Hey folks -
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text.
A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.
A 'troll pit' of low-rated articles by low-rated authors will be automatically filtered from casual browsers.
The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are: - Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it, not how many disagree. - Graffiti. Small, hard-to-detect changes to articles will not be signed off on by many people, so they will not survive a reputation filter. Those branches will go into the troll pit. - Trolling. See graffiti. Giving a definition of trolling that makes it distinguishable from grafitti is left as an exercise for the reader. - Lack of attribution.With a PGP sign-off system, articles can be attributed to authors, even if they are anonymous. - Public perception. The steady maintenance of well-respected articles by reputable authors will make wikipedia a trusted source of information.
if I understood it correctly, doesn't it makes it difficult to edit, not everybody has a pgp key, if you want to base the key on the computer they're working with, what about people that use several computers from wich they edit?
how is it possible to benefit from several people editing a text? add the (weighted) scores of all the parts? Or not possible?
I do like the idea however :)
Finne
On 4/17/05, Steve Lefevre lefevre.10@osu.edu wrote:
Hey folks -
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text.
A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.
A 'troll pit' of low-rated articles by low-rated authors will be automatically filtered from casual browsers.
The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are:
- Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial
topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it, not how many disagree.
- Graffiti. Small, hard-to-detect changes to articles will not be
signed off on by many people, so they will not survive a reputation filter. Those branches will go into the troll pit.
- Trolling. See graffiti. Giving a definition of trolling that makes it
distinguishable from grafitti is left as an exercise for the reader.
- Lack of attribution.With a PGP sign-off system, articles can be
attributed to authors, even if they are anonymous.
- Public perception. The steady maintenance of well-respected articles
by reputable authors will make wikipedia a trusted source of information.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 09:19:18AM +0200, Finne Boonen wrote:
if I understood it correctly, doesn't it makes it difficult to edit, not everybody has a pgp key, if you want to base the key on the computer they're working with, what about people that use several computers from wich they edit?
how is it possible to benefit from several people editing a text? add the (weighted) scores of all the parts? Or not possible?
I do like the idea however :)
Finne
Also . . . considering the (unofficial?) FLOSS bent of Wikimedia's projects in general, shouldn't that be GPG instead of PGP?
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 04:53:14AM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
Also . . . considering the (unofficial?) FLOSS bent of Wikimedia's projects in general, shouldn't that be GPG instead of PGP?
You are correct. It should be GPG.
Whew. I was half-expecting someone to tell me why I was wrong.
By the way, in case it wasn't clear, I do think the idea as a whole is intriguing and has merit. It would be a very different project, though, with a very different community surrounding it. I'd like to see what such an experiment would produce. I may, in fact, end up "borrowing" the principles of implementation behind it for a project of my own at some point in the distant future.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 05:10:49AM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
... I may, in fact, end up "borrowing" the principles of implementation behind it for a project of my own at some point in the distant future.
You have my blessing so long as you return the favor ;)
Naturally. Anything for which I have the opportunity to do so, I release under a software/content libre license, email included.
Speaking of which, I need to get back to rewriting CCD.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Finne Boonen wrote:
if I understood it correctly, doesn't it makes it difficult to edit, not everybody has a pgp key, if you want to base the key on the computer they're working with, what about people that use several computers from wich they edit?
It would be more difficult to edit, and that is a drawback. Instead of having an anonymous anybody editing, you do have to sign the stuff you write with a key. Hopefully that will act as a filter to anyone trying to create havoc.
The idea is to have 1 person , 1 key; otherwise, this authorship reputation system doesn't work.
how is it possible to benefit from several people editing a text? add the (weighted) scores of all the parts? Or not possible?
Well, the exact scoring formula would probably have to be decided over trial an error. Or, you can build different filters that present the wikipedia tree differently, based on different scoring rules. For example, if you only wanted to see the articles that had x numbers of signatures, or that had x signatures of authors with more than x signatures on their texts.
I do like the idea however :)
Thank you! I was expecting a few flames at first.
Finne
On 4/17/05, Steve Lefevre lefevre.10@osu.edu wrote:
Hey folks -
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text.
A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.
A 'troll pit' of low-rated articles by low-rated authors will be automatically filtered from casual browsers.
The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are:
- Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial
topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it, not how many disagree.
- Graffiti. Small, hard-to-detect changes to articles will not be
signed off on by many people, so they will not survive a reputation filter. Those branches will go into the troll pit.
