipedia. Because these "notability" jackboots are tolerated and you're only allowed to see the articles that meet their nebulous standards, Wikipedia is useless to me as a resource. It may cover a lot of the common information on a subject but there's a good chance all the interesting dark corners have been labeled as "cruft" and removed.
I don't mind flame wars. There's nothing you can say to hurt my feelings. Remove my words and pretend they never existed, though, and now we've got a problem. To hell with Wikipedia and the arrogant bastards that patrol it.
wiki == worthless (Score:3, Interesting)
I've encountered asshat's like this before, they never learn and never go away until you hit THEM with the ban hammer
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia has many problems, but its still an enormously useful resource.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're such a freakin' expert, go contribute out on the coal face - debate the controversies with the other experts - none of the stuff that is wanted or needed in an encyclopedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And thus spoke our encyclopedian overlord, without any space for a different opinion left, a gem of iconic language, a miracle of precision.
CC.
Re:wiki == worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to do research to understand what the topic even is, leave it the fuck alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two different classes of editors: those who come to wikipedia in order to contribute to specific articles related to their areas of expertise and those who treat wikipedia like myspace and edit a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I should respond to this. let me se, reasoned, well thought out, adult...
Your talking utter utter shite. No really, you are.
Lets look at an example, amatour astronomy. the overwhelming majority of the worlds astronomers are amat
Qualifications matter, but raw data matters more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:wiki == worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:wiki == worthless (Score:4, Funny)
Wiki vs Your Drunk Uncle (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why am I unsurprised by this? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Why am I unsurprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more the case that people who specifically seek power are also those best kept away from it.
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.
Except that it dosn't, people being paid can still care a great deal about power and exclusivity.
Contribution and alternatives to payment (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Admins have to go (Score:5, Interesting)
Right on, Wikipedia! (Score:2)
Truth (Score:2, Funny)
Wikipedia Meme Waning (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme/?entry=wikipedia_meme [realmeme.com]
Wikipedia probably entered its growth inflection point in early 2006.
The current turmoil is due to a state change towards a declining rate of growth.
Here's the secret evidence, for the curious: (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikitruth.info]
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 [slashdot.org]
You can't control this. (Score:2)
Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. (Score:2)
I should also note that there are many non-admins on that list. There are many very negative individuals, and I saw a lot of attacking of Jimbo, who was trying to sort out the cyber-stalking issues, which I should note are real and pretty serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Gah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, the bottom line is: nowadays on Wikipedia you are either an admin or an editor. I tried to be both, and it sucked up all my time. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. There are systemic issues on Wikipedia, I don't know how they should be fixed, nor do I much care anymore. Unless something is done, we're going to see a lot more of this silliness. Which is sad, very sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
And as we've seen, the in crowd are not the ones who really contribute in the first place [aaronsw.com].
So what are these people good for, again?
This is going to happen a LOT with "internet 2.0" (Score:3, Interesting)
Sites like this aren't democracies. They're businesses, controlled by on
Re:This is going to happen a LOT with "internet 2. (Score:4, Insightful)
The cycles of change (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've hit the nail upon the head I think. Let us not forget John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. [penny-arcade.com]
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
A corollary to the theory if I may;
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience + Authority = Complete Dick.
You give people anonymity and power, and they will be
Iron law of oligarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
"Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."
It has always been like this, will always be like this
Re:Iron law of oligarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
--Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
"Secret"? (Score:2)
Some Register journalists seem to have a grudge against Wikipedia and take every opportunity to run it down -- and if you think I'm a Wikipedian acolyte, I just casually, anonymously, edit articles as I come across errors. I've had a few busybodies revert my edits, declaring them "vandalism", so I'
Re: (Score:2)
A few private e-mails I do not have a problem with. What could be a problem is if this happens on a large scale equivalent to this alleged "secret mailing list". An obvious problem is that a policy of an organized group is misrepresented as the multiple, independent actions of multiple individuals.
Lets say a user was banned (or his edits rejected, whatever) a hundred times by different
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jimbo Wales Slashdot sockpuppet found :)
One has to wonder just what is so vastly important and controversial that an administrator cannot communicate it on site for fear of the dreaded Vandals and Sockpuppets (they're everywhere oh god!!) - gasp - reading it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that was my point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One has to wonder just what is so vastly important and controversial that an administrator cannot communicate it on site for fear of the dreaded Vandals and Sockpuppets (they're everywhere oh god!!) - gasp - reading it.
