On 8/11/06, Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]]) <garzohugo+wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are a few good points in the blog (let's not
call it an essay!).
I particularly like the description of Wikipedia as a 'semi-anarchic
feudal state'. Perhaps we should put that on a banner somewhere — your
fiefdom or mine? The comparison of Wikipedia with Linux distributions
is a bit misplaced. The main objection to this approach is that,
simply put, they are very different beasties. One has to do with facts
and information, the other has to do with software programmes. How
would we modularise the article on [[cactus]]? Extracting anything
more useful from this is dasht difficult.
— Gareth Hughes ([[User:Garzo]])
True, his general idea of Wikipedia as a semi-anarchic feudalism
certainly is one of the better descriptions I've seen, but his whole
article squatters thing is misguided. Yeah, most articles have a
quasi-expert or interested-lay person interested in them who maintains
them - but I strongly dispute the idea that they are as bad as he
thinks they are:
"Article squatters are the feudal lords of Wikipedia and the only way
to displace someone is to spend a great deal of time fighting with
them, possibly escalating through the central authority. No doubt
there exist article squatters who make it there mission to work with
others to improve content but, in my samples, the trend is more
towards censorship."
I mean, he's arguing that we should move closer to open source
practices, and what is an "Article squatter" (note the inaccuracy of
the derogatory term 'squatter') but a really *weak* form of a
program's (or package's) maintainer? Article squatters can't revoke
the edit bit like all program maintainers generally can, for example,
or change a program's license, or the website in general and so on and
so forth.
~maru