9 ms·

The Wikipedia editing process is broken. Wiki-lawyering is used to shut down the collaborative editing process, even when not on political topics often by peopl

The Wikipedia editing process is broken. Wiki-lawyering is used to shut down the collaborative editing process, even when not on political topics often by people who don't know much about the topic that they are editing. I don't trust Wikipedia content and tend to examine the Talk pages (sometimes even the Talk page histories) on controversial articles.

noobermin 8y ago
Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. It is not a good source for diving into a top-level controversial topic as those articles are long and have many places for people to stump and push for their ideas. The more specific a topic (think, a specific author associated with an ideology vs. the page for the ideology) the better. I think I've just adopted these mental heuristics automatically due to this.
- Jasper_ 8y ago
  > Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community, false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0] devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having little topical knowledge [1]. Trying to correct these things quickly caused me to spiral down into edit wars I wasn't that interested in winning, and tomes of naming policy after policy. To get something incorrect on Wikipedia, you just have to be persistent and cast your WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DEMOCRACY, etc. spells at the right time. Anybody interested in correcting the record will eventually tire out and have to go back to doing the work... [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/013970.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-No...
  - tptacek 8y ago
    If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that. I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing. It took awhile to get through my head the model of the project, which included as a basic premise that I, as an editor, am not a valid source. I came to the project knowing that, of course, but didn't realize viscerally how much of the technical writing I do implicitly relied on my own experience and understanding as a sort of "source". On articles that WP'ians pay attention to, you won't get away with doing that. You'll have to tie claims to a secondary source (you usually can't just point to source code, because then you're doing interpretation, which is a form of original research) both for the claim itself and, sometimes, for the noteworthiness of the claim. The best way to metabolize this is to realize that Wikipedia isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide; it's an encyclopedia, which means the project has explicitly opted-in to some limitations as a tradeoff to accomplish other things. (Some articles also just have possessive editors; there is dysfunction everywhere, and WP is no exception).
    - Jasper_ 8y ago
      I don't remember the exact claims I tried to fight, but let's pick a random diagram from the page I linked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_API.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_AP... See if you can spot any inaccuracies. Here are a few: 1. SDL doesn't use libevdev. It uses the kernel ioctls directly: http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SDL_evdev.c http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SD... 2. Sockets, netfilter, network protocols are all listed under "everything is a file", but notably, sockets are one of the few places of the UNIX API that isn't a file namespace! Sockets can be files in the case of UNIX domain sockets, but configuring Netfilter goes through NETLINK: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/netlink.7.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/netlink.7.html 3. Similarly, the I/O scheduler isn't a file. Admittedly, I don't have a source for this other than the kernel source code itself. These are nitpicks, yes, but they add up, especially considering the near-100 diagrams this guy has made and cloned all over Wikipedia. When we saw people joining our community and asking questions, this information made them think things were different than they were, and that was frustrating. And yes, I used sources like these when trying to correct this misinformation.
  - AndyNemmity 8y ago
    The same was true for technical articles on databases. Just factually incorrect information, and lots of marketing. Tried to fix it, but there were a few people more devoted than I was, and it became too much of an effort to play the revert/lawyer game just to get consistent articles with similar information across all databases.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    Another example of problematic diagrams in the computing field is the one for systemd. It took me citing one of the systemd developers to point out that it was not in fact an accurate diagram. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systemd&diff=631112520&oldid=631031336 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systemd&diff=6311... I observe that this was again that account that you mention, in 2013 taking someone else's work off another WWW site without attributing the creator (or indeed any indication on that other WWW site, that has no free copyright licence that I can find, that the original diagram was freely licensed by that creator and usable on Wikipedia in the first place), taking it out of its original context, and falsely marking as "own work". That account maintains a personal version of the article still calling it "The entire systemd software bundle and its components". * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW/systemd#Components_of_the_systemd_software_bundle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW/systemd#Components...
