8 ms·

> that's the unfortunate thing about growing and becoming a massive encyclopedia that's more respected than it was in 2004 Is it? Wikipedia was massive and re

by cxr 2y ago

> that's the unfortunate thing about growing and becoming a massive encyclopedia that's more respected than it was in 2004 Is it? Wikipedia was massive and respected in 2014, too, but it wasn't dominated by the problems discussed immediately beforehand—WP:BRD didn't neuter WP:BOLD, and egoists with "standing" didn't have free reign to antagonize newcomers who followed the rules. The problem with Wikipedia and other WMF projects nowadays is the entrenched folks with standing not being subject to rules and being permitted to apply new ones pulled out of thin air, not to mention the insidious circling-of-the-wagons when they're challenged and comrades come to their defense by trying to attack and smear the perceived threat. In a well-ordered and functioning society you can avoid running afoul of the law by following the rules—you can get by without having to pay speeding tickets by simply not speeding. Wikipedia and other WMF projects that have been infected by Wikipedia admins and their toxic mindset are more like a society where impunity might as well be codified—like a cop who says, "It's like this because I say so."

rvba 2y ago
Wikimedia foundation could audit the admins who defend each other on a tit or tat basis and attack newbies. My lifetime achievement is getting one those assholes banned. Exactly as you say - rules dont aplly to them. Also using the "standards" to delete everything even when fully cited, while their own articles are slop. Not to mention people who edit good articles just to have more edits. Often for the worse. The worst trend recently is putting 5-10 paragraph quotations in articles. Often by some randoms (self promotion?). Those look like articles written by 5th graders. Wikipedia should be concise!
- kemayo 2y ago
  > Wikimedia foundation could audit the admins who defend each other on a tit or tat basis and attack newbies. The challenge here is that "the community" really doesn't want the Foundation doing that. The interview mentions the last major flare-up along those lines: FramGate, though it amusingly got mis-transcribed as "Forum Gate". The WMF handed out a 1 year ban from English Wikipedia to an admin called Fram, who this interview describes as "gruff, not friendly, not the most empathetic", for unspecified harassment. There was a great big "community" revolt over it, and the WMF wound up backing down by letting the English Wikipedia arbitration committee undo the ban. The Foundation has a lot of practical power, in that it runs the servers. On a pure technical level, it can do absolutely anything and nobody can stop it. But it worries a lot about driving away the admin structures that keep Wikipedia working. Wikipedia would melt down very quickly under its own weight if the entire admin infrastructure was legitimately pissed off and stopped contributing. (I keep putting "community" in quotes because in wiki parlance it gets used to refer specifically to the set of people who involve themselves in Wikipedia governance, rather than the broader community of people who use and edit Wikipedia. There's a lot of power assigned to a fairly small group of people who invest their time in on-wiki politics. It's kinda like local school boards in that way.)
simlevesque 2y ago
> In a well-ordered and functioning society you can avoid running afoul of the law by following the rules Name me one of those societies that would prove your argument.
jjmarr 2y ago
Wikipedia has a functioning appeals process in the form of RfCs, third opinions, and other dispute resolution processes (listed at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]). American police officers don't have that.
- merely-unlikely 2y ago
  What about the courts?
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Are you suggesting online communities should resolve disputes through lawsuits? That sounds terrible to me. Imagine if on hacker news, if your comment broke a rule, that instead of dang deleting it, you got sued! I don't think that would make a good community.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      I think they're suggesting that court is the American police officer dispute resolution process - in response to the "American police officers don't have that" bit.
- Timwi 2y ago
  If by “functioning” you mean that a dispute is only considered resolved if it goes the way of the established status quo, I suppose you're right, but that's a weird definition of “functioning”.
jacobolus 2y ago
The above comment seems unnecessarily vitriolic. > free reign to antagonize newcomers Nobody has "free reign to antagonize" anyone including newcomers. It's hard to come to a new large community and project with somewhat unusual norms, and established editors should try to do a better job helping people learn the ropes, but at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out. If you (the generic you reading this comment) want to put a bunch of volunteer effort into finding newcomers who are having a tough time and helping them out that would be a valuable contribution. On an all-volunteer project people do what they are interested and unfortunately intermediating on newcomers' behalf is usually not it (I do try to help when I can). > in 2014, too, but it wasn't dominated by the problems [...] To my recollection is has been continually dominated by similar kinds of issues, since close to the beginning. It was then, and still is now, often a frustrating slog when multiple editors disagree about something, especially if there's some kind of (typically unstated) ideological motivation involved, e.g. promoting one ethnic group or nation. There are various dispute resolution processes, which work more or less, mainly by attracting more eyeballs any time there is a stuck conflict, but trying to form consensus with a pseodonymous global group of volunteers is just an inherently hard problem. The main differences between the first few years vs. today are that (1) many topics at least have some kind of article written about them (often still mediocre, especially parts from the early days that haven't seen much dedicated focused effort) which means that there's a bit more bias toward preserving what is already there (an understandable tendency in the face of a constant onslaught of vandalism and entropy), (2) people recently tend to demand a bit better sourcing for claims than was done up to about 2010, so there's sometimes a bit of a disconnect between the quality standard applied to existing material vs. newly added/changed material, and (3) there's a bit more focus than before on earning little gamified badges like stars or green + signs in the corners of articles.
- cxr 2y ago
  Your pivot from "newcomers who followed the rules [i.e. those who took the time to educate themselves beforehand about the speed limit so they don't break it]" to "newcomers who are having a tough time [because they need help learning the ropes]" isn't particularly artful or subtle. I'm referring specifically to experienced editors who take the stance that some action by a new/IP account is coming from an confused/uninformed place for no other reason than because it's an inexperienced editor—a bag of foregone conclusions and the kind of presumptuousness that, perversely, your comment exemplifies. And you're wrong about 2004 Wikipedia versus 2014 Wikipedia versus 2024 Wikipedia. It's much, much worse in 2024. (I began editing Wikipedia in 2004, by the way. I am not the newcomer described here, but I've absolutely seen other experienced editors behave this way, including in response to IP edits that I've made when I happened not to be logged in.) > at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out Uh, okay? So if in a group of totally unrelated persons who have nothing in common except for the fact that they're all inexperienced, at least half of them are in the wrong, then it supposed to cancel out or something? Even if 999 new editors behave badly and 1 new editor doesn't, then that 1 editor has a legitimate grievance when they're being wronged (instead than being the one who's in the wrong themselves). They have no control over and bear no responsibility for the actions of the other 999.
pessimizer 2y ago
[flagged]
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  君君臣臣父父子子
rosmax_1337 2y ago
The problem with Wikipedia is unfortunately the same problem as any society faces. Often things start out well, then [someone] arrives. Society then believes that if we define with rules and scripture how we believe, [someone] will behave like we did. But [someone] isn't the one who started the project. They're a different person. And even if they read the rules, they are not motivated by the rules.

