[WikiEN-l] What are we?

[steven l. rubenstein]

Anthony DiPierro writes

>I'd say Wikipedia falls short when compared to any encyclopedia that 
>actually has a publisher.

I agree with you that Wikipedia falls far short of many encyclopedias, 
especially Encyclopedia Britannica.  But there really are many crappy 
encyclopedias out there.  And when Wikipedia works, it works extremely well 
-- I think we have a number of superb articles.  If you and I differ, it is 
largely semantic.  Wikipedia's weakness, just as a product, is that it is 
very uneven.

I fear that participants in the list-serve will either drop this topic 
entirely, or will argue over how good Wikipedia really is (or isn't) for days.

I would rather use Anthony's comment as an opportunity to have a serious 
discussion about why Wikipedia has more mediocre or poor articles than 
great ones, and how we can improve it.

Some time ago a few people - I was one, but I think Mav may have originated 
the idea - suggested a review board to arbitrate conflicts over content, 
which the ArbCom does not do.  I still think this is a good idea and I 
think it is about time we begin a concrete discussion about what such a 
committee would look like, and what it's procedures would be.  For starts, 
I would say that it could simply arbitrate content disputes by assessing 
the degree to which a contributor is complying with our Verifiability and 
No original research policies.  This would be a well-defined and narrow 
mandate which should limit abuses.  We should also discuss whether the 
current ArbCom or the one I am proposing should also arbitrate conflicts 
over NPOV.

I do not think this is an ultimate solution or a perfect idea.  But I 
believe that no proposal will be perfect.  The question is not whether this 
is an imperfect idea that some users can manipulate.  The question is, 
would this help improve the quality of articles.  I think it would.  To 
those of you who think the weaknesses of this proposal outweigh its 
strengths, I only ask you this: please suggest something better.

And we all know that personal attacks and trolling both drain the energy of 
dedicated editors, undermine the quality of articles, driving away 
knowledgeable potential editors, and harming our general reputation.  Now, 
I am in no position to throw stones.  I have made personal attacks, and 
have violated the three-revert rule a few times.  I'd like to think that in 
my case the current system worked -- other users chastised me, and I have 
been blocked temporarily.  It cases it helped me cool down, and in most 
cases I apologized.  I certainly think that the system works for the vast 
majority of contributors.  It's understandable that editors who are most 
knowledgeable about a topic and passionate about the project, and thus 
emotionally invested in their contributions, may be quick to anger.  But I 
really do believe that in the vast majority of cases, our system works.

But there are some cases where it really doesn't work.  A troll can wreck 
havoc at Wikipedia over a long period of time, and as I said a couple of 
weeks ago, the larger Wikipedia gets the more territory a troll can roam 
over -- and the harder (certainly more time consuming) it gets to track 
down a troll's damage.  I think that a committee to arbitrate content 
disputes will help; it will take some pressure off of the ArbCom, for one 
thing.  But I don't think such a committee will be enough to deal with 
serious trolls.  We need a more efficient system for banning trolls.

I bet many of you are thinking, Steve's definition of a troll is simply 
going to reflect his own bias or agenda.  Who is to define what a "troll" 
is (in other words, who is going to enumerate the kinds of, or measure the 
amount of, personal attacks that distinguishes a troll form the many 
well-intentioned users who just lose their temper some time?  Obviously the 
answer is, "not I."  No one person can do this.  But enough of us have had 
enough experience that I am sure if we put our heads together and worked at 
it, we can come up with something appropriate and effective.  I think if we 
revisit our No personal attacks policy, we can draw on a lot of experience 
to improve it - to make it systematic and specific enough that there will 
be little argument over what problems ought to go to the ArbCom and what 
cases can be handled by admins.  This means giving admins clearer 
guidelines as to what kinds of personal attacks (or frequency?) are grounds 
for a short term block, a medium term block, or banning.

I have forwarded a few concrete proposals.  None are perfect, all are 
undeveloped.  My hope is that they provide a basis for a constructive and 
practical discussion that will lead to better and more fully developed 
proposals.

I've expressed many times how much I value the anarchic elements of 
Wikipedia, that it is an open community and relatively transparent.  But as 
several people have occasionally had to point out, this process is the 
means to an end: a high-quality encyclopedia.  Anthony is right that we 
fall short.  We need some more structure, or new processes, that will 
address our weaknesses.  I am certain that we can do this in a way that 
does not undermine our principal strength -- the openness of our community 
-- but rather in a way that supports this open community by providing more 
effective processes for constructive collaboration and productive debate 
that is as respectful as it is impassioned.

The question: where do we go from here?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701