- Trolling. See graffiti. Giving a definition of trolling that makes it
distinguishable from grafitti is left as an exercise for the reader.
- Lack of attribution.With a PGP sign-off system, articles can be
attributed to authors, even if they are anonymous.
- Public perception. The steady maintenance of well-respected articles
by reputable authors will make wikipedia a trusted source of information.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050417 16:39]:
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text. The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are:
- Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial
topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it, not how many disagree.
Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced they're a good thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's really startling and useful innovation, on a par with attempting to write an encyclopedia by the wiki process.
- d.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050417 16:39]:
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article. Instead of a zero-sum game where only one text can inhabit a title at any time, a user can choose from different branches. The user basis this decision on who the authors are, and how many people agree with the text. The immediate wikipedia problems that this solves are: - Edit wars. This is common with articles covering controversial topics, such as abortion. Proponents of different truths will build and maintain their side of the story, including counter arguments, instead of trying to destroy the other side. There is no negative sign-off, so the only thing the article measures is how many people agree with it, not how many disagree.
Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced they're a good thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's really startling and useful innovation, on a par with attempting to write an encyclopedia by the wiki process.
Isn't Wikinfo (Infopedia?, what was the name) a Wikipedia fork trying to do something like, although without the technological base? __ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Hirschstraße 5. 79100 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
Yes, Wikinfo is more or less this, alternative articles on any subject, possiblility of signed articles and peer review.
Fred
From: Till Westermayer till@tillwe.de Organization: till we *) Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: 17 Apr 2005 17:16:00 +0200 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea
Isn't Wikinfo (Infopedia?, what was the name) a Wikipedia fork trying to do something like, although without the technological base?
David Gerard wrote:
Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced they're a good thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's really startling and useful innovation, on a par with attempting to write an encyclopedia by the wiki process.
I don't think NPOV is that startling -- hasn't that idea been around in journalism for the past century? I would think that most other encyclopedias make that claim.
Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive than other encyclopedias in another realm, but Another bias is what gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular? In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to what is controversial and unpopular.
Language did not evolve as a mirror of the truth. Writing that purports to come from a neutral point of view comes off as stilted and awkward. Language is a way to debate, argue, and convince. I say put language to its best use and let proponents make their case.
Steve
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:45PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive than other encyclopedias in another realm, but Another bias is what gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular? In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to what is controversial and unpopular.
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here, I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV idoesn't make it any less real, though.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
From: Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:08:40 -0400
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:45PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive than other encyclopedias in another realm, but Another bias is what gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular? In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to what is controversial and unpopular.
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here, I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV idoesn't make it any less real, though.
-- Chad Perrin
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to reach a convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak with one voice on the same topic and omit statements that are generally considerd "opinions" rather than "facts", or even nonsense. For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting would have to abandon the hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.
Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the conventions, which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any encyclopaedia, and will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica or better"-aim formulated by Jimbo.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Webmessenger: altijd en overal beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:20:20PM +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
I fail to see how that applies to what I said, actually. I was discussing our NPOV policy, not objectivity. The NPOV policy is something we approach by admitting all verifiable opinions as statements of fact regarding the existence of such opinions. It is not an attempt to produce a truly objective view of the universe. None of us is God, but we can all aspire to peacefully, and without undue judgmentalism, incorporate divergent views on whether or not God exists into our encyclopedia.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
I fail to see how that applies to what I said, actually. I was discussing our NPOV policy, not objectivity. The NPOV policy is something we approach by admitting all verifiable opinions as statements of fact regarding the existence of such opinions. It is not an attempt to produce a truly objective view of the universe. None of us is God, but we can all aspire to peacefully, and without undue judgmentalism, incorporate divergent views on whether or not God exists into our encyclopedia.
It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.
You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of both"), so a Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions with both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia can achieve this.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:44:45PM +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
I fail to see how that applies to what I said, actually. I was discussing our NPOV policy, not objectivity. The NPOV policy is something we approach by admitting all verifiable opinions as statements of fact regarding the existence of such opinions. It is not an attempt to produce a truly objective view of the universe. None of us is God, but we can all aspire to peacefully, and without undue judgmentalism, incorporate divergent views on whether or not God exists into our encyclopedia.
It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.
You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of both"), so a Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions with both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia can achieve this.
