Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I completely agree with this view. We are loosing too many good authors due to these problems. Bored with reverting the same propaganda and POV again and again, having to repeat discussions every two months when the next guy arrives who insists on bringing up an already solved point. It's not only Adam Carr, there are many others who silently leave wikipedia.
Actually, the problems that Elisabeth and others are pointing to are actually quite different and in fact opposite in nature.
Problem #1: "The same propaganda and POV again and again." For it to be "the same" propaganda, presumably it must be coming from the same individual or small group of individuals.
Problem #2: New people who "insist on bringing up an already solved point." But if new people keep coming and concluding that the point is problematic, maybe it isn't really "solved." And if new people keep raising objections, obviously this problem ISN'T coming from an individual or a small group.
On the one hand, it's a problem when the same OLD people keep inserting their POV over and over again. On the other hand, it's a problem when NEW people keep challenging the "correct" version as defined by self-declared guardians of the article. See the contradiction?
The problems stated here are, of course, seen quite differently by the supposed malefactors. From their perspective, problem #1 would be (and often is) stated as, "Other people are enforcing their POV and censoring mine."
For those accused of #2, the problem is perceived as "A clique has formed that refuses to brook any challenge to its imagined 'ownership' of the article."
I think the real problem, though, is something more deeply structural that is imbedded in the very design of the WIkipedia. In this regard, I recommend reading Clay Shirky's essay, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy":
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Shirky mentions Wikipedia several times, calling it "the most interesting conversational artifact I know of, where product is a result of process." More interestingly, though, he examines the nature of human group dynamics and makes a number of observations. For example:
"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high.
My personal corollary to this observation is that the TYPE of group plays an important role in determining how large the group gets before this dynamic kicks in. Here are a couple of examples:
*Listservs become overwhelming to subscribers if they contain a large number of postings. Once they reach that point, therefore, an equilibrium sets in. As the number of postings (and flames) increases, the number of people who drop out in frustration begins to equal the number of new people joining the list. At this point its growth stagnates, and in the absence of moderation, trolls or cliques tend to take over and drive out everyone else.
*The same dynamic occurs with usenet groups and bulletin boards, but typically the number of postings needed to reach the equilibrium point is higher than with listservs. (With bulletin boards, people have more ability to pick and choose what they read than with listservs, so the number of postings can be higher before the experience gets overwhelming.)
By comparison with these other types of groups, one of the great strengths of wikis is that they accommodate much larger groups than other internet communities. What experience is showing, however, is that wikis too have an equilibrium point (even though it is markedly higher than the equilibrium point for listservs or bulletin boards). On Wikipedia, the equilibrium point has already been reached with respect to a number of topics that are popular or controversial.
As for what should be done about this, I don't know. It seems that some system is needed that enables more moderation while sticking to the NPOV principle.
--Sheldon Rampton
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Problem #1: "The same propaganda and POV again and again." For it to be "the same" propaganda, presumably it must be coming from the same individual or small group of individuals. Problem #2: New people who "insist on bringing up an already solved point." But if new people keep coming and concluding that the point is problematic, maybe it isn't really "solved." And if new people keep raising objections, obviously this problem ISN'T coming from an individual or a small group. On the one hand, it's a problem when the same OLD people keep inserting their POV over and over again. On the other hand, it's a problem when NEW people keep challenging the "correct" version as defined by self-declared guardians of the article. See the contradiction?
I have an example that sort of fits both of those: the newcomers, every month or two, who swing by [[Linux]] and change every mention of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux" and state authoritatively it means only the kernel - i.e., the FSF POV. Despite it being mentioned in the intro and there being a prominent section in the article linking to a full article (a Featured Article, no less) detailing the [[GNU/Linux naming controversy]].
In this case, the newcomers come along and ignore the listing of the POVs, because they don't care - they have a POV to push. How would you deal with this?
- d.
You are so correct here !
Sheldon Rampton a écrit:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I completely agree with this view. We are loosing too many good authors due to these problems. Bored with reverting the same propaganda and POV again and again, having to repeat discussions every two months when the next guy arrives who insists on bringing up an already solved point. It's not only Adam Carr, there are many others who silently leave wikipedia.
Actually, the problems that Elisabeth and others are pointing to are actually quite different and in fact opposite in nature.
Problem #1: "The same propaganda and POV again and again." For it to be "the same" propaganda, presumably it must be coming from the same individual or small group of individuals.
Problem #2: New people who "insist on bringing up an already solved point." But if new people keep coming and concluding that the point is problematic, maybe it isn't really "solved." And if new people keep raising objections, obviously this problem ISN'T coming from an individual or a small group.
On the one hand, it's a problem when the same OLD people keep inserting their POV over and over again. On the other hand, it's a problem when NEW people keep challenging the "correct" version as defined by self-declared guardians of the article. See the contradiction?
The problems stated here are, of course, seen quite differently by the supposed malefactors. From their perspective, problem #1 would be (and often is) stated as, "Other people are enforcing their POV and censoring mine."
For those accused of #2, the problem is perceived as "A clique has formed that refuses to brook any challenge to its imagined 'ownership' of the article."
I think the real problem, though, is something more deeply structural that is imbedded in the very design of the WIkipedia. In this regard, I recommend reading Clay Shirky's essay, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy":
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Shirky mentions Wikipedia several times, calling it "the most interesting conversational artifact I know of, where product is a result of process." More interestingly, though, he examines the nature of human group dynamics and makes a number of observations. For example:
"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high.
My personal corollary to this observation is that the TYPE of group plays an important role in determining how large the group gets before this dynamic kicks in. Here are a couple of examples:
*Listservs become overwhelming to subscribers if they contain a large number of postings. Once they reach that point, therefore, an equilibrium sets in. As the number of postings (and flames) increases, the number of people who drop out in frustration begins to equal the number of new people joining the list. At this point its growth stagnates, and in the absence of moderation, trolls or cliques tend to take over and drive out everyone else.
*The same dynamic occurs with usenet groups and bulletin boards, but typically the number of postings needed to reach the equilibrium point is higher than with listservs. (With bulletin boards, people have more ability to pick and choose what they read than with listservs, so the number of postings can be higher before the experience gets overwhelming.)
By comparison with these other types of groups, one of the great strengths of wikis is that they accommodate much larger groups than other internet communities. What experience is showing, however, is that wikis too have an equilibrium point (even though it is markedly higher than the equilibrium point for listservs or bulletin boards). On Wikipedia, the equilibrium point has already been reached with respect to a number of topics that are popular or controversial.
As for what should be done about this, I don't know. It seems that some system is needed that enables more moderation while sticking to the NPOV principle.
--Sheldon Rampton