4 ms·
While he is wrong that Wikipedia is a failure, I wouldn't dismiss this guy's rant out of hand. The editor trends he cites are real. But more importantly, experi
by neilk 15y ago
While he is wrong that Wikipedia is a failure, I wouldn't dismiss this guy's rant out of hand. The editor trends he cites are real. But more importantly, experiences like his are becoming more and more common.
If you think of the product that Wikipedia delivers as being editor satisfaction, it's currently succeeding more in spite of itself than because of its virtues. Part of the impetus behind the GUI editor project is to indirectly broaden the editor base.
I think a more direct solution may be a kind of karma system, perhaps modelled on Slashdot "meta moderation". Most Wikipedians, even the ones that really piss other people off, are usually acting in good faith. If you investigate these disputes, invariably the complainer actually did do it a little bit wrong, or at least there is a legitimate difference of opinion. But the problem is, Wikipedians start a conversation with you by reverting everything you just did. At best you are told to go read a few hundred pages of policies to understand why you were wrong. It would be nice if we had some system whereby the greater community could gently nudge these revert-happy editors, and remind them there are more constructive ways to engage. Just as new Hacker News contributors get downvoted to oblivion when they post memes or GIFs.
I know for a fact that some people at the WMF are interested in a karma system. It's not easy for 5 or 6 people to stay on top of what 10-100,000 people are doing. One concern is that the WMF may be paying too much attention to soul-sucking trolls who rant on Foundation-L, and not enough to awesome people who are quietly doing great work. I don't work at the WMF any more, but maybe some hack day I'll do this....
- Confusion 15y agoIt isn't a failure at this moment, but as he rightly points out, it will gradually start failing in the years to come, unless something changes. I like producing overviews of subjects of explanations, but I get the most satisfaction out of knowing it's worthwhile to others. If my contribution can be distorted and vandalized at will, without me possibly being able to revert all the changes, I'm just not interested in investing the time. I gladly engage in debate about facts and more subjective things like writing and educational styles, but only with reasonable people. If I'm editing the article on some specific part of Quantum Mechanics and have to deal with pseudoscience believers that keep putting in nonsense, I'm not interested either. They can of course have their own page. I doubt I'm the only one with these thoughts. Just like Athens can't currently stand against the vandals, neither can Wikipedia.
- kamjam 15y agoWhile I agree about the vandalism, I really don't like this "don't bother" attitude. If it's broke, then fix it.
- Confusion 15y agoThe author and many other have proposed various ways to fix it. So far none have been pursued.
- kamjam 15y ago"A camel is a horse designed by committee" Well that's the problem with committees, unless you are all reading off the same sheet, the music ain't going to sound so sweet. Regardless, the answer is not "don't bother", the answer is still to sort out the fundamental root cause of the issue. It is the same truth for everything else in life.
- obtu 15y agoA karma system might make the game more fun for griefers. There's nothing in an automated system that prevents a subtle troll from levelling up to mod and hurting wikipedia more efficiently.
- neilk 15y agoI don't think moderation rights should be granted on the basis of karma. In fact, I'd be happy if the karma was visible only to the user in question, and maybe to higher-level administrators. That should remove most reasons to game the system. There are other reasons why I am interested in the meta-moderation concept. One is that it allows utter newbies a peek at what Wikipedians do all day. Once you have a sense of how others make edits, you may learn to do it yourself.