Ahh. That makes sense. With that, I think I can agree.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:44:45PM +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.
You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of both"), so a Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions with both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia can achieve this.
OK, I think I understand. And, I don't think that our differences are very far apart.
Currently, the NPOV model is to try to have competing ideas under the same article title. My proposal is to have some kind of separation of conflicting points of view. In my original proposal, I suggested concurrent article titles, but it doesn't have to be that. Perhaps different points can be presented side-by-side. My thought is that in an NPOV, someone claiming to be neutral may not do the best job of presenting any side's point of view. Why not let the proponents present their case, and then make some kind of interface where the end-user can compare the different points of view? Also, this proposal does not prevent, in any way, a summary article that attempts to synthesize different branches.
It's a question of where should we put differing points of view. If I'm a proponent of the idea that space aliens run the government, I may feel jilted by someone else's summary of my position. However, the original author sees my work as crazy and extreme, so they go and 'fix' it. I 'fix' it back, and so on. What results is a wasteful revision process. Instead, let people build up their sides of the story without destroying other's work.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:10:33PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
OK, I think I understand. And, I don't think that our differences are very far apart.
Currently, the NPOV model is to try to have competing ideas under the same article title. My proposal is to have some kind of separation of conflicting points of view. In my original proposal, I suggested concurrent article titles, but it doesn't have to be that. Perhaps different points can be presented side-by-side. My thought is that in an NPOV, someone claiming to be neutral may not do the best job of presenting any side's point of view. Why not let the proponents present their case, and then make some kind of interface where the end-user can compare the different points of view? Also, this proposal does not prevent, in any way, a summary article that attempts to synthesize different branches.
It's a question of where should we put differing points of view. If I'm a proponent of the idea that space aliens run the government, I may feel jilted by someone else's summary of my position. However, the original author sees my work as crazy and extreme, so they go and 'fix' it. I 'fix' it back, and so on. What results is a wasteful revision process. Instead, let people build up their sides of the story without destroying other's work.
Upon further reflection, I've come to the conclusion that this technical proposal is a solution to a different problem than that of "fixing" some of the difficulties of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should definitely work toward an NPOV consensus, whereas what has been proposed here strikes me as more working toward a balance of points of view with the most popular points of view taking top honors. That being the case, I might have exactly the project in mind for such a thing:
We already have Wikipedia and Wikinews. Do we have a Wikipinion? Perhaps this is the technical solution to the idea of a community-driven open-contribution collection of opinion columns. Where a given topic/heading exists, op/ed articles can be written by different people and the best-regarded among them for their clear and popularly agreeable presentations can rise to the top as the cream of the crop, as 'twere, by way of a voting/rating system. Then, perhaps, the top-rated article would be the first thing presented with explicit links to the next five (or however many) highly rated version and a catch-all link where a list of all of the versions might be located. These versions might be "owned" with an open-edit page for people to contribute editing comments so that constructive input is made easy (owned by their authors, that is). In fact, if such a thing doesn't appear in the Wikimedia family at some point, I'll probably create it elsewhere as a separate endeavor.
It seems to me like too good an idea to pass up, really, and if this community doesn't like it enough to implement it, I'm sure a community for such can be generated from the luminiferous ethere of the Internet.
Of course, I'm so busy as it is that if I end up having to create it myself it'll probably take three years to get around to it.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
On 4/18/05, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
We already have Wikipedia and Wikinews. Do we have a Wikipinion? Perhaps this is the technical solution to the idea of a community-driven open-contribution collection of opinion columns. Where a given topic/heading exists, op/ed articles can be written by different people and the best-regarded among them for their clear and popularly agreeable presentations can rise to the top as the cream of the crop, as 'twere, by way of a voting/rating system. Then, perhaps, the top-rated article would be the first thing presented with explicit links to the next five (or however many) highly rated version and a catch-all link where a list of all of the versions might be located.
What you've described is much more the domain of the blog, not really a wiki. Probably the thing that comes closest are Scoop-based sites, such as Kuro5hin (tech) and DailyKOS (political), where the features are designed for the type of interaction you describe.
It seems to me like too good an idea to pass up, really, and if this community doesn't like it enough to implement it, I'm sure a community for such can be generated from the luminiferous ethere of the Internet.
Of course, I'm so busy as it is that if I end up having to create it myself it'll probably take three years to get around to it.
