Wikipedia (from 142 perspective): Difference between revisions
trying to be more exact, differentiating legitimate from bogus objection
(the word "because" means nothing coming from Wikipedians; Everything said in this article is accurate and verifiable) |
(trying to be more exact, differentiating legitimate from bogus objection) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] "foundation', ''which some claim is a front for James Wales and Bomis Corporation, their partners and friends. Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]].'' | '''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] run by the [[Wikimedia]] "foundation', ''which some claim is a front for James Wales and Bomis Corporation, their partners and friends. Because Wikipedia censors much discussion of its own deficiencies, especially its legally significant ones, this article will focus on these, to balance the view at [[w:Wikipedia]] and [[w:Meta-Wikipedia]], which contains largely a Wikipedia-promoting view.'' | ||
Wikipedia claims to be an [[encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. | Wikipedia claims to be an [[encyclopedia]] based on the [[GFDL text corpus]]. That is, it claims to have the editorial standards of an encyclopedia. It further asserts by claiming it is applying the terms of the GFDL that anything written and released under [[GFDL]], including those directly submitted via [[the Wikipedia user interface]] which is based on [[mediawiki]], can be legally included in the Wikipedia corpus. | ||
http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. | http://wikipedia.org is the largest GFDL access point. As is often pointed out, 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, and strongly favours insiders over outsiders. It is generally run better in the 22 languages other than English, since the guiltiest parties actually can't read those languages. The [[GodKing]], Jim Wales, can't read or write any language other than English. | ||
For instance the [http://fr.wikipedia.org French Wikipedia] is among the best run, although it had teething pains, it attracted competent people who knew to selectively ignore Wales' pronouncements. Probably the worst run today 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 even audiences) it is to serve and what level of English mastery they may have. It has actually discouraged any discussion or policy setting in these regards, the opposite of what a real basis for translation of articles would have done. | |||
Criticisms: | |||
Wikipedia is often used as a [[bad example]] in discussions about the [[wiki way]] - sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Wrong use of it as an example focuses on the fact that it has a specific mission to build some specific content - which in fact almost all wikis do. Wikis are not wholly for the benefit of their authors, but, presumably, create some statement that WE* agree on and can present to others as OUR opinion or best assembly of the facts. The highly confused and ideological [[Meatball Wiki]] has a page[http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiPediaIsNotTypical "Wikipedia is not typical"] which focuses on this, as if somehow wikis in general existed solely to facilitate text interchange among their users. Which might be true if wikis were all dating services, or intended to serve purposes like those of [[NetNews]]. However, this is to miss the whole point of [[collaborative editing technology]], which is to produce some output that represents something that is "more true than not". In real wikis, goodwill among contributors is a side effect of dedication to a common goal. In bad ones, it is required even under extreme circumstances of unethical behaviour, e.g. [[echo chamber]]s. | |||
Correctly citing Wikipedia as a bad example, many insiders are decrying its uniquely destructive and abusive culture. The Cunctator refers to its "vile mailing list", Robert Kaiser called it the "Nazipedia" (though he continues to contribute), and there are many debates about [[outing]] that seem to focus on whether a [[GodKing]] or [[sysop power structure]] pronouncement regarding the truth can or must be accepted as truth within the [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]]. | |||
Use of the inadequate [[mediawiki]] software opens up other lines of criticism; 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.. | ||
Other failings: Wikipedia has no full text search facility, and no capacity to review or work with large dumps of the [[GFDL text corpus]] it maintains without separate software that must be able to accept large MySQL dumps. It often goes down, and its hardware does not seem to be able to keep up with the heavy loads. These seem to be [[mediawiki]] deficiencies specifically. | Other failings: Wikipedia has no full text search facility, and no capacity to review or work with large dumps of the [[GFDL text corpus]] it maintains without separate software that must be able to accept large MySQL dumps. It often goes down, and its hardware does not seem to be able to keep up with the heavy loads. These seem to be [[mediawiki]] deficiencies specifically. | ||
Usefulness: | |||
Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops. | Wikipedia articles, flawed as they are, can often be a good first reference for someone with no knowledge at all of a topic, especially if they have good references. After reading a Wikipedia article, it is usually possible to enter a few search terms in google or another search engine and find more credible material on the same subject, confident that you are using the terms that are recognized there. Indeed, it is the ability to find several dozen to a hundred or so hits on google that is often used as a criteria for an acceptable title of an article. This one good feature is abused by applying it to subtitles, however, and generally by applying it only to subjects politically disliked by the sysops. | ||
Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing. | Wikipedia's article on itself [[w:Wikipedia]] makes various claims about its origins which are generally credible, but doesn't say enough about its many problems. There is an entire separate site devoted to that, the "meta" (see [[m:]]), and this debates issues of [[m:governance]], but the difference between such proposals and real [[m:Wikipedia Governance]] are great indeed. | ||
It seems Wikipedia has gone at least two years without seriously considering its governance structure, and that [[Wikimedia]] is simply a front organization for the same [[power structure]] that was described in early 2002 by Wales - a simple hierarchy with himself in charge, no accountability to anyone, not even donors who believe they are supporting a GFDL encyclopedia with "open" editing. | |||
There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself. | There has been some examination of the project's role and the way it portrays itself, see [[w:Wikipedia:Itself]] for a list of contributions relevant to the form of Wikipedia, itself. | ||
In general, Wikipedia has a dishonest view of itself, and presents itself very dishonestly as an attempt to build an encyclopedia, when in fact it appears to do little or nothing to meet the editorial standards of a serious encyclopedia, and forces people of strong qualifications to answer to petty abuse from various parties of no particular qualifications at all. It should be seen as a project that helped build the [[GFDL text corpus]] in many languages, but is now in decline. Much as the attempt to build a "GNU Unix" built the body of [[GPL]] code. | |||
Relation to Consumerium | |||
The default position should be that Wikipedia's serious governance problems are so dangerous to Consumerium that they can't be repeated here. 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 governance decision that "X isn't what WE* do on Wikipedia" should be told "right, go away, we're doing it anyway". Or more neutrally, "that's evidence that X is the right thing to do". On [[governance]] specifically. | |||
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]] | |||
---- | ---- | ||