5 ms·

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...

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...