3 ms·

I have to confess, the first time I heard about Wikipedia I was skeptical that such a thing could thrive. However this article pits institutions against the ide

I have to confess, the first time I heard about Wikipedia I was skeptical that such a thing could thrive. However this article pits institutions against the idea of “mass amateurization” when in fact I think the major reason Wikipedia has succeeded is because of institutions and process put in place to keep the community moderated and in check. For more information listen to the excellent podcast episode of “how I built this” featuring jimmy wales. [0] [0] https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/national-public-radio/how-i-built-this/e/53468668 https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/national-public-radio/how-i...

thristian 7y ago
I don't think "mass amateurization" and "institutions" are opposed. Traditionally you needed major institutional support to set up, say, a TV channel; today you can get a YouTube channel for free. If you start a YouTube channel and it gets successful you can certainly set up institutions and processes to keep it successful, but those things aren't necessary to get started.
- simonh 7y ago
  And of course Youtube itself is an institution. There was an article here about a library built in Minecraft by volunteers to bypass censorship, but Microsoft is an institution. As you say these are not opposed, they are just different relationships between creators and distributors.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I think I disagree. The reason Wikipedia worked is because of random contributors interested in sharing the knowledge. The classic form on the other hand is getting less engagement as you see with encyclopedias. You need moderation on charged topics and the results aren't that impressive. Sure, there might be vandals, but they focus on the buzzing topics, for which Wikipedia might not be the correct platform. Articles that require intervention do mostly regress to the lowest common denominator. Only minimal content on different perspectives because it would inflame more bickering. I think a system that just slows down contribution and forces people to settle emotions would be more effective. Because moderation intervention will not be accepted by many people if it doesn't cater to their point of view. As for institutions to regulate content, the negative outweighs the positive on most cases. Wikipedia is successful because of its lack of central authority. The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader.
- msla 7y ago
  > The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader. It informs the reader that someone thinks the information is controversial. Well, whoopty-shit. Some people think evolution is a myth. Some people think the existence of trans people is a myth. Some people think the existence of disease-causing bacteria is a myth. Those topics are all, therefore, controversial, in that someone would flag the article for being such simply because it presented the reality-based view on those subjects as being real. If there's one thing the history of all humanity teaches us, it's that there are people willing to screech idiocy at reality until they fall down dead; they're wrong, they can be shown to be wrong, but they'll never admit they're wrong so trying to compromise with them is futile. That's why Wikipedia's NPOV policy is biased in favor of the scientific consensus, and why tags based on bullshit and nothing aren't allowed to stay on articles.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    History tells me that authority creates facts far more often than scientific consensus and reality better conforms. We certainly had different teachers. These "idiots" as you call them are just not relevant. Their main advantage is not their ideas that have difficulties on their own. It is the animosity from people humping their legs that many other people avert their eyes in shame. The encyclopedia is dead and community resources are evidently the future. Fact checking has become a bit more important but I don't see the advantage in creating any authority that will fail at some point again. My criticism wasn't directed at articles about evolution, it was directed at political hot-button topics, which are notoriously bad on Wikipedia. To which degree that is the fault of users or moderators, I cannot say. Doesn't matter, because reading them isn't that much important anyway.

thristian 7y ago

I don't think "mass amateurization" and "institutions" are opposed. Traditionally you needed major institutional support to set up, say, a TV channel; today you can get a YouTube channel for free. If you start a YouTube channel and it gets successful you can certainly set up institutions and processes to keep it successful, but those things aren't necessary to get started.

simonh 7y ago
And of course Youtube itself is an institution. There was an article here about a library built in Minecraft by volunteers to bypass censorship, but Microsoft is an institution. As you say these are not opposed, they are just different relationships between creators and distributors.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I think I disagree. The reason Wikipedia worked is because of random contributors interested in sharing the knowledge. The classic form on the other hand is getting less engagement as you see with encyclopedias. You need moderation on charged topics and the results aren't that impressive. Sure, there might be vandals, but they focus on the buzzing topics, for which Wikipedia might not be the correct platform. Articles that require intervention do mostly regress to the lowest common denominator. Only minimal content on different perspectives because it would inflame more bickering. I think a system that just slows down contribution and forces people to settle emotions would be more effective. Because moderation intervention will not be accepted by many people if it doesn't cater to their point of view. As for institutions to regulate content, the negative outweighs the positive on most cases. Wikipedia is successful because of its lack of central authority. The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader.

msla 7y ago
> The early strategy to just flag an article as controversial was the best way in my opinion. Because it informs the reader. It informs the reader that someone thinks the information is controversial. Well, whoopty-shit. Some people think evolution is a myth. Some people think the existence of trans people is a myth. Some people think the existence of disease-causing bacteria is a myth. Those topics are all, therefore, controversial, in that someone would flag the article for being such simply because it presented the reality-based view on those subjects as being real. If there's one thing the history of all humanity teaches us, it's that there are people willing to screech idiocy at reality until they fall down dead; they're wrong, they can be shown to be wrong, but they'll never admit they're wrong so trying to compromise with them is futile. That's why Wikipedia's NPOV policy is biased in favor of the scientific consensus, and why tags based on bullshit and nothing aren't allowed to stay on articles.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  History tells me that authority creates facts far more often than scientific consensus and reality better conforms. We certainly had different teachers. These "idiots" as you call them are just not relevant. Their main advantage is not their ideas that have difficulties on their own. It is the animosity from people humping their legs that many other people avert their eyes in shame. The encyclopedia is dead and community resources are evidently the future. Fact checking has become a bit more important but I don't see the advantage in creating any authority that will fail at some point again. My criticism wasn't directed at articles about evolution, it was directed at political hot-button topics, which are notoriously bad on Wikipedia. To which degree that is the fault of users or moderators, I cannot say. Doesn't matter, because reading them isn't that much important anyway.