Re: [ox-en] Criticism on Wikipedia governance process
- From: "Zbigniew Lukasiak" <zzbbyy gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:34:44 +0100
It is stunning how this criticism looks similar to that ofhttp://www.opencouchsurfing.org/.
Z.
On Jan 9, 2008 9:46 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----> Hash: SHA1>> Hi!>> People here might remember that I once said that the perceived quality> problems in Wikipedia and their resolution are a very interesting> problem and the outcome will probably shed some light on peer> governance in general.>> The following from Michel is published on>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07>> and for me is one contribution to that governance process.>>> Gr ü ße>> Stefan>> - --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --->> The Wikipedia is often hailed as a prime example of peer production and peer> governance, an example of how a community can self-govern very complex> processes. Including by me.>> But it is also increasingly showing the dark side and pitfalls of purely> informal approaches, especially when they scale.>> Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable because it's work is not done in teams,> but by individuals with rather weak links. At the same time it is also a> very complex project, with consolidating social norms and rules, and with an> elite that knows them, vs. many occasional page writers who are ignorant of> them. When that system then instaures a scarcity rule, articles have to be> 'notable' or they can be deleted. It creates a serious imbalance.>> While the Wikipedia remains a remarkable achievement, and escapes any easy> characterization of its qualities because of its sheer vastness, there must> indeed be hundreds of thousands of volunteers doing good work on articles,> it has also created a power structure, but it is largely 'invisible',> opaque, and therefore particularly vulnerable to the well-known tyranny of> structurelessness <http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Structurelessness>.>> Consider the orginal thoughts of Jo Freeman:>> "*Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a> 'structureless' group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming> together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure> itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible, it may vary over> time, it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over> the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities,> personalities and intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we> are individuals with different talents, predispositions and backgrounds> makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis> whatsoever could we approximate 'structurelessness' and that is not the> nature of a human group*.">> Consider also this> warning<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/every-cause-wan.html>> :>> "*Every group of people with an unusual goal - good, bad, or silly - will> trend toward the cult attractor unless they make a constant effort to resist> it. You can keep your house cooler than the outdoors, but you have to run> the air conditioner constantly, and as soon as you turn off the electricity> - - give up the fight against entropy - things will go back to "normal".*>> *In the same sense that every thermal differential wants to equalize itself,> and every computer program wants to become a collection of ad-hoc patches,> every Cause wants to be a cult. It's a high-entropy state into which the> system trends, an attractor in human psychology.*>> *Cultishness is quantitative, not qualitative. The question is not "Cultish,> yes or no?" but "How much cultishness and where?*">> The Wikicult <http://www.wikicult.org/index.html> website asserts that this> stage has already been reached:>> "*With the systems, policies, procedures, committees, councils, processes> and appointed authorities that run Wikipedia, a lot of intrinsic power goes> around. While most serious contributors devotedly continue to contribute to> the implied idealism, there are those with the communication and political> skill to place themselves in the right place at the right time and establish> even more apparent power. Out of these, a cabal inevitably forms; the rest,> as they say, is history*.">> Specialized sites have sprung up, such as the Wikipedia> Review<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/criticisms-of-wikipedia/>,> monitoring power abuse in general, or in particular> cases<http://antisocialmedia.net/>>> The Wikipedia Review offers an interesting summary of the various criticisms> that have been leveled agains the Wikipedia, which I'm reproducing here> below, but I'm adding links that document these processes as well. Spend on> time on reading the allegations, their documentation, and make up your own> mind.>> My conclusion though is that major reforms will be needed to insure the> Wikipedia governance is democratic and remains so.>> *1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and> others with special knowledge.*>> Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise,> or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or> herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly> credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even> when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for> expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert> editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia> implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from> immature and uneducated ones.>> Critique of Wikipedia's open source ideology, as opposed to free software> principles<http://www.anat.org.au/stillopen/blog/2007/08/19/open-source-ideologies/>>> *2. Wikipedia's culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a> lack of responsible authorship and management.*>> Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set> of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest,> canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia's> adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for> their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or> that of others).>> *3. Wikipedia's administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful> elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. *>> Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative> abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being> enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many> well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being> previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been> banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin's editorial point of view.> There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly> independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that> is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor,> and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for> misbehaviour.>> Overview of developments<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071216/attacking-the-source/>>> The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically> monitors<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/>Wikipedia> governance>> The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists:> Andrew<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-articles-celebrate/>> Lih<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/>;> Slate> <http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/>>> Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony> Judge<http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/bio/wikibios.php>>> *4. Wikipedia's numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on> the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted*.>> Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently> allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia's numerous "policies", such as> those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal> information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.>> The undemocratic practices of its investigative> committee<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html>>> A personal experience<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/kicked-out-of-wikicult.html>>> The badsites list <http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118> of censored sites> belonging to Wikipedia's enemies>> Lack of transparency and accountability <http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118>>> The Judd Bagley<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/>case>> InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian> universe<http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24450>>> 5. *Wikipedia's quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is> at best incompetent and at worst corrupt*.>> ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates> on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all> editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia> status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and> will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in> private.>> Monitoring of ArbCom's> activities<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=28>>> Summary of criticisms<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071215/ten-reasons-why-the-arbitration-committee-doesnt-matter/>>> The case of the secret mailing list for top insiders <http:///>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/>> *6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for> Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent> from Wikipedia's remaining founder and his business interests.*>> The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in> an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of> inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and> (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales' for-profit business> Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit> Wikipedia.>> The Foundation's> budget<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/foundation-budget.html>>> Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for> transparency<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036559.html>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>>> iQCVAwUBR4UytgnTZgC3zSk5AQJV3gP+Ma7sbxYEpIgwuNw9N7kdGtSnojnxKFMK> kIfzqUs3r9QW6z2bX4UBa[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]GDHGjs7RyBqI8x9RxCMLc2AeX9/UF7NtL47C/aczW> LzEdREH0qamahbdtRO0FqH1sHhHwYyFME85jx5l6TQ1rmdaLE5GSzYrmOPcSWVCG> 7E4uQAjE0jU=> =oYIc> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----> _________________________________> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/> Contact: projekt oekonux.de>
-- Zbigniew Lukasiakhttp://brudnopis.blogspot.com/�������������������������{��; 0����{������jب��� 0����{��zK�����#zK����