The below are separate random bits of data which I may develop into articles at some point. They are not related to each other. You may comment on this article in three ways:
[Edit]
Something that recently occurred at another website, brought to my mind, that Open Governance models of the internet abhor the two-class society. What does that mean exactly? The internet two-class society is where a website has two-classes: the privileged and the rest of us. The privileged have extra powers on the site: they can block users, delete messages, and so on. Sometimes called admins or sysops. The ultimate aim of the Open Governance model however, in my opinion, is to create a classless social site. The site is entirely maintained by the users of the site, who all have equal powers. Is that possible? And if so, how? I've jotted down a few notes at Conflict Resolution in a Society which lacks Compulsion
[Edit]
What happened to www.WikBack.com? At one time it was a discussion forum. I do remember contributing to the WikBack a few times and it was supposed to be the alternative "review" site when Wikipedia Review was labeled by some Wikipedians as a "Bad Site" and consequently blocked from being linked to the project. It's possible that this blocking of WR is what started the whole "Bad Sites War" which I believe led to an ArbCom decision. I also recently saw a remark that WikBack had been started by an ArbCom or former ArbCom member. See this Google search. Danny Wool commented on how much he "liked" Wikback at this link dated Feb 2008. : "It's a great place for people to vent about Wikipedia, and it avoids the repetitious and ill-organized fiasco that the mailing lists have become. Furthermore, the fact that it has no official standing makes it a great place to get all sorts of people—banned and unbanned—to discuss the jerk du jour, scandal de la semaine, and masturbatory monologue of the month. And they can do it without fear of repercussion." It appears to have been created Dec 2007 or Jan 2008 and rather quickly vanished. At least by say June of that year. The last obvious post discussing it, is from Feb 2008. Personally I prefer the rough-and-tumble of Wikipedia Review where you can actually say what you think without fear of being blocked because you're... "angry".
[Edit]
Assignment 1: Compare Wikipedia to a Police State. In what ways are they the same? In what ways are they different? Feel free to cite and paraphrase George Orwell's "Animal Farm". I just noticed an interesting post over at WikipediaReview by "Joe" victim of censorship which addresses this topic in a different way, by comparing Wikipedia to a collection of variously-sized street gangs for whom "Might makes Right". The use and abuse of power is a very important component to understanding how the governance model of Wikipedia makes it a Police State. There are no low-level checks and balances to thwart the abusive use of power. There are high-level checks, but by the time any incident reaches that pitch, dozens of editors, in some cases, have left the project never to return. I've recently written an opinion article Wikipedia as a Police State, which goes into the situation in more depth, feel free to read it and leave a comment there, or you can email me at wjhonson@aol.com. What Wikipedia needs, are low-level tripartite functionaries, who are balanced i.e. antagonistic, to each other. Not in sympathy with each other. The term "tripartite" refers to the governance model of the United States which has the executive function, the judicial function and the legislative function all operating from the ground up. Wikipedia has nothing like this as of yet anyway.
[Edit]
Assignment 2: Compare Wikipedia to a Bureaucracy, a series of petty chiefdoms presided over by petty chiefs all vying for power, while awaiting their turn to pillage and/or poison their neighbor in order to advance in the system. Is Wikipedia ordered or chaotic ? Is it random? Are the results emergent or planned?
[Edit]
Assignment 3: Compare Wikipedia to a series of villages, where roving inter-village gangs sometimes show up to beat up a few random villagers, and once in a lifetime circuit judges show up to execute one gang member (while ignoring the rest, esp. if they have "friends" in power), and also take out a few villagers in the bargain.
[Edit]
Query: Could Wikipedia have been Jimmy Wales ultimate experiment/joke to see if a pure anti-Randian society would work? That is, a society which is exactly the worst that Ayn Rand saw in society: Adherence to the consensus of the mob. Was this an intentional property or an emergent one? (An emergent property is one which emerges from a set of rules, but was neither planned nor foreseen.) It's a bit surprising seeing how Jimmy calls himself a Randian, and yet has created a system that is the antithesis of everything for which she stood. I've written this up as a separate article "Why Ayn Rand would decry Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia"
[Edit]
After seeing the name pop up here and there in interesting contexts, I was curious about who Daniel Brandt was exactly. Here is a Google search. Daniel is evidently both a vocal critic of Wikipedia and had, at one time, a biography on Wikipedia (not written by him). He also, probably during the time he was fighting to try to get his biography deleted off Wikipedia, created the site called http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ There are a few interesting articles there, I liked the one on Plagiarism on Wikipedia. I think he jumps the shark a bit on his page Hive Mind Administrators. On that page, he adds a bit more detail to some of whom he considers the more notorious Wikipedians, but he unaccountably ignores many others who are even more notorious. Possibly his page there is dated.
[Edit]
A better discussion on the most notorious administrators is maintained by the Wikipedia Review at this link "Notable Editors". Also Encyclopedia Dramatica does an excellent job at lampooning and abusing obnoxious Wikipedians through their Wikipedia Portal at this link. If you can stand the constant side-banners for hard and soft porn and stuff. Oh and make sure your pop-up filter is on. And there are some good articles on http://www.wikitruth.info a site now closed and dead, but which is worth looking at. It's been called a hoax site, you decide. The last modification, the goodbye page was evidently last edited in Feb 2009.
