Can anyone extract useful ideas from this blog entry:
http://thomas-lord.blogspot.com/2006/08/wikipedia-empire-based-on-open-sourc...
There is the usual suggestion that if Wikipedia adopts article forks then all will be well because then the obnoxious editors who don't want to work with others will be appeased and something about power structures. Etc etc.
But there are some vague notions of *lots* of alternate Wikipedia distributions (rather than "forks"), analogous to Linux distributions. This bit seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how one would approach it. Categories as packages? (like an .rpm or a .deb .) Is there something here that's the seed of a useful idea?
- d.
There are a few good points in the blog (let's not call it an essay!). I particularly like the description of Wikipedia as a 'semi-anarchic feudal state'. Perhaps we should put that on a banner somewhere — your fiefdom or mine? The comparison of Wikipedia with Linux distributions is a bit misplaced. The main objection to this approach is that, simply put, they are very different beasties. One has to do with facts and information, the other has to do with software programmes. How would we modularise the article on [[cactus]]? Extracting anything more useful from this is dasht difficult.
— Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])
On 12/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone extract useful ideas from this blog entry:
http://thomas-lord.blogspot.com/2006/08/wikipedia-empire-based-on-open-sourc...
There is the usual suggestion that if Wikipedia adopts article forks then all will be well because then the obnoxious editors who don't want to work with others will be appeased and something about power structures. Etc etc.
But there are some vague notions of *lots* of alternate Wikipedia distributions (rather than "forks"), analogous to Linux distributions. This bit seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how one would approach it. Categories as packages? (like an .rpm or a .deb .) Is there something here that's the seed of a useful idea?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/08/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) garzohugo+wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There are a few good points in the blog (let's not call it an essay!). I particularly like the description of Wikipedia as a 'semi-anarchic feudal state'. Perhaps we should put that on a banner somewhere — your fiefdom or mine? The comparison of Wikipedia with Linux distributions is a bit misplaced. The main objection to this approach is that, simply put, they are very different beasties. One has to do with facts and information, the other has to do with software programmes. How would we modularise the article on [[cactus]]? Extracting anything more useful from this is dasht difficult.
Some categories would make useful modules. In print form we've been calling these "wikireaders."
- d.
On 8/11/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) garzohugo+wiki@gmail.com wrote:
There are a few good points in the blog (let's not call it an essay!). I particularly like the description of Wikipedia as a 'semi-anarchic feudal state'. Perhaps we should put that on a banner somewhere — your fiefdom or mine? The comparison of Wikipedia with Linux distributions is a bit misplaced. The main objection to this approach is that, simply put, they are very different beasties. One has to do with facts and information, the other has to do with software programmes. How would we modularise the article on [[cactus]]? Extracting anything more useful from this is dasht difficult.
— Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])
True, his general idea of Wikipedia as a semi-anarchic feudalism certainly is one of the better descriptions I've seen, but his whole article squatters thing is misguided. Yeah, most articles have a quasi-expert or interested-lay person interested in them who maintains them - but I strongly dispute the idea that they are as bad as he thinks they are: "Article squatters are the feudal lords of Wikipedia and the only way to displace someone is to spend a great deal of time fighting with them, possibly escalating through the central authority. No doubt there exist article squatters who make it there mission to work with others to improve content but, in my samples, the trend is more towards censorship."
I mean, he's arguing that we should move closer to open source practices, and what is an "Article squatter" (note the inaccuracy of the derogatory term 'squatter') but a really *weak* form of a program's (or package's) maintainer? Article squatters can't revoke the edit bit like all program maintainers generally can, for example, or change a program's license, or the website in general and so on and so forth.
~maru
On 8/11/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
"Article squatters are the feudal lords of Wikipedia and the only way to displace someone is to spend a great deal of time fighting with them, possibly escalating through the central authority. No doubt there exist article squatters who make it there mission to work with others to improve content but, in my samples, the trend is more towards censorship."
It'd be great to see his "samples." In most instances where people are simply unilaterally rejected they are usually trying to push a strong, un-sourced, un-neutral agenda. Even in cases where editors are very protective of articles, in *my* "samples" it is rare that the entire group is against genuine improvement, corrections, and additions. Even articles which are rather tightly controlled by editors ([[Evolution]] as an example), major changes happen every few weeks or so when someone new comes to the page and says "Hey, I don't think this section is correct or clear." They are, however, against things which contradict our content policies, or people with severe POV axes to grind show up and try and re-write the page into a Creationist screed.
