Charles Matthews wrote:
>Fred Bauder wrote
>
>
>>The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any
>>thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher
>>learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.
>>
>>
>Correct as far as it goes. But more to the point is that until WP editing
>looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
>
>
Actually, I don't think the tipping point will be when someone can claim
Wikipedia work among their academic publications. Rather, people will
pay attention when they find information being disseminated from
Wikipedia that they disagree with. Academics will go to considerable
lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is
propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic
journals and scan through the letters to the editor.
--Michael Snow
Bcc
Subject: [WikiEN-l] About the CVability of Wikipedia process and content
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <419AE74D.7080909(a)earthlink.net>
Return-Receipt-To: fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au
Charles Matthews wrote:
>Correct as far as it goes. But more to the point is that until WP editing
>looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
I recently got a new job. On my CV under "Interests" I listed Wikipedia.
We chatted about it at the interview. (I said "it's good to pub quiz level,
but the technical and computer stuff tends to be very good and
comprehensive indeed." Which I think it is, generally.) I got the job :-)
(Sysadmin at a financial information publisher, not academic. But anyway.)
- d.
I believe that the 3RR policy change may lead to a profusion of socks,
and based on that, would like to encourage some discussion of socks and
what to do about them.
Sockpuppets are utilized at Wikipedia because they are so effective. A
user who makes careful, effective use of sock puppets is above the
WikiLaw, because bans and blocks are ineffective and there is no
effective means to make users accountable for sock edits.
Efforts to identify sock puppets are divisive, because users familiar
with a certain editing pattern are likely to identify the sock while
others, who are less familiar, will disagree. This divides the
community regardless of who is right.
There are growing numbers of socks, not just infamous editors like EofT,
Michael, Lir, and Wik, but such lesser points of light as Reithy, 33451,
and Alex Plank, and the Goatse uploader who has logged in under over ten
user names in the last week or two. And the user who in quick
succession logged in as SysopMan, CaptainFreedom, and Docmartin2. A
quick review of the block log will reveal more.
I am bringing this up despite its revered status as a third-rail issue
for the mailing list. There are plenty of ways to prevent socks. I've
suggested email confirmation. I've suggested logging all contributors
IPs and making these visible to admins. There are other means. I am
confident that we can find a method to control socks without damaging
the open and free nature of the project.
What does this have to do with 3RR? The 3RR provides additional
incentives to use socks. Anyone remember "Quickpolls?" Socks were a
real problem there, and were one of the things that led to the rising
tension between Wik and Cantus, as each made accusations of the other
reverting using socks. Having airtight 3RR enforcement with no way to
identify socks is rather like having a door but no walls.
When one user is respecting the 3RR and the other is evading it with a
sock, there is no way to restore fairness, because the true identity of
the sock cannot be proven. This is a strong incentive to people to
disregard community norms, and would be damaging to the fabric of the
community.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)
Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly does it mean to be a Troll?
Josiah (user:yoshiah_ap)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
Gerrit wrote:
>There is a problem with the Alexander Hamilton story. The problem cannot
>be solved 100% in a wiki. We can lessen the problem with validation and
>other techniques, though.
I think on occasion the Wikipedia community makes the mistake of
elevating the "wiki" aspect of Wikipedia to the level of ideology. A
wiki is merely a technology. It is a means to an end, not an end in
itself. The end goal here is to create a free, accurate,
comprehensive encyclopedia. The wiki aspect of Wikipedia has enabled
it to move rapidly in what is generally the right direction, but in
the process of doing so, the wiki notion that "anyone can edit any
article" has been adjusted already in various ways: sysops, soft and
hard bans, arbitration, and so forth. If need be, the wiki rules
could be adjusted further. For example, there is no reason in theory
why Wikipedia couldn't hire the entire staff of Encyclopedia
Brittanica to oversee fact-checking and quality control. Or, we could
work in a way of "blessing" certain versions of articles (meaning
that the blessed version has been certified by an appropriate expert).
I'm not saying that either of these steps is necessary or appropriate
at this time. The point is that the Wikipedia doesn't have to rely on
"some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process" to assure that its content
meets quality standards. We can specify any process we want,
Darwinian or otherwise.
--Sheldon Rampton
Mathias Schindler a écrit:
> Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopædia Britannica,
> and author of How to Know (Booklocker.com, 2004).
>
> ...and besides his former job, he has written an 'interesting' piece of
> paper about wikipedia
>
> "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia"
>
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html
>
> "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm
> some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public
> restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great
> care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false
> sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the
> facilities before him."
Now... This is a strange comparison... :-(
HI,
I do not know what 3RR is....
please e-mail me if you have an answer:-)
thank you
Noha
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
hi,
Jerusalem was a city in Palestine untill, when Israel
claimed to be a true country, Jerusalem became theirs.
Noha
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
> Regarding sockpuppets and the 3RR rule.
> I'm sympathetic. It's a tough problem, though.
I disagree that it is tough, because there are so many sites that deal
with it effectively. Meatball, for example, publicly logs all IPs, and
you can spot a sock a mile away. That doesn't mean that we have to do
this --- several UBB forums where I post regularly log IPs privately
but make them available upon request to administrators, so as to
mitigate privacy concerns. Administrators on these boards routinely
boot sockpuppets.
> However, I think our biggest headache has been the sort of user who is
> *above* using sockpuppets, but *not above* getting into a revert war
> so long as we didn't have enforcement.
I'm unsure. People find varying editing patterns problematic depending
on their own approach to the project. You might be right for, say,
"Empire of Atlantium" and similar articles that have been the subject
of ongoing, learned revert wars. On the other hand, if you were to
edit the Libertarianism articles for a time, you might conclude that
our biggest headache is elsewhere. The nature and extent of the
difference in the "Wikipedia experience" resulting from individual
editing patterns was something that took me a long time to appreciate,
and I think it is among the underlying reasons why we have trouble
getting consensus on policy.
The reason I am concerned about the 3RR in its present form is that it
would put honest contributors in these battlezone articles like
Libertarianism at an unfair disadvantage. That's demoralizing, and I
believe it is likely to lead good contributors to focus on less
controversial areas of the project, leaving libertarianism to the POV
warriors. I oppose the 3RR enforcement change mainly because it hurts
these good contributors, and consider that a poor tradeoff for its
beneficial effects elsewhere.
There are other problems, chief among them being the likelihood of
inadvertent violations, but I am less concerned about that.
> Malicious sockpuppetry is a very very low form of behavior.
I see this mainly with POV warriors who show up with an agenda in mind
and don't care in the least for the project's social norms. Not
everyone comes to Wikipedia to help with the encyclopedia.
The Uninvited Co., Inc.
(a Delaware corporation)
> That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule.
> If multiple people are reverting you, and no one
> is coming to help, then you're probably in the wrong.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. On alternative medicine
articles we had a group of POV warriors (such as Mr.
Natural Health) making non-stop reversions, deleting
mention of critical studies and peer-reviewed data. Yet
very few people with a background in medicine or science
were willing to edit these articles, as they did not want
to put up with the harassment.
On other forums, the same was true in regards to the
subject of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Many people
were harassed and threatened, and eventually driven away
from a number of forums; the loonies took over the asylym.
If no one is helping you in a mass-revert situation, this
is not proof you are wrong. Just ask any of the victims of
scientology. (Entire book and websites describe the legal
and physical abuses that some Scientologist adherents have
thrust upon people that they perceive as enemies.)
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com