on 2/26/07 9:57 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
It's a question of whether we want a "big tent" of people with different but similar purposes working together to achieve a result that approximates what all of them desire, or whether we want a smaller but more dedicated group to achieving a particular common purpose. I have always been torn between the two, but I am of the opinion that it wouldn't hurt to turn Wikipedia more to the latter direction.
Terrific post, John.
I agree with how you are leaning. I don¹t believe it matters how large the group - although it would seem that a smaller one would be easier to coordinate. But it does matter a great deal that this group have a common, specific, and mutually agreed upon purpose or goal. In the case of Wikipedia, I believe that goal should be to create and maintain a reliable, unbiased encyclopedia of human knowledge.
At times, there's been a great deal of
misunderstanding about what exactly Wikipedia is.
For the record, I differentiate between Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Community. Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is created and maintained by the Community (the people). Wikipedia needs specific policies and guidelines to govern its characteristics so should the Community. If there is ambivalence or downright disagreement about either of these, you have confusion actually, you have a mess.
It's not an attempt to use
a democracy or anarchy to organise information. It's not an attempt to prove that a decentralised approach to organising information works. It's not an attempt to make information egalitarian by being anti-expert. It's not a social networking site. It's an encyclopaedia, and everything about Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, should be related to the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia.
Well put. And, yes, it is that simple.
Regarding the issue of culture, I'm not sure if that was meant to directly rebutt anything I said, because I implied that the problem is one of culture.
No rebuttal was intended.
people had the common sense to respect each other, to accept different
viewpoints, to understand their limitations. That culture is gone.
I believe it has more to do with emotional makeup than common sense. And, unfortunately, it appears I have come too late to the Community to have experienced the culture you say was.
The reason I mentioned that we may have to resort to a software fix is because I am very skeptical about the possibility of changing our culture.
But wouldn¹t that be like replacing the electrical system of a car whose engine is shot?
It's not possible to do this without alienating a lot of longtime editors. In the end, it's possible that we could massively purge WP of people who don't share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia, but it's highly implausible. I believe we can survive without these people, because a lot of edits are made by anonymous editors, but we will never drive them off, because it's politically unacceptable to most Wikipedians, even those who do share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia.
If the persons (editors) agree to a common purpose and a set of common cultural values, what could possibly be their argument to keep anyone who doesn¹t?
Therefore, what has to be done is to find ways to limit the damage our corroded culture can do. We've tried the policy route, and it's failed abysmally. It's time to see if article and editor ratings, together with a more refined approach to blocking, can ameliorate the problem.
* John, I¹m afraid it¹s going to take more that mechanical fixes to halt the corrosion. It is going to take everyone from the top down finally coming to terms with the fact that there are flesh and blood, emotional, human beings at the core of this project each bringing their own learning, life experiences and day-to-day struggles into the mix. The larger culture we come from, and have learned from, doesn¹t handle this emotional aspect of the human being very well. But, perhaps, with some work, the Wikipedia culture can.
Marc Riddell
--
You can dream of a moment for years, and still somehow miss it when it comes. You¹ve got to reach through the flames and take it - Or lose it forever.