In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.damian@btinternet.com writes:
You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need to understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*. >
And you've missed the point. The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors. That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You want to maintain the position of academics as a lofty top-level floating above the rest of society and we want to destroy it to level the field :)
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged! But seriously. If readers *can* understand the article, then so can editors. Your problem, is not that people can't *understand* it, it's that they don't *agree* with you.
Fine. Yesterday, I starting fact-tagging an article that had a lot of odd claims in it. My fellow editor went into a fit of pique and removed most of the article simply because he didn't want to have to find citations for his claims.
Good. We do not want, read that again please, we DO NOT WANT, those academics who refuse to cite their claims. We don't want them. :)
You're not an expert here because you *know*, you're an expert because you can support your claims. You don't want that. You want to just be an expert because you know without the need to prove it. These articles aren't a private playground for a few highbrows, this is a brand-new medium never before encountered. One in which even the most basic assumptions can be challenged, and are, and can be removed by anyone, any member of the public whatsoever, who feels the citations aren't firm or clear, and those who can't put up with that sort of mosh pit, are left in the dust.
W
----- Original Message ----- From: WJhonson@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have with Wikipedia. End of conversation.
----- Original Message ----- From: WJhonson@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject is in inverse proportion to you arrogance and hostility. Wikipedia is full of people like you.
This of course will be used as proof that specialists do not understand Wikipedia and are therefore unwelcome.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I still have 80 mails to read to be up-to-date about the current polemic, but I would like to ask a question to you Peter.
You said that experts can bring knowledge to readers, but that some editors are aggressive idiots with whom there is no possible discussion. This attitude towards expert knowledge is certainly also present amidst readers - it is simply not detected because of a lack of interaction with them.
So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails I attached are a good sample of it, without judging who is right in calling the other an idiot) towards idiot editors is different from towards idiot readers?
Apologies if my wording is bad, but as you would said, it's just a formal question, the knowledge is the same. :)
[1]: according to this goal: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."
On 02/10/2010 19:21, Peter Damian wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: WJhonson@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject is in inverse proportion to you arrogance and hostility. Wikipedia is full of people like you.
This of course will be used as proof that specialists do not understand Wikipedia and are therefore unwelcome.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 02/10/2010 19:17, Peter Damian wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: WJhonson@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged!
OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have with Wikipedia. End of conversation.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Noein" pronoein@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails I attached are a good sample of it, without judging who is right in calling the other an idiot) towards idiot editors is different from towards idiot readers?
Apologies if my wording is bad, but as you would said, it's just a formal question, the knowledge is the same. :)
How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case of editors than readers? That's an interesting one. Good teaching and communication is about getting the maximum number of interested people to get the intended idea across. This is very difficult. Even in the best case, I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. A simple proof of this is exam results. In any exam (an exam being a method of test which aims to assess how well some one has understood the teaching) there is a neat dispersion of results.
There is always a bottom 10 percentile of those who sadly don't get it, and frankly probably ever aren't going to get it. I'm a realist. Now most of those bottom 10% realise this, and will go away to study something more congenial. Most of them. There is a tiny tiny fraction of those who don't get it, who believe they are fundamentally right, and that the teachers are wrong, and that they have been done some injustice, and the world owes them something.
Now the problem: in the old days that bottom percentile fraction would self-publish some rant or other, or would just go away. But now there is this thing called Wikipedia which is practically inviting them to edit. It says "anyone can edit".
I had an experience with such an editor in late 2006. He fundamentally wrecked the Philosophy article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&offset=200612280336..., drove away a fine bunch of editors, and the article has never really recovered since (a group of us act as caretakers but on the principle of preventing any change, not improving it. I quote again from Mel Etitis (who himself was a casualty of this incident)
"Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper".
So in summary. Most people who aren't very good, know they aren't very good. A tiny proportion of those, don't realise this. Quite a large proportion of those end up on Wikipedia. Some disciplines have more of a problem than others. 'Hard sciences' have less of a problem. Philosophy, however, is a crank magnet.
Does that explain the difference you were asking for? There will sadly always be a communication failure. Some people will never 'get it'. However, in the case of readers, you are remote from this and they don't give you a problem. In the case of editors, they are there in your face, with their rambling barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. That is the difference, and that is the problem.
Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you, your answers reveal quite clearly your vision. (I disagree, though, but that's not important). A few comments below...
