Wikipedia (from 142 perspective): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. Although, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run. Probably the worst run is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes or audiences it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have - and has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in that regard. | http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. Although, it is in technical violation of several points of the GFDL due to a combination of software deficiencies, mismatches of the software with the terms of the GFDL, and a developer and [[sysop power structure]] that is the opposite of democratic. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run. Probably the worst run is the [http://simple.wikipedia.org Simple English Wikipedia] - which seems to have no framework even for deciding what "Simple" is to mean... what purposes or audiences it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have - and has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in that regard. | ||
The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important decision that "X isn't what we do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, thanks, go sod off" since that's the clearest possible evidence that X is the right thing to do. Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - [[Meatball Wiki]] even has a page called "Wikipedia is not typical" decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. | The English Wikipedias and Mediawiki are [[enemy projects]] in that their goals and values differ so radically from those of [[Consumerium]] that any confusion of one set of policies or concept of responsibility on those projects with the policies or responsibilities of Consumerium is a net negative - that is, anyone who says regarding an important decision that "X isn't what we do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, thanks, go sod off" since that's the clearest possible evidence that X is the right thing to do. Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - [[Meatball Wiki]] even has a page called "Wikipedia is not typical" decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. '''[As an example for the truthfulness of this rant, read the [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical actual page] at MeatballWiki]]''' Its custom software lacks basic capabilities like an [[XML dump]] - this is considered [[software imperialism]] by some and a [[bad copy problem]] by others, and a [[self-interested fork problem]] by still others. This is perhaps not surprising, as, it will be those who are attracted to the idea of forking freely that will be attracted to both wikis and the GFDL... | ||
Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc.. | Wikipedia also has serious failings as an encyclopedia. There is no special process or mechanism to deal with a [[political dispute]], with [[faction]]s that can't or won't reconcile their terms to each other, and it explicitly has refused to work out any separate policy for [[terminology dispute]] or for an [[identity dispute]], despite these being quite clearly all different things with different paths to resolution - or not. There are no designated editors to make final decisions, in any language, instead this is a power struggle of sorts, with a [[GodKing]] who speaks only English and can't possibly read all the disputed articles or judge their content. He works on "reputation" alone ultimately, which means the [[power structure]] is strictly hierarchical etc.. | ||