3 ms·

> As is sometimes said in management theory "it was a great measure until it was made a target". Wikipedia already is a target. It has been a target of distort

by hannob 8y ago

> As is sometimes said in management theory "it was a great measure until it was made a target". Wikipedia already is a target. It has been a target of distortion almost as long as it exists. It handles these exceptionally well. Not perfect, but given how attractive Wikipedia manipulation is and how easy you'd think it is it's incredible how well it fights it off.

pawelmurias 8y ago
The underlying Wikipedia politics are horrible. Tons of crazy people fight each other using rule lawyering and other tricks.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Isn't "rule lawyering" just "lawyering", and its re-emergence in this (as professed above) rather successful community possibly an argument for its effectiveness in making complex social communities work?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  It sounds like the thick morass of crazy people fighting each other over random things might actually act as armor against sane people who think they can slip in and do their dark business in unopposed silence.
- danShumway 8y ago
  I don't disagree at all, but between Wikipedia and StackOverflow, I'm slowly becoming suspicious that crazy, legalistic communities may actually just be really good at moderation? For all of their faults (and there are many), Wikipedia, StackOverflow, and to a much smaller extent even Hackernews all tend to be kind of good at what they do, petty rules notwithstanding. Although, Reddit exists too, so maybe I'm just cherry-picking examples. I don't want to fall into the same trap that people did with excusing people like Linus.
- JProthero 8y ago
  There's a good example of what pawelmurias is referring to on the Wikipedia vote page linked in the article [1]. Here are some quotes, from two editors on opposite sides of the Breitbart argument: "I find it incredibly hard to believe that [Editor 2] is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block [...]" -Editor 1 "Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor." -Editor 2 "I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. [...] As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off." -Editor 1 I usually think better of editing Wikipedia for fear of being drawn into something like this. Even the most seemingly innocuous, well-cited edits can end up getting you into trouble with someone. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful achievement, but it often isn't pretty behind the scenes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...
ColanR 8y ago
> It has been a target of distortion almost as long as it exists. I think you misunderstood the parent. The management theory quote is talking about the thing you measure (e.g. factory output quantity) as a proxy for success becoming what is aimed for (e.g. make as many as possible without regard for quality, worker treatment, maintanence, etc.). Point being, as you said, wikipedia will become a focus point, with everyone pushing their agenda to the 'source of truth' even more than they do now.
skybrian 8y ago
This is true, but it's a matter of degree. We already rely heavily on Wikipedia and it's probably a good idea not to raise the stakes even more. There's a limit to how much pressure a volunteer organization can withstand.

by hannob 8y ago

pawelmurias 8y ago

The underlying Wikipedia politics are horrible. Tons of crazy people fight each other using rule lawyering and other tricks.

matt4077 8y ago
Isn't "rule lawyering" just "lawyering", and its re-emergence in this (as professed above) rather successful community possibly an argument for its effectiveness in making complex social communities work?
whatshisface 8y ago
It sounds like the thick morass of crazy people fighting each other over random things might actually act as armor against sane people who think they can slip in and do their dark business in unopposed silence.
danShumway 8y ago
I don't disagree at all, but between Wikipedia and StackOverflow, I'm slowly becoming suspicious that crazy, legalistic communities may actually just be really good at moderation? For all of their faults (and there are many), Wikipedia, StackOverflow, and to a much smaller extent even Hackernews all tend to be kind of good at what they do, petty rules notwithstanding. Although, Reddit exists too, so maybe I'm just cherry-picking examples. I don't want to fall into the same trap that people did with excusing people like Linus.
JProthero 8y ago
There's a good example of what pawelmurias is referring to on the Wikipedia vote page linked in the article [1]. Here are some quotes, from two editors on opposite sides of the Breitbart argument: "I find it incredibly hard to believe that [Editor 2] is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block [...]" -Editor 1 "Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor." -Editor 2 "I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. [...] As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off." -Editor 1 I usually think better of editing Wikipedia for fear of being drawn into something like this. Even the most seemingly innocuous, well-cited edits can end up getting you into trouble with someone. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful achievement, but it often isn't pretty behind the scenes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...

ColanR 8y ago

> It has been a target of distortion almost as long as it exists. I think you misunderstood the parent. The management theory quote is talking about the thing you measure (e.g. factory output quantity) as a proxy for success becoming what is aimed for (e.g. make as many as possible without regard for quality, worker treatment, maintanence, etc.). Point being, as you said, wikipedia will become a focus point, with everyone pushing their agenda to the 'source of truth' even more than they do now.

skybrian 8y ago

This is true, but it's a matter of degree. We already rely heavily on Wikipedia and it's probably a good idea not to raise the stakes even more. There's a limit to how much pressure a volunteer organization can withstand.