Speaking as a Wikipedia admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ [wikipedia.org] we deal with sensitive information all the time. For example, we communicate with people about articles they are concerned with (a convicted criminal really might not want to edit Wikipedia but might want to communicate that the article about him is wrong. Or simply a controversial person). Sometimes information related to Wikipedians or other peoples privacy is also relevant. And in fact there are some very dedicated trolls who have a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing a justification of why you tend to take down users based on your suspicions is not a good way to gain credibility. You admit you act with flimsy evidence, but then you say, "Oh but we're doing it for the good of the whole, and you'd agree with us if only you could be trusted to know what we know."
Frankly it's horseshit, and I'm not surprised people are raising hell about it. It shows you have authority without oversight, a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't think there is an actual need. Supposedly anyone can edit WP, but apparently that just means anyone who edits it in a manner that the admin minority approves of.
Either the community can take care of itself, in which case there is no problem, or it can't, in which case the problem is insoluble. The solution is not for a self-appointed minority to wield police power with no oversight on flimsy pretexts. Far as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah: Don't.
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Hell, I don't even know what a "sock puppet" is, but trying to find them and ban them certainly goes against that cute little slogan on the homepage. Maybe you should modify it to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone but sock puppets can edit", which a link to the definition of sock puppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet) [wikipedia.org]
(BT
This is really sad to hear (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Why is this controversial? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't simultaneously complain that wikipedia is vulnerable to edits by ignorant/malicious/troll/pro-spin users, and complain that wikipedia takes action against those users by identifying them and banning them.
In this case, one of the higher-ups banned a user who seems to be a productive contributor - which is essentially an abuse of power. But, I fail to see how the "secret mailing list" is controversial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's irrelevant. The problem isn't that they're banning people. The problem is that they've set themselves up as an elite group, outside the normal wikipedia democratic processes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both of these activities are things on Wikipedia should have been done in a much more public place, and technically have "official" pages on Wikipedia where they are sup
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the informant had REAL flair... (Score:2)
Not exactly new (Score:2)
I don't care if you want to use as examples the Apple Support Forums,
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
On a side note have you noticed that Orlowski articles on El Reg never have commenting enabled. I'm sure the man himself would say it is to prevent the site being overwhelmed with flames by people who don't like him or his views. I think it is just because it would look bad for his spurious opinion pieces to be torn apart on the site for all to see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Clique (Score:2)
The Register loves to troll Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think they do it because it's a cheap way to fill column inches and to push a few buttons on readers who recognize it for the invaluable service it is.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The WikiClique (Score:5, Informative)
Already Wikipedia admins suppress mention of this (Score:5, Interesting)
* http://www.wikipediareview.com/ [wikipediareview.com]
* http://www.wikitruth.info/ [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.
this happens in traditional encyclopedias (Score:3, Informative)
but of course, the haters will come out of the woodwork trumpeting this scandal as a reason why wikipedia is wrong
this does in fact besmirch wikipedia in general, but it doesn't count as a reason to find wikipedia inferior in quality, as it is a problem that all encyclopedias or any publication with large editorial staff and the drama that comes with
so holding this scandal against wikipedia uniquely is not valid
"context"
it's a valuable concept
As an admin, I must say I'm disappointed... (Score:4, Funny)
Fallout (Score:3, Insightful)
As the saying goes, and is confirmed here in black and white so to speak, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The very idea that a small group of people control this information basically makes these people a propaganda machine, not unlike NAZI Germany.
They simple have more advanced tools at their disposal.
I must admit I was not aware how the Wiki manages itself internally.
But clearly, there has to be a more public review of the process and these individuals cannot be trusted to police themselves.
Even a 75 minute ban is unacceptable. Given the remarks by the power structure, I am inclined to believe that this will only continue to become worse without:
1) A complete review of the policies in public used by the admins.
2) A restructuring of the decision making process to include public debate and review. I mean after all, we are talking about book or reference information, much of which doesn't change over time.
Edits made should be suitable for public or peer review and this process should be open, in similair fashion to edit made to software projects, which anyone can join a list to observe or participate.
-Hack
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever considered that we might be living in some kind of artificial reality and we are actually nothing but a source of sustenance for The Machines?
Whoa...
Re: (Score:2)