[WikiEN-l] Trust vs. Credentials (was Re: Accountability:

[Bartning at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/11/2007 8:51:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
gwern0 at gmail.com writes:

No.  USENET was/is a lot worse. Spam is permanently a fact of life 
there  (wasn't the first ever piece of spam a Usenet message?), 
they invented the  trolls and are trolled by Scientology to a more 
significant degree than  Wikipedia (when was the lest time you 
heard of User:Anon.penet.fi being  sued by the Church of 
Scientology on the wiki?) And they have real cabals  on Usenet, not 
to mention the whole idea of canceling posts,  cross-threading, 
etc. Say what you will about Wikipedia, but it's a much  more 
pleasant, less volatile and less transient place to work. The two  
are different fundamentally, anyway.



I disagree.  First, the USENET doesn't masquerade as authority.   Second, 
there's a poor setup with admins taking sides and mechanisms not  functioning 
properly on Wikipedia.  Third, anonymity gets more credibility  than using your 
real user name, at least in a case I have.
 
As to the first complaint, Wikipedia gets high rankings on search engines,  
which I think inappropriate.  Also, they even have articles trying to  convince 
Wikipedia's authority.
 
I'm a bit distressed and haven't had a chance to read topics other than  
those I responded since at least the 11th, but I'll leave it at that for  now.
 
As for the second complaint, admins, in my opinion, use policies on terms  
that in ordinary circles would be neologisms and don't make sense.   Policies 
also get contradictions such as "interest in article" should lead to  work 
rather than "interest in the outcome" on one hand, but on the other it's  
considered COI to have an interest in the article.  Furthermore, "have  good faith," 
but "meat puppets" count as "sock puppets," though they're viewed  as other 
rather than the same user.
 
Admins also use personal power for attack.  I was attacked by someone  who 
claimed to be a senior in high school, English a second language, couldn't  even 
follow Wikipedia policy and spell the reason for blocking me  correctly.
 
Third, I don't see what I want about users displaying their real names  
versus keeping completely anonymous.  I display my real name and use my  
grandfather's name but state my real name on my user page whereas those who are  
anonymous seem to have better credibility because I got blocked whereas another,  
anonymous user who used ad hominems did not, and I was a long-time editor who  
didn't even violate the 3RR, certainly not on purpose, and I got no warning  
besides.  Moreover, mechanisms I used did nothing, and complaints I filed  got 
rejected, even during an "election."
 
To conclude, I'm a bit distressed, as I said, and I'm writing this more off  
the cuff to share ideas, so that makes me defensive about my position.  I  
hope to manage it well.
 
Thanks!
 
Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.