- jdtang13 8y ago
  This is pretty much the same heuristic I use. I use Wikipedia a lot for obscure medievalist history topics, and those articles are usually very high-quality. But if you wander into a modern-day controversial topic, like "Palestine", it's going to be quite messy. You can even smell from the way an article is written that there's some trouble brewing in the Talk page.
- belorn 8y ago
  Where would one go to dive into a top-level controversial topic? Outside of doing the research oneself or having a organization which is explicit nonpartisan with the goal of unbiased reporting (ie fact checking sites), what options are left beside Wikipedia?
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    If it's a philosophical topic, try starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If it's a scholarly topic that lends itself to testable predictions, use Google Scholar to search for highly cited and/or recent review articles, and read on sci-hub if the article isn't already open access. If it's highly controversial and not particularly testable, then I recommend A) prepare yourself to consume a lot of primary sources and make difficult judgments on your own and B) prepare yourself to live with the problem not feeling satisfactorily resolved even if you do A for a long time.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    There are many options. Off the top of my head, here are a few: Major non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; editorials are meant to be biased, of course. Search their news archives. Major non-partisan think tanks can be fantastic sources, but be a bit careful about their funding. Encyclopedia Britannica is excellent, with articles generally written by domain experts. Coverage isn't nearly as broad as Wikipedia, but otherwise it's a great first stop for most topics. They let you read a few free articles, but don't hesitate to pay for quality information. Review articles in academic journals: An expert reviews the state of the literature. Search Google Scholar. University libraries often have fantastic study guides online, written by experts in their fields. Many academic fields have excellent online resources and aggregations. In philosophy (extending into the philosophical aspects of math, humanities, and more), the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is Oxford Biblical Studies Online: for Islam, there is Oxford Islamic Studies Online. And professors often put together ad-hoc websites.
    - belorn 8y ago
      > non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/Graphics/Fig7_11.pdf http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made. We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback. Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts. Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Controversial material is difficult to address in any epistemic system, and is frequently poorly covered. If you subscribe to criticisms of establishment ideology, and some of those have merit, there is a pervasive bias against numerous valid, credible, or meritorious viewpoints, contributions, contributors, and voices. (There is also a great deal of quite valid rejection of flat-out bullshit.) One can easily find numerous instances of this. An example from my present reading, H.A. Guerber's 1906 anthology The Myths of Ancient Greece and Rome, specifically notes in the preface, "great care being taken, however, to avoid the more repulsive features of heathen mythology". Earlier enyclopedias either explicitly followed institutional gospel, or faced censure and criticism for failing to do so. Another instance of which I'm aware, having run aacross it myself, comes from the 1874 Chamber's Encyclopedia, a British work with an authorised American edition ... to which some changes were made. The British publishers took umbrage: In the interests of literature, and in defence of their rights as authors, Messrs Chambers have to make the following Satement regarding an American edition of their Encyclopaedia: By an arrangement with Messrs Lippencott of Philadelphia, they were furnished with duplicate stereotype plates of the work, in order that it might be simultaneously printed and issued in the United States. After a time, the American publishers began to make extensive alterations to the articles, a thing which had not been contemplated in the agreement. Had the alterations been confined to bringing the information up to a more recent date, or correcting errors of fact, nothing need have been said about it. But it is a serious matter when, in a re-issue of a work, statements and opinions are introduced which are repudiated and hateful to the original proprietors, their name all the while appearing on the title-page. That Messrs Chambers have reason to complain of being placed in this unpleasant and false position by the American edition of their Encyclopaedia, will admittedly by any one who will look at the following alterations, selected from a number that could be noted.... Among the contested entries, free trade: Free Trade (Original Edition). 'This term, when used so late as twenty years ago, expressed a diputed proposition, and was the badge of a political party; it now expresses the most important and fundamental truth in political economy. From its simplicity, it affords, to those who expect to make political economy an exact science, the hope that they have obtained an axiom. But it has in reality been established as the result of a double experience --- the one being the failure of all deviations from it, the other being the practical success of the principle during the short period in which it has been permitted to regulated the commerce of the country.' And how might one possibly offend? Oh... Free Trade (American Edition), 'a dogma of modern growth, industriously taught by British manufacturers and their commercial agents. For many years certain political economists have laboured to establish this theory upon a reliable basis, and have asserted that the doctrine represents an important truth; but no nation has attained substantial prosperity except by protection to native industry, whether avowed or disavowed. The doctrine had no foothold in the policy of any nation, and had no legislative birth until put forth by Sir R. Peel in 1846.... Also Protection, Slavery, and: [A] slanderous imputation concerning His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, which we should be ashamed to copy. https://archive.org/stream/chambersencyclo00unkngoog#page/n13/mode/1up https://archive.org/stream/chambersencyclo00unkngoog#page/n1... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chambers_encyclopaedia_editorial_statement/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chamber...