They do exist today, but usually the battle lines are drawn up in terms of polarizing left- and right-wing opinion. It would be interesting if a community could develop that would tolerate and engage in civil discourse given the vitriolic opinion pieces that tend to show up on these sites. I'm skeptical, but would love to be proved wrong.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:45:05PM +0800, Andrew Lih wrote:
On 4/18/05, Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com wrote:
It seems to me like too good an idea to pass up, really, and if this community doesn't like it enough to implement it, I'm sure a community for such can be generated from the luminiferous ethere of the Internet.
Of course, I'm so busy as it is that if I end up having to create it myself it'll probably take three years to get around to it.
They do exist today, but usually the battle lines are drawn up in terms of polarizing left- and right-wing opinion. It would be interesting if a community could develop that would tolerate and engage in civil discourse given the vitriolic opinion pieces that tend to show up on these sites. I'm skeptical, but would love to be proved wrong.
The mechanisms for other community opinion-column sites are wholly different at the technical level from this, and tend to aggregate similarly-minded opinionated people. With a more open entry mechanism, an article-based format (as opposed to a journal-like blog), and encouragement of contrasting opinions by virtue of the fact that agreeing columns would be redundant and ignorable, I think something entirely different from previous op/ed communities would be the result of such a thing. I don't know that it would be appropriate for Wikimedia, but it does strike me as sort of a close cousin of wiki, and something worth trying at some point.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to reach a convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak with one voice on the same topic and omit statements that are generally considerd "opinions" rather than "facts", or even nonsense. For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting would have to abandon the hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.
Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the conventions, which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any encyclopaedia, and will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica or better"-aim formulated by Jimbo.
Do you oppose this idea as a replacement for the current wikipedia or wikipedia system, or just think this project should never exist ?
I think that if we allow multiple branches, then neutral, highly rated articles that many people have signed off on will emerge.
Steve
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been voted out of science."
On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
Well, only splitting as sections in an article.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been voted out of science."
Here we go again. What is the criteria for who is a scientist?
On some topics, everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies splitting a controversial topic.
Well, only splitting as sections in an article.
Then we have the biases inherent in serial presentation. Which side gets to speak first? Which side gets the last word? Does any side get to respond to another side's argument?
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been voted out of science."
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than most scientists do.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 04:17]:
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than most scientists do.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E... was supposed to be humour ...
- d.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E... was supposed to be humour ...
Your comment sounded like the common positivist reaction to skeptical or postmodern theories, so I didn't catch it like that....not very surprising, imo.
_________________________________________________________________ Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school http://webmessenger.msn.com/
David Gerard wrote:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 04:17]:
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than most scientists do.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=2&articleID=000E... was supposed to be humour ...
We recently had a long debate that established that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia which does not engage in the kind of tomfoolery found in that magazine. :-)
Ec
Hi!
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:17:44 +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition.
Well, that is the theory - but unfortunately, that is not always the case, especially outside of the "hard sciences". Therefore, relying entirely on "scientific" stuff can lead into bad traps, too. (And mind you, I most certainly don't advocate any holy books should replace science here - merely facts.)
Alex
Hi!
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:14:03 +0100, Timwi wrote:
(And mind you, I most certainly don't advocate any holy books should replace science here - merely facts.)
You advocate that holy books should replace facts? ;-)
Hmmm ... not really. I was more in favor of facts replacing some scientific theories which disregard them. (Well, yes, I know, technically, a theory that disregards facts isn't scientific in the first place, but then we come to the problem of established scientists who - for whatever reason - would rather not change their theories, and f*ck the facts.)
Alex
I'm still reading the entire thread, but I just wanted to throw in a couple of hopefully useful comments.
First, there is always a great temptation by programmers and technologists to use points systems and ratings systems as a replacement for genuine community. Steve asks the question "Who gets to decide what is a credible view?" as if there is no possible answer to the question other than voting or ratings. But the answer is: "We do, the community, through a process of kind and thoughtful reasoned discourse to attempt to chart as neutral a summary of the issue as we can given our limitations as human beings -- we try to help the reader understand not just our own opinions, but also the full range of the subject, within the limitations of time and the medium we are using."
Ratings can't replace reasoned discourse and thoughtful compromise and it seems very very likely to me that for game theoretic reasons most ratings systems would contain incentives very very different from the "mutually assured destruction" of wiki editing.
