[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[John Lee]

On 2/28/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Špeople had the common sense to respect each other, to accept different
> > viewpoints, to understand their limitations. That culture is gone.
>
> I believe it has more to do with emotional makeup than common sense. And,
> unfortunately, it appears I have come too late to the Community to have
> experienced the culture you say was.


Indeed - I noticed it was disappearing in 2005, and by 2006 it seemed to
have almost completely vanished. I recognise that part of my feelings about
this are just irrational wishing for the "good old days" (I have noticed
it's always the same with any online community people have been members of
for a long time - we tend to get nostalgic and hype up how good things once
were). But still, there was a culture of mutual respect for each other. Even
if you thought someone was dead wrong, you didn't get into a wheel war or
edit war with them. You just argued a lot and tried to find a solution to
the problem. I notice that the culture is not completely dead - many
relatively (to me) newer admins have the same kind of attitude. But many
more don't, and the same goes for the editorial community at large.

>
> > The reason I mentioned that we may have to resort to a software fix is
> > because I am very skeptical about the possibility of changing our
> culture.
>
> But wouldn¹t that be like replacing the electrical system of a car whose
> engine is shot?


The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm not proposing the software fix as
an ideal solution. I'm proposing it as a stopgap measure to deal with our
corroded culture to buy us time to work on ways to fix the culture - and
also reduce the distractions from the real work that needs to be done.

> It's not possible to do this without alienating a lot of longtime editors.
> > In the end, it's possible that we could massively purge WP of people who
> > don't share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia, but it's
> highly
> > implausible. I believe we can survive without these people, because a
> lot of
> > edits are made by anonymous editors, but we will never drive them off,
> > because it's politically unacceptable to most Wikipedians, even those
> who do
> > share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia.
>
> If the persons (editors) agree to a common purpose and a set of common
> cultural values, what could possibly be their argument to keep anyone who
> doesn¹t?


People have this emotional bond to the idea that it's not fair to kick out
people just over a disagreement on ideals. Furthermore, many of these people
often are committed to writing an encyclopaedia - it's just that they tack
on other peripheral goals to this common purpose. The resulting
disagreements are difficult to solve.

I just think it's impractical to evict these kinds of people, especially
since it runs counter to things like assuming good faith. (Indeed, many of
these people act wholly out of good faith.) We hav to tolerate the big tent
- it's just that we also need to keep reminding people that our common
purpose must and should override whatever peripheral purposes others may
have. I think this is a better solution.

>
> > Therefore, what has to be done is to find ways to limit the damage our
> > corroded culture can do. We've tried the policy route, and it's failed
> > abysmally. It's time to see if article and editor ratings, together with
> a
> > more refined approach to blocking, can ameliorate the problem.
> >
> * John, I¹m afraid it¹s going to take more that mechanical fixes to halt
> the
> corrosion. It is going to take everyone from the top down finally coming
> to
> terms with the fact that there are flesh and blood, emotional, human
> beings
> at the core of this project ­ each bringing their own learning, life
> experiences and day-to-day struggles into the mix. The larger culture we
> come from, and have learned from, doesn¹t handle this emotional aspect of
> the human being very well. But, perhaps, with some work, the Wikipedia
> culture can.


I'm not going to comment on the culture of human society at large, but I
think that you can't change culture overnight, and that changing a culture
is very difficult without mass shedding of blood (in this case, it's a
metaphor). That's why I believe software fixes should be given priority for
the time being. They're just a bandaid, but they will hopefully ameliorate
several problems with our corroded culture until we can find long term
fixes.

Furthermore, some changes such as selective blocking/page protection could
be helpful towards developing a culture of greater respect for others'
viewpoints. If you constantly get blocked from editing a particular article
or joining a particular discussion because you're exhibiting a total lack of
common sense there, disrespecting others and resorting to last resorts like
reverting instead of discussion, at some point you'll either get fed up and
leave the project, or change your ways. (I think in older editors, it will
be the former; in newer editors, the latter.)

Marc Riddell


Johnleemk