[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as a cult

[Todd Allen]

Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 6/24/07 8:54 PM, michael west at michawest at gmail.com wrote:
>
>   
>> To Steve and Gabe the Count reference was unfair as an analogy.
>> Secondly, communism is about discussing policy, but how many lowly editors
>> ever get heard above the BOOMING voices of long established administrators
>> and beuracrats on policy/guidline talk pages, who often snuff out comments
>> with a nonsense or I formulated this ;-)
>>
>> Marc, people do get a lot out of Wikipedia thats why many of us are still
>> contributing. But editing goes far beyond the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
>> It only become the encyclopedia anyone can edit after you have studied
>> policy for 3 years. disgruntled first, second, third time edits will revert
>> to vandalism unless we handle new and experienced editors much better than
>> we do now.
>>
>> Mike33
>>     
>
> Mike, I understand better where you are coming from. The title of this
> thread should have been "WP as a culture" (you left off the last 3 letters
> :-)). And yes, how persons are treated within the WP Community has been a
> topic of discussion for some time now. Perhaps someday that discussion will
> become serious - with some serious, positive results.
>
> Marc
>
>   
>> On 25/06/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On 6/24/07, michael west <michawest at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Other places have drawn analogogies about Wikipedia as being akin to a
>>>> cult.  I think it does have aspects of that. The same has been said
>>>>         
>>> about
>>>       
>>>> Trotskyist groups.  I think that a better analogy would be that
>>>>         
>>> Wikipedia
>>>       
>>>> looks like a Trotskyist group (though obviously not in any political
>>>>         
>>> sense).
>>>       
>>>> - Wikipedians value themselves on the amount  "counts" they are at.
>>>> - Wikipedians spend more time discussing policy than actually writing
>>>> articles.
>>>> - Wikipedians don't respond well to critism from outsiders.
>>>> - Wikipedians have an Uber Mentor (Jimbo Wales).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Trotskyists value themselves on the amounts of "newspapers" they
>>>> have sold.
>>>> - Trotskyists spend more time discussing policy that actually doing
>>>> groundwork.
>>>> - Trotskyists would rather die than have a kind word for somebody who
>>>> has left the movement.
>>>> - Trotskyists have an Uber Mentor (Leon Trotsky, James P. Cannon,
>>>> Gerry Healey, Posada, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant etc. etc).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, many groups could be included not just Trotskyists (I have been
>>>>         
>>> a
>>>       
>>>> Trotskyist for 18 years, and been part of various schisms within even
>>>>         
>>> small
>>>       
>>>> groups), but use it as an example of how ordinary editors do get bogged
>>>>         
>>> down
>>>       
>>>> in changing perception of policy and guidelines, which many, many
>>>>         
>>> editors
>>>       
>>>> only get to hear about when they actually contribute.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a closed Wikipedia is the way forward, we all know that
>>>>         
>>> Wikipedia is
>>>       
>>>> not the encyclopedia everyone can edit.
>>>>
>>>> There was much criticism of Esperanza and it ended up just being a
>>>>         
>>> clubroom
>>>       
>>>> and block vote.  A New Esperanza type project would be helpful (wikilove
>>>>         
>>> is
>>>       
>>>> too crass though) but as a way of helping new editors or editors who
>>>>         
>>> tend to
>>>       
>>>> write new articles not get so fed up with process that they leave.
>>>>
>>>> Would welcome any comments.
>>>>
>>>> Mike33
>>>>         
>>> It's true! Wikipedia *is* communism!
>>>
>>> (I'm thinking we should have a pageg about that. [[WP:COMMUNISM]].)
>>>
>>> Also, someone mentioned editcount. See [[WP:COUNT]]. ~~~~
>>>
>>> --
>>> Absolute Power
>>> C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the
pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't
already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be
summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to
talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members,
being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are
"theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual
does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD
I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another
five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head
in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that
article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the
whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)

This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all
reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it
certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens
all too often.

In another case, where the use of binary vs. decimal prefixes for data
capacities was being debated, it was frequently asserted that
"contributors" to an article should have the final say, "contributor"
defined as someone who's made a substantial number of edits to it. Talk
about having it exactly backward-anyone who makes a good-faith,
non-vandal edit to an article is a contributor to said article. This is
another example of the nasty, pernicious, "my turf" attitude.

There are countless others-the relentless hostility toward those who cut
or delete (does anyone know what "editor" actually means?), reverting
new contributors who make poor but good-faith edits instead of educating
them, and the list goes on and on and on.

I hope we can come up with a solution to this at some point. We're sure
in need of one. Maybe we could start by placing this notice at the -top-
of the edit page, in bold, red, 40-point type:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or
redistributed by others, *do not submit it*."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070624/bf12882d/attachment.pgp