Second, there's absolutely nothing wrong with passionate writing to prove a point. But, ahem, maybe I'm a fool and a hardass, but my promise to the community from the very beginning, and one of the things that holds us together as a passionate community of hard workers trying to help the world is precisely that NPOV is non-negotiable.
Recently in Finland a reporter started bugging Anthere at a talk she was giving to explain Jimbo's political views. Now we all know as community members why that's so funny. No one needs to care about my political views because even if I wanted to make Jimbopedia, I don't have the means to do it... NPOV is that deeply ingrained here.
--Jimbo
Regarding the interest in your political views, I don't know if the Finnish reporter had an understanding of NPOV, but even with such an understanding there still might be interest.
There are numerous reasons for this: interest in you yourself, a belief that it may have somehow influenced the structure of the organisation, a desire to discredit or praise Wikipedia (invalidly though) by saying "See, Wikipedia must be good/bad because its founder is a______ / believes _________".
Mark
On 23/04/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I'm still reading the entire thread, but I just wanted to throw in a couple of hopefully useful comments.
First, there is always a great temptation by programmers and technologists to use points systems and ratings systems as a replacement for genuine community. Steve asks the question "Who gets to decide what is a credible view?" as if there is no possible answer to the question other than voting or ratings. But the answer is: "We do, the community, through a process of kind and thoughtful reasoned discourse to attempt to chart as neutral a summary of the issue as we can given our limitations as human beings -- we try to help the reader understand not just our own opinions, but also the full range of the subject, within the limitations of time and the medium we are using."
Ratings can't replace reasoned discourse and thoughtful compromise and it seems very very likely to me that for game theoretic reasons most ratings systems would contain incentives very very different from the "mutually assured destruction" of wiki editing.
Second, there's absolutely nothing wrong with passionate writing to prove a point. But, ahem, maybe I'm a fool and a hardass, but my promise to the community from the very beginning, and one of the things that holds us together as a passionate community of hard workers trying to help the world is precisely that NPOV is non-negotiable.
Recently in Finland a reporter started bugging Anthere at a talk she was giving to explain Jimbo's political views. Now we all know as community members why that's so funny. No one needs to care about my political views because even if I wanted to make Jimbopedia, I don't have the means to do it... NPOV is that deeply ingrained here.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Wouter Steenbeek (musiqolog@hotmail.com) [050418 03:20]:
Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a
philosophical
point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree
that
objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture.
Except the ones who are actually scientists. "Sorry, evolution has been voted out of science."
You didn't get the point! Indeed, scientists are given a big authority, so people, especially encyclopaedia-makers, use their theories to form their opinion. So, in our culture, the view of scientists is especially favoured among encyclopaedia-makers, because they are supposed to have justificated their views by means of an elaborate dialectic process, not by dogmatic tradition. On the other hand, for other people the Bible might have a bigger authority. They form a different image of the world around us than we do, and than most scientists do.
This is a classic battle between two claimants to infallibility.
Ec
Chad Perrin wrote:
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here, I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV idoesn't make it any less real, though.
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. First off, a multiple competing article system does not prevent an article with an NPOV. If that article exists and it highly rated, great! Second, humor me and pitcure this. If we did have a multiple article system, isn't that approaching the asymptote, albeit in a different way? Say we have three highly rated and conflicting articles. Some well-reputed author comes along and creates another article that summarises all three of those viewpoints. Wouldn't this be a more efficient system? Proponents of each side are allowed to make their case as they wish. The author who summarizes has most of the writing work done for him. Nobody has to destroy the other side's article, and if they don't like the summary, they can fork it and make their own. However, if the summary is highly rated, isn't that the golden NPOV goal we are reaching for?
Can you spell out exactly the current process of getting a NPOV?
Steve
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:59:16PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here, I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV idoesn't make it any less real, though.
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. First off, a multiple competing article system does not prevent an article with an NPOV. If that article exists and it highly rated, great! Second, humor me and pitcure this. If we did have a multiple article system, isn't that approaching the asymptote, albeit in a different way? Say we have three highly rated and conflicting articles. Some well-reputed author comes along and creates another article that summarises all three of those viewpoints. Wouldn't this be a more efficient system? Proponents of each side are allowed to make their case as they wish. The author who summarizes has most of the writing work done for him. Nobody has to destroy the other side's article, and if they don't like the summary, they can fork it and make their own. However, if the summary is highly rated, isn't that the golden NPOV goal we are reaching for?