- justonepost 8y ago
  What is a good source for authoritative content on controversial issues?
  - dolzenko 8y ago
    Brilliant :)
- gkya 8y ago
  The best part of a Wikipedia article is where it links to external resources and gives you links/DOIs.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    Not always. Again an example from the computing field. All hyperlinks from the article on the Single Unix Specification to the actual texts of the various versions of that Specification were removed by an account named Stesmo in 2017. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_UNIX_Specification&diff=811523868&oldid=811162715 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_UNIX_Speci...
- sambe 8y ago
  Seems like a good case for a Wikipedia reader/plugin that indicates the level of controversy/abuse going on in an article. As a bystander, I get the impression the management/senior editors are not at all interested in such a feature.
js8 8y ago
> The Wikipedia editing process is broken It is broken, in my opinion, because people in charge insist that it is not (and should not be) a democracy. So in the end, there is no clear understanding who is in charge, and you get people who invest lot of time and get implicit power. Democracy is a principle which, for all its failings, is there to protect interests of people who can't or don't want to fight for power full-time. Because we say, here we are being treated as equal. By explicitly setting the power that people have, democracy makes attaining implicit power somewhat pointless. Therefore, democracy is in the interest of people who want to get job done and not get so much involved in politics.

noobermin 8y ago

Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. It is not a good source for diving into a top-level controversial topic as those articles are long and have many places for people to stump and push for their ideas. The more specific a topic (think, a specific author associated with an ideology vs. the page for the ideology) the better. I think I've just adopted these mental heuristics automatically due to this.

Jasper_ 8y ago
> Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community, false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0] devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having little topical knowledge [1]. Trying to correct these things quickly caused me to spiral down into edit wars I wasn't that interested in winning, and tomes of naming policy after policy. To get something incorrect on Wikipedia, you just have to be persistent and cast your WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DEMOCRACY, etc. spells at the right time. Anybody interested in correcting the record will eventually tire out and have to go back to doing the work... [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-November/013970.html https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-No...
- tptacek 8y ago
  If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that. I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing. It took awhile to get through my head the model of the project, which included as a basic premise that I, as an editor, am not a valid source. I came to the project knowing that, of course, but didn't realize viscerally how much of the technical writing I do implicitly relied on my own experience and understanding as a sort of "source". On articles that WP'ians pay attention to, you won't get away with doing that. You'll have to tie claims to a secondary source (you usually can't just point to source code, because then you're doing interpretation, which is a form of original research) both for the claim itself and, sometimes, for the noteworthiness of the claim. The best way to metabolize this is to realize that Wikipedia isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide; it's an encyclopedia, which means the project has explicitly opted-in to some limitations as a tradeoff to accomplish other things. (Some articles also just have possessive editors; there is dysfunction everywhere, and WP is no exception).