The exact implementation of the policies is always open to some leeway, but the epistemic goals of the policies themselves (which ideally try to root Wikipedia in reliable knowledge and disallow its use as a place where quacks and spammers can run rampant) are surely commendable. Of course, one can call all quality control "censorship," but you'd have to have a pretty liberal sense of what it would mean to have a reliable encyclopedia if you don't believe in any checks on knowledge. And in fact that has been tried before.
And those that don't like them CAN start a fork. Wikipedia itself doesn't have to try and host multiple versions and all of that slog which makes places like everything2 so unreliable and unmanageable. It would be trivial for me to start a "World War II" encyclopedia licensed under the GDFL which used Wikipedia content as a base. The problem isn't that it couldn't be done, but that it would be hard to convince people to spend their time wrangling over my little fork rather than the big dog. But that's the case with all Open Source models. And in fact lots of crank groups are happy to fork -- the Neo-Nazis had a wiki for awhile, and the Creationists have a wiki too. Best of luck to them.
Strangely this fellow does not seem to interrogate WHY Wikipedia has been successful. It is NOT the first Wiki. It is not the only place on the internet where people can "edit this page" or contribute knowledge. Despite the many attacks often levied against Wikipedia's accuracy, it remains massively popular in comparison with any similar alternatives. Why? Perhaps it is because the model of de-facto-centralization-with-the-opportunity-to-fork-if-you-really-want-to actually works pretty well. The human resources issue puts a high price on forking, but since human resources are the breeder reactor which keeps this factory pumping, that's not a bad thing (if people could easily diffuse, then no one place would build up the critical mass needed to keep high enough production and maintenance for long term success). The option to fork is always there, and occasionally probably does serve as a pressure-release valve. And in the end, forcing people to come together and work out content issues under a reasonable epistemic model actually might end up producing better content than one would get under a "free for all" model.
Science is often criticized as conservative in its treatment of knowledge, and the rejection of controversial ideas is often decried as "censorship" by those so rejected. But philosophers of science have long argued that this conservatism actually is what results in its knowledge being generally reliable and, in the end, useful for practical ends. Sure, it makes mistakes sometimes. Sure, sometimes those controversial ideas end up being correct. But I think it is pretty self-evident that systems of knowledge generation which are concerned with quality-control, even to the point of epistemic conservatism, end up producing more reliable knowledge than those which are "anything goes." If we had unlimited resources and unlimited time, yes, we could all work tirelessly to flesh out every conceivable possibility for "truth." But it would be a wasteful endeavor. Methodology is that which cuts down on options so that we focus only on the most likely to produce results. As with science, with Wikipedia, if one does not take too much offense from the overwrought and pretentious analogy.
FF
On 8/13/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
And those that don't like them CAN start a fork. Wikipedia itself doesn't have to try and host multiple versions and all of that slog which makes places like everything2 so unreliable and unmanageable. It would be trivial for me to start a "World War II" encyclopedia licensed under the GDFL which used Wikipedia content as a base. The problem isn't that it couldn't be done, but that it would be hard to convince people to spend their time wrangling over my little fork rather than the big dog.
That may not be a problem. I may decide I don't want anyone else working on my GFDL encyclopedia of canals undergoing restoration.
And in fact lots of crank groups are happy to fork -- the Neo-Nazis had a wiki for awhile,
Still do although it is now a start from scratch job.
Why? Perhaps it is because the model of de-facto-centralization-with-the-opportunity-to-fork-if-you-really-want-to actually works pretty well.
Unlikely since the sucess of our other projects has been lower. More likely a lot of people on the web wanted a free encyclopedia there isn't anything else in that market area.
On 8/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Can anyone extract useful ideas from this blog entry:
http://thomas-lord.blogspot.com/2006/08/wikipedia-empire-based-on-open-sourc...
I got confused by a few comments like "The Wikipedia community, such as it is" - what, there is no real Wikipedia community?
Also, "It is certainly true that, at the highest levels, Wikipedia is thoroughly centralized." - another bizarre remark. "Power at the highest level is concentrated amongst a few people" - yes...isn't that the definition of "highest level"?
This "An article squatter is someone who is ingratiated to the central Wikipedia authority and who monitors, in more or less real-time, all changes made to the article. " is simply nonsense. I don't think such article squatters have any standing amongst the "central authority" at all, and I doubt the "central authority" as such is even aware of their existence.
If I understand his proposal at all, he would want us to have several possible different versions of each article "competing" against each other. But I don't really get it, to be honest.