Can you spell out exactly the current process of getting a NPOV?
1. I wasn't saying anything one way or another about the validity of the multiple-article approach for approaching NPOV. I was just commenting on the validity of the concept of NPOV and its suitability as a goal for our encyclopedic project.
2. The easiest analogy for explaining the current process for me to produce right now involves the indirect-fire (such as mortars and artillery) concept of "walking fire" to a target. One aims where one thinks one should to get the trajectory of a round to land on the intended target. One sees how far off one is, then adjusts the expected amount to correct that. One sees how far off one is, then adjusts. Rinse, repeat. Often what happens with this is that two or three rounds move toward the target on one side, then one lands on the other side, and each time they hit closer to the mark. If done properly, you should never miss with more than four shots, and the first round that hits should be a known hit before it's even fired, so that you can "fire for effect" (which consists of basically emptying your armory in one volley), saturating the target area. You're highly unlikely to ever hit an enemy unit commander on the top of the head with the leading point of a single artillery round, but you'll easily cover him with overlapping blast radii. That's pretty much what we do with NPOV at Wikipedia, I think, except that the accuracy curve is infinite rather than just "we got close enough", because we're building instead of destroying.
Hmm. In retrospect, that analogy might be rather strange to most of you. I blame the late hour and my recent agonizing over what turned out to be a really stupid mistake of my own with some PHP code.
I blame PHP. That's it. It's always easier to blame the language.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Steve Lefevre wrote:
I don't think NPOV is that startling -- hasn't that idea been around in journalism for the past century? I would think that most other encyclopedias make that claim.
The startling bit isn't neutrality or nonbias as concepts but rather NPOV as a social concept of co-operation.
Language did not evolve as a mirror of the truth. Writing that purports to come from a neutral point of view comes off as stilted and awkward. Language is a way to debate, argue, and convince. I say put language to its best use and let proponents make their case.
There's nothing wrong with doing that, too. NPOV isn't the only way to write. But it certainly is interesting.
--Jimbo
Steve Lefevre wrote:
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article.
Good idea!
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ----------------------------------------------------- from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are under 16 years of age, see [[sex (child version)]]. If you are over 16 years of age, see [[sex (adult version)]].
JOHN KERRY ----------------------------------------------------- from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you live outside the US, please view [[John Kerry (non-US view)]]. If you are a Republican, please view [[John Kerry (Republican view)]]. If you are a Democrat, please view [[John Kerry (Democrat view)]].
ABORTION ----------------------------------------------------- from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are religious, please view [[abortion (anti-abortionist)]]. If you are atheist, please view [[abortion (pro-abortionist)]].
ADOLF HITLER ----------------------------------------------------- from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are a Nazi...
Need I go on? Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Steve Lefevre wrote:
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article.
Good idea!
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are under 16 years of age, see [[sex (child version)]]. If you are over 16 years of age, see [[sex (adult version)]].
JOHN KERRY
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you live outside the US, please view [[John Kerry (non-US view)]]. If you are a Republican, please view [[John Kerry (Republican view)]]. If you are a Democrat, please view [[John Kerry (Democrat view)]].
ABORTION
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are religious, please view [[abortion (anti-abortionist)]]. If you are atheist, please view [[abortion (pro-abortionist)]].
ADOLF HITLER
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are a Nazi...
Need I go on? Timwi
Yes, go on to the realization of this project!
All kidding aside, you have the basic gist of this idea.
But instead of "If you are..., click _here_", it would present
_John Kerry_ ( 16 authors, 236 signatures, score of 1027, weighted score of 4,829) John Kerry, decorated Vietnam veteran and US Senator, ran for president...
_John Kerry_ ( 45 authors, 380 signatures, score of 2094, weighted score of 4,928) John Kerry, liberal senator from Massachusetts, made an ill-fated bid for the presidency...
_John Kerry_ (108 authors, 1,388 signatures, score of 10,000, weighted score of 6,093) John Kerry is a United States Senator. He ran for president on the Democratic party ticket in 2004...
And here's the troll pit: _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) George W. Bush stole the election from Kerry through illegal vote manipulation in Ohio... _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry is technically the current U. S. president, succeeding Al Gore as the next president-in-exile...
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:41PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And here's the troll pit: _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) George W. Bush stole the election from Kerry through illegal vote manipulation in Ohio... _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry is technically the current U. S. president, succeeding Al Gore as the next president-in-exile...
