"Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices".
Everyone who is engaged in everyday editing rather than idle discussions may recall plenty of incidents that confirm the validity of this assessment. There is no mechanism capable of stopping a group of people based in the same country and probably keeping in touch outside Wikipedia from pushing certain agenda into our articles. It is useless to argue and mediate because these folks know why they came to Wikipedia at almost the same time and what they want from the project. It is useless to complain, because ten to twenty like-minded one-purpose accounts may bomb any ANI discussion or AfD. You may neutralize a troll or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour.
A fresh example is the activity of Tartu-based accounts on WWII- and Holocaust-related subjects. We are told, to quote one of them, "there were two sides in the war, but it is erroneous to believe that, since SU won, only the Soviet opinion on the war is relevant and the others should just shut up". One or two editors interested in the subject are expected to stand up to a legion of people advocating in concert Neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism bordering on the heroization of Fascism. No, thank you. If the community at large is not willing to tackle certain unsavoury ideologies and such views are allowed to pester mainspace, it brings the entire project into disrepute. I'm not going to waste my day arguing that, in respect to the Holocaust, the Soviet side was right and the Nazi side was wrong.
No amount of "consensus" will change the reality. Wikipedia may either reflect that reality or may not. In order to prevent the process from being gamed by tendentious bigmouths, we need a system of content arbitration on history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc. The existing ArbCom does not arbitrate content. People seek (and invent) behavioural issues in order to get a hearing, hoping that their POV will be sanctioned at last. When they fail in this ambition, they leave the project in frustration, while newly registered accounts continue rehashing unresolved issues for years, ad infinitum. There are some long-standing disputes that just need to be solved once and for all, because the possibility of reaching consensus on them is nil.
--Ghirla
On 8/16/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/artic...
Stable versions would help with answering some of that criticism. Plenty of what he says is fair enough, IMO, particularly the point about the loudest voices winning purely by virtue of obnoxious trolling.
C More schi
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l