Oh, and his concluding line is also odd: "Instead, Jimmy carved himself a kingdom. And with One Laptop Per Child, His Kingdom is about to become an empire. This can't be good." - why? Because all power is bad?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote: <snip>
Oh, and his concluding line is also odd: "Instead, Jimmy carved himself a kingdom. And with One Laptop Per Child, His Kingdom is about to become an empire. This can't be good." - why? Because all power is bad?
Knowledge is evil. Possesion of knowledge is a thoughtcrime. Destroy all knowledge. Minitrue will educate us. We love Big Brother.
PS. -1 x -1 = 1 is stupid and evil. Double points for /that/ reference!
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 17:56 +0930, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
PS. -1 x -1 = 1 is stupid and evil. Double points for /that/ reference!
Come on, everyone knows that's true. Unless they were educated stupid, in which case they cannot comprehend opposite creation. Academic singularity is damnable lie!
On 12/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I got confused by a few comments like "The Wikipedia community, such as it is" - what, there is no real Wikipedia community? Also, "It is certainly true that, at the highest levels, Wikipedia is thoroughly centralized." - another bizarre remark. "Power at the highest level is concentrated amongst a few people" - yes...isn't that the definition of "highest level"? This "An article squatter is someone who is ingratiated to the central Wikipedia authority and who monitors, in more or less real-time, all changes made to the article. " is simply nonsense. I don't think such article squatters have any standing amongst the "central authority" at all, and I doubt the "central authority" as such is even aware of their existence.
I'm wondering where he had a run-in or several.
- d.
On 8/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm wondering where he had a run-in or several.
Clearly a selection of controversial or obsessive topics ...
-Matt
On 8/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But there are some vague notions of *lots* of alternate Wikipedia distributions (rather than "forks"), analogous to Linux distributions. This bit seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how one would approach it. Categories as packages? (like an .rpm or a .deb .) Is there something here that's the seed of a useful idea?
- d.
Yes and no. Full forks are pretty much imposible. Maintianing something the size if wikipedia is going to be beyond the rescources of a group just starting out and the momentum from the existing articles is going to prevent rapid chages. What forks there are will cover narrow subject areas. For those that want a different POV they will have to start from scratch. This already happens.
On 12/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But there are some vague notions of *lots* of alternate Wikipedia distributions (rather than "forks"), analogous to Linux distributions. This bit seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not quite sure how one would approach it. Categories as packages? (like an .rpm or a .deb .) Is there something here that's the seed of a useful idea?
Yes and no. Full forks are pretty much imposible. Maintianing something the size if wikipedia is going to be beyond the rescources of a group just starting out and the momentum from the existing articles is going to prevent rapid chages. What forks there are will cover narrow subject areas. For those that want a different POV they will have to start from scratch. This already happens.
Mmm. I'm thinking of a "category" as a Wikireader-style chunk. For example, I came up with most of the category tree under [[Category:Scientology]]. Think of that category and its subcats as a wikireader on that subject. The usual analogous open source term would be "package."
Linux analogy: A Wikipedia distro would have a maintainer for each package - their job would be to pull stable versions of the package from the Wikipedia tree for their distro. You could have distros aiming for stable reliability in a conservative fashion by picking stable, reviewed article versions for their category packages and reviewing them themselves. You could have distros that ride the edge a little more, taking what Wikipedia declares "okay versions" and putting those together as a distro. You could have the all-performance cracksmoking bleeding-edge version, which would be the live perpetual-draft wiki ;-)
FreeBSD analogy: FreeBSD 4.x gets only security fixes - it's obsolete. FreeBSD 5.x gets security fixes and some bug fixes but is regarded as stabilised. FreeBSD 6.x is the current production version and gets bug and security fixes, but is regarded as stable for production use. FreeBSD CVS is very current but may be broken at any time. An analogy to this would be a stable repackage of the core Wikipedia (whatever that is), with optional packages available as ports, with maintainers per port as per the Linux analogy. That is, you can leave out Pokemon if it offends your sensibilities but not lose the history of France or obscure failed computer technologies of the 1990s. This would give a Wikipedia people could download for personal use without having to buy 8 gigabytes of SD cards.
Inside Wikipedia, "package maintainers" would be analogous to wikiprojects. Note the important difference that in software, a maintainer or project lead has veto; on Wikipedia, even if I wrote every word of an article and have maintained it for a year, I don't control that article and don't have veto (though I'm likely to have opinions and express them). But a wikiproject, a group of people signing up to polish up an area, is made a more explicit part of the structure of editing. This has its ups (more solid work on an area) and downs (more politics, more chance of POV drift).
Do these ideas sound like they're going anywhere useful?
- d.