by cxr 2y ago

rvba 2y ago

Wikimedia foundation could audit the admins who defend each other on a tit or tat basis and attack newbies. My lifetime achievement is getting one those assholes banned. Exactly as you say - rules dont aplly to them. Also using the "standards" to delete everything even when fully cited, while their own articles are slop. Not to mention people who edit good articles just to have more edits. Often for the worse. The worst trend recently is putting 5-10 paragraph quotations in articles. Often by some randoms (self promotion?). Those look like articles written by 5th graders. Wikipedia should be concise!

kemayo 2y ago
> Wikimedia foundation could audit the admins who defend each other on a tit or tat basis and attack newbies. The challenge here is that "the community" really doesn't want the Foundation doing that. The interview mentions the last major flare-up along those lines: FramGate, though it amusingly got mis-transcribed as "Forum Gate". The WMF handed out a 1 year ban from English Wikipedia to an admin called Fram, who this interview describes as "gruff, not friendly, not the most empathetic", for unspecified harassment. There was a great big "community" revolt over it, and the WMF wound up backing down by letting the English Wikipedia arbitration committee undo the ban. The Foundation has a lot of practical power, in that it runs the servers. On a pure technical level, it can do absolutely anything and nobody can stop it. But it worries a lot about driving away the admin structures that keep Wikipedia working. Wikipedia would melt down very quickly under its own weight if the entire admin infrastructure was legitimately pissed off and stopped contributing. (I keep putting "community" in quotes because in wiki parlance it gets used to refer specifically to the set of people who involve themselves in Wikipedia governance, rather than the broader community of people who use and edit Wikipedia. There's a lot of power assigned to a fairly small group of people who invest their time in on-wiki politics. It's kinda like local school boards in that way.)