On 04/10/2010 15:58, Peter Damian wrote:
How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case of editors than readers? That's an interesting one. Good teaching and communication is about getting the maximum number of interested people to get the intended idea across. This is very difficult. Even in the best case, I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. A simple proof of this is exam results. In any exam (an exam being a method of test which aims to assess how well some one has understood the teaching) there is a neat dispersion of results.
There is always a bottom 10 percentile of those who sadly don't get it, and frankly probably ever aren't going to get it.
I disagree about the "never". I think it depends greatly about the methods and means to reach them.
I'm a realist.
Your realism seems strongly context-dependent, with a narrow set of contexts considered. Your conclusions are probably valid for it, but you're not talking about the world at large, in my point of view. IMHO you're talking, maybe without realizing the range of your ideas, about a specific occurrence of knowledge communication (university teaching between 1980 and 2010, say) and I don't think this is all there is to understand about it.
If this discussion was about the contexts of teaching and communicating instead of the statistical results in already known environments, I wonder if you would still bear a fatalist (elitist?) point of view about mankind's intellectual capacity.
Personnaly I think there is only a bottom 10 percentile of those who are born mentally limited, whatever the education and communication they receive, they're doomed. The difference with your stats shows what we CAN do something about.
Now most of those bottom 10% realise this, and will go away to study something more congenial. Most of them. There is a tiny tiny fraction of those who don't get it, who believe they are fundamentally right, and that the teachers are wrong, and that they have been done some injustice, and the world owes them something.
Now the problem: in the old days that bottom percentile fraction would self-publish some rant or other, or would just go away. But now there is this thing called Wikipedia which is practically inviting them to edit. It says "anyone can edit".
It seems that you think that Wikipedia is behaving as a magnet for obtuse people, for one hand. On the other hand, you seem to think that what the wiki system does about the heterogeneity of the editors is filtering out the quality.
This may well be true in some cases. But I think that the opposite can also happen, and that changes everything. I have the belief that on the long term, open people and high quality have a higher potential on Wikipedia, if we aim to set the conditions for their thriving.
Let's go back to your example: "I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying." Somewhere, sometime, there is certainly someone that can make 21% of people understand a specific topic. It's not necessarily an expert, though he should be able to understand them. So imagine we find him and make an article out of his "teaching". Then we have gain 1% of audience and consensus of understanding (you may disagree but you understand and respect what is said). With this reductio ad minimum I just want to show that levelling up quality is possible: thus putting the failure on the idiots is not giving our best shot.
I had an experience with such an editor in late 2006. He fundamentally wrecked the Philosophy article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&offset=200612280336..., drove away a fine bunch of editors, and the article has never really recovered since (a group of us act as caretakers but on the principle of preventing any change, not improving it. I quote again from Mel Etitis (who himself was a casualty of this incident)
"Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper".
I've read this text like 3 or 4 times in this discussion now. Why are you repeating this argument? Do you wish specific comments about it?
So in summary. Most people who aren't very good, know they aren't very good. A tiny proportion of those, don't realise this. Quite a large proportion of those end up on Wikipedia.
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ?
Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references, shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other see a better approach to star a discussion?
Some disciplines have more of a problem than others. 'Hard sciences' have less of a problem. Philosophy, however, is a crank magnet.
Does that explain the difference you were asking for? There will sadly always be a communication failure. Some people will never 'get it'. However, in the case of readers, you are remote from this and they don't give you a problem.
That's putting the dust under the carpet. The universality of your knowledge is not achieved through the silence of those who don't understand it, in my opinion.
In the case of editors, they are there in your face, with their rambling barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. That is the difference, and that is the problem.
I understand your point of view of the problem, but do you think that's a one-sided point of view? Could you think from others point of view for a broader understanding, before coming back to your convictions?
To sum up a little bit:
Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated with less respect than other academic subjects and experts.
At the same time some topics that in academic philosophy are very complex and the subject of a large volume of scholarly inquiry also appear approachable to lay people. Many are issues that interest or confront lay people at an early age, and the resulting sense of familiarity leads non-experts to assume they understand more than they do.
These two factors combined frustrate actual experts, and cause them to abandon the project in despair. That leads to the current state of affairs, where the philosophy related articles are generally of low quality.