  - Jasper_ 8y ago
    I don't remember the exact claims I tried to fight, but let's pick a random diagram from the page I linked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_API.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Linux_AP... See if you can spot any inaccuracies. Here are a few: 1. SDL doesn't use libevdev. It uses the kernel ioctls directly: http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SDL_evdev.c http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/3a50eb90e4b2/src/core/linux/SD... 2. Sockets, netfilter, network protocols are all listed under "everything is a file", but notably, sockets are one of the few places of the UNIX API that isn't a file namespace! Sockets can be files in the case of UNIX domain sockets, but configuring Netfilter goes through NETLINK: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/netlink.7.html http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/netlink.7.html 3. Similarly, the I/O scheduler isn't a file. Admittedly, I don't have a source for this other than the kernel source code itself. These are nitpicks, yes, but they add up, especially considering the near-100 diagrams this guy has made and cloned all over Wikipedia. When we saw people joining our community and asking questions, this information made them think things were different than they were, and that was frustrating. And yes, I used sources like these when trying to correct this misinformation.
- AndyNemmity 8y ago
  The same was true for technical articles on databases. Just factually incorrect information, and lots of marketing. Tried to fix it, but there were a few people more devoted than I was, and it became too much of an effort to play the revert/lawyer game just to get consistent articles with similar information across all databases.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  Another example of problematic diagrams in the computing field is the one for systemd. It took me citing one of the systemd developers to point out that it was not in fact an accurate diagram. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systemd&diff=631112520&oldid=631031336 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Systemd&diff=6311... I observe that this was again that account that you mention, in 2013 taking someone else's work off another WWW site without attributing the creator (or indeed any indication on that other WWW site, that has no free copyright licence that I can find, that the original diagram was freely licensed by that creator and usable on Wikipedia in the first place), taking it out of its original context, and falsely marking as "own work". That account maintains a personal version of the article still calling it "The entire systemd software bundle and its components". * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW/systemd#Components_of_the_systemd_software_bundle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW/systemd#Components...
jdtang13 8y ago
This is pretty much the same heuristic I use. I use Wikipedia a lot for obscure medievalist history topics, and those articles are usually very high-quality. But if you wander into a modern-day controversial topic, like "Palestine", it's going to be quite messy. You can even smell from the way an article is written that there's some trouble brewing in the Talk page.
belorn 8y ago
Where would one go to dive into a top-level controversial topic? Outside of doing the research oneself or having a organization which is explicit nonpartisan with the goal of unbiased reporting (ie fact checking sites), what options are left beside Wikipedia?
- philipkglass 8y ago
  If it's a philosophical topic, try starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If it's a scholarly topic that lends itself to testable predictions, use Google Scholar to search for highly cited and/or recent review articles, and read on sci-hub if the article isn't already open access. If it's highly controversial and not particularly testable, then I recommend A) prepare yourself to consume a lot of primary sources and make difficult judgments on your own and B) prepare yourself to live with the problem not feeling satisfactorily resolved even if you do A for a long time.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  There are many options. Off the top of my head, here are a few: Major non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; editorials are meant to be biased, of course. Search their news archives. Major non-partisan think tanks can be fantastic sources, but be a bit careful about their funding. Encyclopedia Britannica is excellent, with articles generally written by domain experts. Coverage isn't nearly as broad as Wikipedia, but otherwise it's a great first stop for most topics. They let you read a few free articles, but don't hesitate to pay for quality information. Review articles in academic journals: An expert reviews the state of the literature. Search Google Scholar. University libraries often have fantastic study guides online, written by experts in their fields. Many academic fields have excellent online resources and aggregations. In philosophy (extending into the philosophical aspects of math, humanities, and more), the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is Oxford Biblical Studies Online: for Islam, there is Oxford Islamic Studies Online. And professors often put together ad-hoc websites.
