Re: [ox-en] Criticism on Wikipedia governance process
- From: Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 05:09:49 -0800 (PST)
Hi Zbignieuw,
I met some of them, and reported on it in our blog and wiki,
they now shifted their attention to collaborating with the bewelcome platform, which they consider more open,
Michel
----- Original Message ----
From: Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy gmail.com>
To: list-en oekonux.org
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:34:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Criticism on Wikipedia governance process
It is stunning how this criticism looks similar to that of
http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/.
Z.
On Jan 9, 2008 9:46 PM, Stefan Merten 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-g
overnance-processes/2008/01/07
and for me is one contribution to that governance process.
Gr รผ ร�e
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 .
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
:
"*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 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,
monitoring power abuse in general, or in particular
cases
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
ies/>
*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
The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically
monitorsWikipedia
governance
The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists:
Andrew
rticles-celebrate/>
Lih
/>;
Slate
Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony
Judge
*4. Wikipedia's numerous policies and procedures are not
enforced
equally on
the community โ€” 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
html>
A
personal
experience
cult.html>
The badsites list of
censored
sites
belonging to Wikipedia's enemies
Lack of transparency and
accountability
The
Judd
Bagleycase
InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian
universe
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
Summary
of
criticisms
tion-committee-doesnt-matter/>
The case of the secret mailing list for top insiders
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
Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for
transparency
6559.html>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt
3.5.7
iQCVAwUBR4UytgnTZgC3zSk5AQJV3gP+Ma7sbxYEpIgwuNw9N7kdGtSnojnxKFMK
kIfzqUs3r9QW6z2bX4UBa+6GDHGjs7RyBqI8x9RxCMLc2AeX9/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 Lukasiak
http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
Yๆา�ืกถฺ�0ก้(�์hฎฮฎง�6ญ��แถฺ�0ก้(�์]{๚kข7คท๐จ�ึ�ถ�่�้-ก้(�์]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de