As for solutions -- we've discarded identifying credentialed experts or privileging expert contributions over others in some systematic manner. Peter has proposed involving Jimmy in a sort of publicity campaign, but even if this succeeds in attracting more experts to Wikipedia it doesn't solve the underlying problems driving experts away. These same issues, by the way, afflict the more popularly known subjects in medicine. The approach of the Medicine Project and its participants has been to keep at it over the course of years, develop a specific reliable source guideline for their field, work together as experts to improve and protect quality content, etc. Perhaps the philosophy experts can learn something from projects with similar problems that have managed them with some success? Of course we reliably burn out physicians and researchers editing in the medicine subject area, so that isn't really a long-term solution either.
Nathan
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:34, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated with less respect than other academic subjects and experts.
I don't think that happens in the Humanities, but scientists do seem to ignore that philosophers deal with many of the issues they claim for themselves.
As for solutions -- we've discarded identifying credentialed experts or privileging expert contributions over others in some systematic manner. Peter has proposed involving Jimmy in a sort of publicity campaign, but even if this succeeds in attracting more experts to Wikipedia it doesn't solve the underlying problems driving experts away.
A related issue, Nathan, is that Wikipedians sometimes don't realize they're editing a philosophy article. I don't want to give examples, because I don't want to personalize things. But I've had the experience of trying to use academic philosophy sources in philosophy articles, or in sections of articles that touch on philosophical issues, and they've been removed as inappropriate or UNDUE, with questions on talk about why I think this is a topic in philosophy -- that philosophy is just one POV among many, and not in any sense authoritative in that area.
I tend to give up in the face of this, rather than argue, because it feels pointless.
Sarah
----- Original Message ----- From: "Noein" pronoein@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
"Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper".
I've read this text like 3 or 4 times in this discussion now. Why are you repeating this argument? Do you wish specific comments about it?
When someone understands the importance of it, or shows they have taken the point on board, then I don't need to repeat it. Enough said.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Noein" pronoein@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ?
There are well-established mechanisms for determining this. I have had many papers published, I am currently working collaboratively with another academic on a book on medieval philosophy. I have no problem working with people who understand the rules, I am told the quality of my work is good. There are objective mechanisms for determining whether someone is a crank.
I admit to having a seriously short fuse, and that was my main problem in working in Wikipedia. But that is different from the issue you are talking about.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2010 17:54, Peter Damian wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Noein" pronoein@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ?
There are well-established mechanisms for determining this. I have had many papers published, I am currently working collaboratively with another academic on a book on medieval philosophy. I have no problem working with people who understand the rules, I am told the quality of my work is good.
This social acceptance (or credentials if you prefer) has a weak epistemological value.[1] It's only convincing for the people of your own circle - whether they're right or wrong is of no relevance -. For people outside your circle, with whom you can't discuss or don't want to, the arguments for your views are reduced to the authority: authority of the number of believers, prestige and ranks of the apostles, influence and mediatisation of the message, power and fearsomeness of the church you belong to, if you allow me to use an analogy. This unilateral way of handling down knowledge to the rest of mankind is a fertile ground for domination about the rights to talk, the ways to think, about the decisions that are to be taken. I'm not saying it's currently happening in your circle. I'm saying that it's an obsolete model for the sharing, free, collaborative, massive project that is wikipedia, and that you won't be able to force it on most individuals. Many editors, I believe, claim some sort of independence of thought, though many don't have the required knowledge to back it up, and I think this is the correct model from which a universal knowledge can be build, despite its current limits (giving the same powers to the ignorant than to the savant). Teach a mind to be critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and you just shaped a sheep.
If it's about choosing between expert knowledge and independence of mind, I personally prefer the latter, because it will slowly but ultimately lead to the first, while the reciprocal is not guaranteed. Dealing with humans is much more annoying than with flocks, but that's the only way forward I can envision.
That's why I believe that Wikipedia is right demanding sources and objective (not social ones) arguments.
Although there is still some indecision if an article should be about what people said (a historical and literal approach), what they thought (a more comprehensive and philosophical one) or what the denoted reality is (a more scientific and objective one).
Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your critics about quality of articles or your proposals. I only disagree about your model of communication of knowledge for wikipedia.
[1]: following popperian criteria.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:47, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
Teach a mind to be critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and you just shaped a sheep.
Exactly. Hence the importance of philosophy. When I argue in favour of philosophy, I'm not arguing in favour of expertise directly, but of critical thinking, which is not something that all experts are necessarily good at.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Noein" pronoein@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your critics about quality of articles or your proposals. I only disagree about your model of communication of knowledge for wikipedia.