simlevesque 2y ago

> In a well-ordered and functioning society you can avoid running afoul of the law by following the rules Name me one of those societies that would prove your argument.

jjmarr 2y ago

Wikipedia has a functioning appeals process in the form of RfCs, third opinions, and other dispute resolution processes (listed at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]). American police officers don't have that.

merely-unlikely 2y ago
What about the courts?
- bawolff 2y ago
  Are you suggesting online communities should resolve disputes through lawsuits? That sounds terrible to me. Imagine if on hacker news, if your comment broke a rule, that instead of dang deleting it, you got sued! I don't think that would make a good community.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    I think they're suggesting that court is the American police officer dispute resolution process - in response to the "American police officers don't have that" bit.
Timwi 2y ago
If by “functioning” you mean that a dispute is only considered resolved if it goes the way of the established status quo, I suppose you're right, but that's a weird definition of “functioning”.

jacobolus 2y ago

The above comment seems unnecessarily vitriolic. > free reign to antagonize newcomers Nobody has "free reign to antagonize" anyone including newcomers. It's hard to come to a new large community and project with somewhat unusual norms, and established editors should try to do a better job helping people learn the ropes, but at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out. If you (the generic you reading this comment) want to put a bunch of volunteer effort into finding newcomers who are having a tough time and helping them out that would be a valuable contribution. On an all-volunteer project people do what they are interested and unfortunately intermediating on newcomers' behalf is usually not it (I do try to help when I can). > in 2014, too, but it wasn't dominated by the problems [...] To my recollection is has been continually dominated by similar kinds of issues, since close to the beginning. It was then, and still is now, often a frustrating slog when multiple editors disagree about something, especially if there's some kind of (typically unstated) ideological motivation involved, e.g. promoting one ethnic group or nation. There are various dispute resolution processes, which work more or less, mainly by attracting more eyeballs any time there is a stuck conflict, but trying to form consensus with a pseodonymous global group of volunteers is just an inherently hard problem. The main differences between the first few years vs. today are that (1) many topics at least have some kind of article written about them (often still mediocre, especially parts from the early days that haven't seen much dedicated focused effort) which means that there's a bit more bias toward preserving what is already there (an understandable tendency in the face of a constant onslaught of vandalism and entropy), (2) people recently tend to demand a bit better sourcing for claims than was done up to about 2010, so there's sometimes a bit of a disconnect between the quality standard applied to existing material vs. newly added/changed material, and (3) there's a bit more focus than before on earning little gamified badges like stars or green + signs in the corners of articles.

cxr 2y ago
Your pivot from "newcomers who followed the rules [i.e. those who took the time to educate themselves beforehand about the speed limit so they don't break it]" to "newcomers who are having a tough time [because they need help learning the ropes]" isn't particularly artful or subtle. I'm referring specifically to experienced editors who take the stance that some action by a new/IP account is coming from an confused/uninformed place for no other reason than because it's an inexperienced editor—a bag of foregone conclusions and the kind of presumptuousness that, perversely, your comment exemplifies. And you're wrong about 2004 Wikipedia versus 2014 Wikipedia versus 2024 Wikipedia. It's much, much worse in 2024. (I began editing Wikipedia in 2004, by the way. I am not the newcomer described here, but I've absolutely seen other experienced editors behave this way, including in response to IP edits that I've made when I happened not to be logged in.) > at the same time I have gone to look repeatedly when some newcomer complained about being antagonized (either complained here, or other forums, or on Wikipedia) and maybe half the time the newcomer making the complaint was being a total jerk to everyone but really didn't like being called out Uh, okay? So if in a group of totally unrelated persons who have nothing in common except for the fact that they're all inexperienced, at least half of them are in the wrong, then it supposed to cancel out or something? Even if 999 new editors behave badly and 1 new editor doesn't, then that 1 editor has a legitimate grievance when they're being wronged (instead than being the one who's in the wrong themselves). They have no control over and bear no responsibility for the actions of the other 999.

pessimizer 2y ago

[flagged]

thaumasiotes 2y ago
君君臣臣父父子子

rosmax_1337 2y ago

The problem with Wikipedia is unfortunately the same problem as any society faces. Often things start out well, then [someone] arrives. Society then believes that if we define with rules and scripture how we believe, [someone] will behave like we did. But [someone] isn't the one who started the project. They're a different person. And even if they read the rules, they are not motivated by the rules.