Wikipedia (Reds): Difference between revisions
fixing cut off intro, adding introduction from Reds perspective
(moved) |
(fixing cut off intro, adding introduction from Reds perspective) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''This version is from the perspective of the [[Consumerium:Reds]] [[faction]]. | |||
See also [[Wikipedia (neutral)]] for a [[neutral point of view]] version.'' | |||
==Wikimedia == | |||
[[Wikimedia]] is not the lawful nor responsible [[steward]] of the [[GFDL corpus]] but a gang of [[usurper]]s who seek to prevent other [[GFDL corpus access provider]]s from placing themselves in a central position to distribute upgrades to that corpus. It is sometimes accused of collaborating with [[Bomis]]'s commercial interests and even more of [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]]. It is very likely to be the targets of complaints and lawsuits especially from the [[Wikipedia Red Faction]] that it has recently censored. | |||
==Wikipedia Itself== | |||
'''Wikipedia''' is a [[large public wiki]] controlled by the [[Wikimedia]] foundation, It also receives support from Bomis Inc. in the form of free [[w:bandwidth|bandwidth]] and this connection with a [[for-profit]] [[corporation]] is seen as a burden affecting the functioning of [[Wikipedia]] as ''' a free encyclopedia''' as it claims to be. | |||
''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 [[w:encyclopedia|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. 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. This is probably good: | |||
Wikipedias' struggle to resolves their internal contradictions (multi-language project run by a [[GodKing]] who speaks and reads only English, claims of neutrality with no outreach or mediation mechanism other than a technology that itself puts a [[sysop power structure]] of mostly developed-world people in charge of content, inability to examine its own [[community point of view]]) will provide both good and bad examples for the [[Consumerium Governance Organization]], which would do well to avoid all the pitfalls it is falling into. ''See [[142.X.X.X/Tim_Starling]] for a starting list of these, and references to longstanding issues and potential solutions that 'Wikipedians' ignore and censor, mostly at [[Meta-Wikipedia]], e.g. [[m:regime change]].'' | |||
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", R. K. called it the "Nazipedia" because he believes there is viciously anti-semitic bias (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]]. | |||
As a concrete example of the tyranny which exists at the Wikipedia; note that there are no rules requiring "proof" (of any sort) before a user is banned -- there are only guidelines and such, but not actual rules. The result is that it is the responsiblity of a banned user to prove their innocence; and somehow defend themselves against the cabal. | |||
In discussions of both policy and content, the loudest voices who attract the most supporters during the pendency of a discussion often dominate direction. Users critical of the project are sometimes blocked from discussions. A review of user-histories at Wikipedia suggests that power users who spend several hours a day making small edits to numerous pages often dominate discussions, and comprise the most active elements of the administrative ranks. and that people who are qualified or interested in administrative functions may hold different interests from the people who are the best contributors (see ''[[community point of view]]'' and ''[[systemic bias]]''). | |||
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.. | |||
Finally, Wikipedia has no full text search facility, due to deficiencies of the [[mediawiki]] software. | |||
:You can do full text searches using '''Google''' or '''Yahoo'''. Full text searching from the [[MySQL]] database became possible starting from version 4.0, which is now in use at [[Wikipedia]], but the lack of this feature is surely related to the heavy load on the servers - the [[Wikimedia]] foundation not having sufficient trust or resources to actually buy sufficient hardware. | |||
===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'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. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 54: | ||
*"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]] | *"[[who's we]]" on Wikipedia? See [[community point of view]] | ||
---- | ---- | ||