I don't care about models of communication, unless they produce results. If the current process were producing articles that belonged to a comprehensive and reliable reference work, I don't mind. I was fascinated with the Wikipedia model when it first came out (I have been regularly editing since early 2003) and I often defend it to the unbelievers. It's a model that works fantastically well for certain things.
But for other things, it does not produce results.Under any criterion, some of the articles in the philosophy section are truly awful.
Also I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that the "academic" criterion for quality is somehow flawed, and that if only people like me would learn to put on the right spectacles, we would see that they are in fact good? Or not? Well in any case, Wikipedia's own grading system suggests there is a problem. This is the 3rd time I have posted this.
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Philosophy...
I would quarrel with the number of 'top' importance articles. I think the number should be more like 100, in line with other disciplines where Wikipedia is 'good'. But I generally agree with the quality assessment. The depressing fact is that articles like 'ancient philosophy' or 'pre-socratic philosophy' are start-class, the article about the subject itself is 'C' as is the article about one of the greatest philosophers of the tradition (Plato).
This social acceptance (or credentials if you prefer) has a weak epistemological value.[1] It's only convincing for the people of your own circle - whether they're right or wrong is of no relevance
Citation please. All my experience suggests that specialists write better articles than non-specialists. Or to qualify: the typical writer of a 'good' article on Wikipedia is someone who has formal training in the subject but somehow missed getting an academic post. Or who is a postgraduate student looking to sharpen up their writing skills. The few 'good' philosophy articles were written by User:Lacatosias, who falls exactly into that category.
Also it's not credentials I look for. I despise credentials. I look for a clear writing style, elegance and economy of expression, logical and evidenced support of views. This is not a credentialled or elitist thing. Anyone can develop these skills. But typically the process of natural selection means that formally-trained editors are more likely to have these skills than not.
In summary, the objective of the project is to produce a reliable and comprehensive reference source. Everything else should be subordinate to that goal. Wikipedia is not some gigantic social engineering project.
on 10/4/10 11:06 AM, Noein at pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references, shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other see a better approach to star a discussion?
Yes! With this you describe the very essence of collaboration. The facts of something can have very different appearances depending on the angle of sight - what's most important is the dialogue those different angles produce. It's also wise to know that there are things you are never going to know.
Marc Riddell
Peter wrote:
2. An initiative to highlight 5 "top importance" articles and get them to GA or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the project.
3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of importance and quality (I looked at this and some are wildly out of line).
<endquote>
These are obviously good ideas and the sort of effort that most wikiprojects engage in. There's no question that an active philosophy wikiproject could pursue this type of initiative and have an impact, but I thought the premise to this discussion was that the participants of this particular wikiproject had been driven off and left the 'pedia without the resources to attempt this sort of thing.
Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Peter wrote:
- An initiative to highlight 5 "top importance" articles and get them to
GA or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the project.
- Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of
importance and quality (I looked at this and some are wildly out of line).
<endquote>
These are obviously good ideas and the sort of effort that most wikiprojects engage in. There's no question that an active philosophy wikiproject could pursue this type of initiative and have an impact, but I thought the premise to this discussion was that the participants of this particular wikiproject had been driven off and left the 'pedia without the resources to attempt this sort of thing.
There is a chance that if there were a high-profile effort to acknowledge the damage that has been done. One thing that has changed since 2006 is that there is a lot more emphasis on citation, and a lot more editors understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources and so on. The FA process is still being run by good people generally the 'infrastructure' of Wikipedia is better than it was then.
I can't speak for the other editors though. It is rather disappointing when Sarah (who is herself an example of a qualified editor who understands Wikipedia thoroughly and is a great asset in every way) says "I tend to give up in the face of this, rather than argue, because it feels pointless."
That sort of makes me want to give up too. The problem she is talking about is real, and I don't have the sense that many people on this forum acknowledge it.
Peter
On 2 October 2010 18:13, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
And you've missed the point. The entire thrust of our mission is to make readers into editors.
Inasmuch as we have a mission, it is to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
That is the point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
...which is a tool to achieve the goal above.
We should be careful not to mistake the fundamental goals for the methods we choose to achieve them. Those methods are important, and we would be lost without them, but they are emphatically *not* primary goals in themselves.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org