>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zoney [mailto:zoney.ie@gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 04:01 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] "Consensus" and decision making on Wikipedia
>
>Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions
>whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going
>by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own
>encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making
>on Wikipedia is by consensus?
>
>Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group
>of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on
>the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions
>made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or
>during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment
>counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by
>the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some
>people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few
>decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants,
>let alone considering the wider community.
>
>Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on
>Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just
>allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to
>different methods as it suits them?
>
>Zoney
Consensus, like neutral point of view, has its mythic side, but making it work depends on participating in the process and learning how to make it work. We may eventually get good at it.
Fred
White Cat said:
+++++
Its very different, those are biographic articles.
+++++
Guess what? Three out of four of those articles were created only AFTER the
indiscretion of the subject made them famous enough for Wikipedia to go
after them. Look at the History tab on each article. Go to the first
version of the article. Look at the dates. Look at what wrongdoing is
mentioned in the first version. Only Quincy Troupe's article was created
with the good intentions that you seem to seek (and even then, it looks like
the article was created out of content that really appears to have been a
copyright violation, though I can't find the original source).
White Cat, you can't have it both ways. I've just demonstrated that in 75%
of the sample articles, the sole reason somebody entered them into Wikipedia
was to save someone else's indiscretion for all posterity. Then, when it
concerns someone within Wikipedia, you want to erase it.
Phil Sandifer said:
+++++
He was a kid when he made his mistakes...
+++++
I thought Essjay was over the age of 21 when he started editing Wikipedia
with a back-story of false credentials. I don't know which culture calls a
22 or 23 year old a "kid", unless you're just patronizing him.
Seriously, folks. I'm not trying to make Essjay's life one of misery for
the rest of his days. I'm just saying there's a boatload of hypocrisy when
all these reasons are trotted out why Wikipedia needs to sweep this
particular one under the rug. Do you not think that very act might draw
even MORE attention to this event? Nobody noticed when the eight federal
prosecutors were fired. What brought the 9 million media hits was the
denial, the cover-up, the whole scene of Gonzales pressuring Ashcroft in a
hospital bed. The more you work to hide/protect/spare Essjay from the
public eye, the more exposure you actually bring.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
On 28 Jun 2007 at 18:04:25 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Most people get blocked/banned for continuously doing "X" after
> polite requests from reasonable people to stop doing "X".
...or, sometimes, impolite requests from unreasonable people.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 28 Jun 2007 at 18:41, "The Mangoe" <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
> > This is easy to game. Just find a situation where dropping the work of the
> > hundreds of people is easy, but restoring it is orders of magnitude more
> > difficult. Drop their work and then claim a new "consensus" because it
> > isn't restored.
>
> ... as for instance mass erasures of links to a particular site?
That works best when you're an admin. Then you can threaten to block
anybody who restores the links... then, once everybody has either
backed off out of fear, or been blocked, you and your friends can say
that there's "consensus" to not link to the site in question, and use
this "fact" in future policy debates.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 27 Jun 2007 at 15:58:52 -0700, "Steven Walling"
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This is totally asinine. It's just a personal attack site. At least
> Wikitruth is A: funny at times and B:actually contains recognized criticisms
> of Wikipedia, not just personal vendettas.
So is it an "Attack Site", like in, you'll burn in Hell for eternity,
or at least deserve to be banned from Wikipedia as a troll, if you
commit the unpardonable sin of linking to it?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Consensus is a favorite word on Wikipedia, pulled out on all occasions
whether on AfD, policy decisions, or simple article content matters. Going
by the dictionary definition of "consensus" (e.g. on Wiktionary) or our own
encyclopaedia article on consensus, can we really claim that decision-making
on Wikipedia is by consensus?
Historically many decisions seemed to mostly go by majority (of small group
of debate/vote participants) or large majority for change. Now, partly on
the basis of "voting is evil", there seems to be more and more decisions
made after "debate", where realistically, the action taken afterwards (or
during) is either arbitrary, majority wish (going by comment
counting/argument weighting rather than vote counting), or simply rule by
the strong-minded who just do what they wish when they've at least some
people to back them up (indeed perhaps not even that). I would suggest few
decisions are made from truly forming consensus between debate participants,
let alone considering the wider community.
Really - is there any hope of having a fixed method of decision-making on
Wikipedia, rather than a shambolic pretence of achieving consensus that just
allows groups to make decisions in different circumstances according to
different methods as it suits them?
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
The latest PC Pro has a 5 page spread on Wikipedia, the analysis is very
fair. They did WPs ability to tackle deliberate or unintentional
misinformation by posting ten small rewordings from an IP address (a single
address!), all were corrected within an hour (suprised NOT). Later that week
they tried the same thing from different addresses - 10 were correct within
an hour and two went unnoticed for a week and they say they were self
corrected. The article isn't online yet and I only managed to read it in
the bookstore.
It's mentioned in peer review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_peer_review
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia it covers it as
such
A further informal assessment by the popular IT magazine "PC Pro", for its
2007 article *Wikipedia
Uncovered*[8]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#_note-uncovered>tested
Wikipedia by a similart device to those described above, by
introducing 10 errors that "varied between bleeding obvious and deftly
subtle" into articles (the researchers later put right the articles it had
edited). Labelling the results "impressive" it noted that all but one was
noted and fixed within the hour, and that "the Wikipedians tools and
know-how were just too much for our team". A second series of another 10
tests, using "far more subtle errors" and additional techniques to conceal
their nature, met similar results: "despite our stealth attempts the vast
majority ... were discovered remarkably quickly... the ridiculously minor
Jesse James error was corrected within a minute and a very slight change to
Queen Ann's entry was put right within two minutes." Two of the latter
series were not detected. The article concluded that "Wikipedia corrects the
vast majority of errors within minutes, but if they're not spotted within
the first day the chances ...dwindle as you're then relying on someone to
spot the errors while reading the article rather than reviewing the edits."
I don't condone vandalism of this kind, but I think it proves we have a
finger on the pulse.
Mike
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 01:31 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rootology's new site
>
>Ron Ritzman wrote:
>> Sometimes I wonder, with the exception of a few BLP issues, can one
>> really be "abused" on Wikipedia the same way they can be abused in
>> real life[1]? After all, it's just an Internet website and not even a
>> social networking one. If you can't have your way here then pick up
>> your ball and go play elsewhere.
>>
>> This is one of the reasons I left the anti spam newsgroups. As much as
>> I hate spam, when it comes right down to it, it's just email.
>>
>> 1. Ironically, the closest to "real life" abuse one can run into with
>> Wikipedia is being outed by one of the detractor sites. Let's see if
>> this new one enforces their "no meatspacing" policy.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>I don't think you're correct there. A lot of people use hobbies, be that
>editing Wikipedia, rebuilding classic cars, collecting postage stamps,
>whatever the case may be, because they personally enjoy it and it keeps
>their mind sharp. Ruining the ability to do that for them, whether it's
>dropping their stamp collection in a puddle or running them off of
>Wikipedia, is not a harmless action. If it were simply "just a website",
>and no one cares, we wouldn't have a blocking policy, we'd just block
>whoever we damn well like (or don't like). Just a website, right?
>
>That isn't by any means to say people don't take it way too seriously
>(again, as is the case with many people and their hobbies of all
>stripes). But it's not true you can't do harm at all. This isn't
>Counterstrike, where you're only blowing up pixels, there are living,
>breathing people on the other end of the line.
>
People who are here to do productive work should be strongly supported.
Fred