  - belorn 8y ago
    > non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/Graphics/Fig7_11.pdf http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made. We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback. Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts. Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Controversial material is difficult to address in any epistemic system, and is frequently poorly covered. If you subscribe to criticisms of establishment ideology, and some of those have merit, there is a pervasive bias against numerous valid, credible, or meritorious viewpoints, contributions, contributors, and voices. (There is also a great deal of quite valid rejection of flat-out bullshit.) One can easily find numerous instances of this. An example from my present reading, H.A. Guerber's 1906 anthology The Myths of Ancient Greece and Rome, specifically notes in the preface, "great care being taken, however, to avoid the more repulsive features of heathen mythology". Earlier enyclopedias either explicitly followed institutional gospel, or faced censure and criticism for failing to do so. Another instance of which I'm aware, having run aacross it myself, comes from the 1874 Chamber's Encyclopedia, a British work with an authorised American edition ... to which some changes were made. The British publishers took umbrage: In the interests of literature, and in defence of their rights as authors, Messrs Chambers have to make the following Satement regarding an American edition of their Encyclopaedia: By an arrangement with Messrs Lippencott of Philadelphia, they were furnished with duplicate stereotype plates of the work, in order that it might be simultaneously printed and issued in the United States. After a time, the American publishers began to make extensive alterations to the articles, a thing which had not been contemplated in the agreement. Had the alterations been confined to bringing the information up to a more recent date, or correcting errors of fact, nothing need have been said about it. But it is a serious matter when, in a re-issue of a work, statements and opinions are introduced which are repudiated and hateful to the original proprietors, their name all the while appearing on the title-page. That Messrs Chambers have reason to complain of being placed in this unpleasant and false position by the American edition of their Encyclopaedia, will admittedly by any one who will look at the following alterations, selected from a number that could be noted.... Among the contested entries, free trade: Free Trade (Original Edition). 'This term, when used so late as twenty years ago, expressed a diputed proposition, and was the badge of a political party; it now expresses the most important and fundamental truth in political economy. From its simplicity, it affords, to those who expect to make political economy an exact science, the hope that they have obtained an axiom. But it has in reality been established as the result of a double experience --- the one being the failure of all deviations from it, the other being the practical success of the principle during the short period in which it has been permitted to regulated the commerce of the country.' And how might one possibly offend? Oh... Free Trade (American Edition), 'a dogma of modern growth, industriously taught by British manufacturers and their commercial agents. For many years certain political economists have laboured to establish this theory upon a reliable basis, and have asserted that the doctrine represents an important truth; but no nation has attained substantial prosperity except by protection to native industry, whether avowed or disavowed. The doctrine had no foothold in the policy of any nation, and had no legislative birth until put forth by Sir R. Peel in 1846.... Also Protection, Slavery, and: [A] slanderous imputation concerning His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, which we should be ashamed to copy. https://archive.org/stream/chambersencyclo00unkngoog#page/n13/mode/1up https://archive.org/stream/chambersencyclo00unkngoog#page/n1... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chambers_encyclopaedia_editorial_statement/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/4xe2k1/chamber...
justonepost 8y ago
What is a good source for authoritative content on controversial issues?
- dolzenko 8y ago
  Brilliant :)
gkya 8y ago
The best part of a Wikipedia article is where it links to external resources and gives you links/DOIs.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  Not always. Again an example from the computing field. All hyperlinks from the article on the Single Unix Specification to the actual texts of the various versions of that Specification were removed by an account named Stesmo in 2017. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_UNIX_Specification&diff=811523868&oldid=811162715 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Single_UNIX_Speci...
sambe 8y ago
Seems like a good case for a Wikipedia reader/plugin that indicates the level of controversy/abuse going on in an article. As a bystander, I get the impression the management/senior editors are not at all interested in such a feature.

js8 8y ago

> The Wikipedia editing process is broken It is broken, in my opinion, because people in charge insist that it is not (and should not be) a democracy. So in the end, there is no clear understanding who is in charge, and you get people who invest lot of time and get implicit power. Democracy is a principle which, for all its failings, is there to protect interests of people who can't or don't want to fight for power full-time. Because we say, here we are being treated as equal. By explicitly setting the power that people have, democracy makes attaining implicit power somewhat pointless. Therefore, democracy is in the interest of people who want to get job done and not get so much involved in politics.