Don't forget this one:
_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry attempted to take the White House in the name of Godless sodomites and unpatriotic Atheists...
Heh. This is fun. Maybe we should write more, on both sides.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:41PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
And here's the troll pit: _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) George W. Bush stole the election from Kerry through illegal vote manipulation in Ohio... _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry is technically the current U. S. president, succeeding Al Gore as the next president-in-exile...
Don't forget this one:
_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry attempted to take the White House in the name of Godless sodomites and unpatriotic Atheists...
Heh. This is fun. Maybe we should write more, on both sides.
Oops! I let my bias show. I admit, I am the author of both of the above pro-Kerry trolls. For symmetry's sake, I meant to write an anti-Kerry troll, but somehw I didn't.
_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) - John Kerry is an anti-American flag burner who threw away medals that he was fraudulently awarded...
Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:41PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
Timwi wrote:
And here's the troll pit: _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) George W. Bush stole the election from Kerry through illegal vote manipulation in Ohio... _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry is technically the current U. S. president, succeeding Al Gore as the next president-in-exile...
Don't forget this one:
_John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) John Kerry attempted to take the White House in the name of Godless sodomites and unpatriotic Atheists...
Heh. This is fun. Maybe we should write more, on both sides.
This seems to be developping into the new Multiple Point Of View (MPOV). It will ensure that with enough versions available any reader will be able to find one that tells the true story. :-)
Ec
Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10@osu.edu) [050418 03:35]:
Yes, go on to the realization of this project! All kidding aside, you have the basic gist of this idea. But instead of "If you are..., click _here_", it would present _John Kerry_ ( 16 authors, 236 signatures, score of 1027, weighted score of 4,829) _John Kerry_ ( 45 authors, 380 signatures, score of 2094, weighted score of 4,928) _John Kerry_ (108 authors, 1,388 signatures, score of 10,000, weighted score of 6,093) And here's the troll pit: _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1) _John Kerry_ ( 1 author, 1 signature, score of 1, weighted score of 1)
You know, this looks something like what I imagine the scores might be from [[m:Article validation feature]]. (Though we're talking in the MediaWiki 1.6 timeframe there, which may include doing things with the data.)
- d.
Yes, you do need to go on. Different problems come up and there are alternative solutions.
Fred
From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:10:49 +0100 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: pitching an idea
Steve Lefevre wrote:
I'm pitching an idea for a postmodern wikipedia. What I mean by that is that there are multiple concurrent versions of an article.
Good idea!
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are under 16 years of age, see [[sex (child version)]]. If you are over 16 years of age, see [[sex (adult version)]].
JOHN KERRY
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you live outside the US, please view [[John Kerry (non-US view)]]. If you are a Republican, please view [[John Kerry (Republican view)]]. If you are a Democrat, please view [[John Kerry (Democrat view)]].
ABORTION
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are religious, please view [[abortion (anti-abortionist)]]. If you are atheist, please view [[abortion (pro-abortionist)]].
ADOLF HITLER
from Wikipedia, the free postmodern encyclopedia
If you are a Nazi...
Need I go on? Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi!
Besides all the objections already raised, I also don't see how that would practically work:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:39:26 -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
A PGP sign-off system will keep track of who wrote what, and who agrees with it. Authors who have had a lot of people sign off on their word will get bonus scores on their texts, and articles that well-reputed authors sign off on will get also get bonus scores.
See, if there was a decent article A from say, 1. January which gets lots of votes. Now somebody significantly improves that article on 1. February (A2). Also on 1. February somebody writes another article with a significantly different POV (A3). Lots of people who agree with that POV vote for A3, but on 1. March A2 has not gained many votes, because most people just read the high-rated January article A -- I mean, why read a new one when there is a high-rated only slightly older one.
So what people get, if they go by votes, is a decent article A and one with an entirely different POV, A3. They might consider the latter as the better, since it is at newer, and might never get to see A2.
And if A3 is one of those whose POV is, let's say, very POV (given that I have lots of gay and transgender articles on my watchlist, imagine what I get to see ...) well, we would hardly be able to fulfil our goal of informing people, would we? Because, you know, people are quite often perfectly satisfied if they read what confirms what they already know, and never bother to find out whether there is more, if they have to make an effort to do just that.
In other words, the idea seems to be rather counter-productive to me.
Alex
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org