[Edit]
On Thanksgiving day (26 Nov 2009), I found a site called www.Wikisynergy.com. I'd never heard of it before, but they as well have a few articles on Wikipedians at this link. The site was apparently put up by one or more people who believe in homeopathy or some similar health beliefs, who were actively opposed by a group of hyper-critical types on Wikipedia. This all resulted in at least one ArbCom (maybe more) and I suppose that's why this new site was created.
[Edit]
Once I encountered some kind of odd page that was apparently an Advisory Council suggested by Jimbo and the board or ArbCom or something that ran for a few months in 2009 or perhaps early 2010, and then died. That's about all I know, but I found it interesting. I also found it interesting that the membership was appointed, not elected. Perhaps that's why it died, community resistance to that sort of high-handed move.
On another note there is a Strategy Wiki at this link, which is apparently supported, in principle by the Wikimedia Foundation since it is, in fact, a subdomain. I've contributed a bit to it, we'll see where it goes.
- Email me at wjhonson@aol.com
- Login and edit this article, and make your changes or additions
- Leave a comment, far below, in the comments section for public view.
[Edit]
Something that recently occurred at another website, brought to my mind, that Open Governance models of the internet abhor the two-class society. What does that mean exactly? The internet two-class society is where a website has two-classes: the privileged and the rest of us. The privileged have extra powers on the site: they can block users, delete messages, and so on. Sometimes called admins or sysops. The ultimate aim of the Open Governance model however, in my opinion, is to create a classless social site. The site is entirely maintained by the users of the site, who all have equal powers. Is that possible? And if so, how? I've jotted down a few notes at Conflict Resolution in a Society which lacks Compulsion
[Edit]
What happened to www.WikBack.com? At one time it was a discussion forum. I do remember contributing to the WikBack a few times and it was supposed to be the alternative "review" site when Wikipedia Review was labeled by some Wikipedians as a "Bad Site" and consequently blocked from being linked to the project. It's possible that this blocking of WR is what started the whole "Bad Sites War" which I believe led to an ArbCom decision. I also recently saw a remark that WikBack had been started by an ArbCom or former ArbCom member. See this Google search. Danny Wool commented on how much he "liked" Wikback at this link dated Feb 2008. : "It's a great place for people to vent about Wikipedia, and it avoids the repetitious and ill-organized fiasco that the mailing lists have become. Furthermore, the fact that it has no official standing makes it a great place to get all sorts of people—banned and unbanned—to discuss the jerk du jour, scandal de la semaine, and masturbatory monologue of the month. And they can do it without fear of repercussion." It appears to have been created Dec 2007 or Jan 2008 and rather quickly vanished. At least by say June of that year. The last obvious post discussing it, is from Feb 2008. Personally I prefer the rough-and-tumble of Wikipedia Review where you can actually say what you think without fear of being blocked because you're... "angry".
[Edit]
Assignment 1: Compare Wikipedia to a Police State. In what ways are they the same? In what ways are they different? Feel free to cite and paraphrase George Orwell's "Animal Farm". I just noticed an interesting post over at WikipediaReview by "Joe" victim of censorship which addresses this topic in a different way, by comparing Wikipedia to a collection of variously-sized street gangs for whom "Might makes Right". The use and abuse of power is a very important component to understanding how the governance model of Wikipedia makes it a Police State. There are no low-level checks and balances to thwart the abusive use of power. There are high-level checks, but by the time any incident reaches that pitch, dozens of editors, in some cases, have left the project never to return. I've recently written an opinion article Wikipedia as a Police State, which goes into the situation in more depth, feel free to read it and leave a comment there, or you can email me at wjhonson@aol.com. What Wikipedia needs, are low-level tripartite functionaries, who are balanced i.e. antagonistic, to each other. Not in sympathy with each other. The term "tripartite" refers to the governance model of the United States which has the executive function, the judicial function and the legislative function all operating from the ground up. Wikipedia has nothing like this as of yet anyway.
[Edit]
Assignment 2: Compare Wikipedia to a Bureaucracy, a series of petty chiefdoms presided over by petty chiefs all vying for power, while awaiting their turn to pillage and/or poison their neighbor in order to advance in the system. Is Wikipedia ordered or chaotic ? Is it random? Are the results emergent or planned?
[Edit]
Assignment 3: Compare Wikipedia to a series of villages, where roving inter-village gangs sometimes show up to beat up a few random villagers, and once in a lifetime circuit judges show up to execute one gang member (while ignoring the rest, esp. if they have "friends" in power), and also take out a few villagers in the bargain.
[Edit]
Query: Could Wikipedia have been Jimmy Wales ultimate experiment/joke to see if a pure anti-Randian society would work? That is, a society which is exactly the worst that Ayn Rand saw in society: Adherence to the consensus of the mob. Was this an intentional property or an emergent one? (An emergent property is one which emerges from a set of rules, but was neither planned nor foreseen.) It's a bit surprising seeing how Jimmy calls himself a Randian, and yet has created a system that is the antithesis of everything for which she stood. I've written this up as a separate article "Why Ayn Rand would decry Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia"
[Edit]
After seeing the name pop up here and there in interesting contexts, I was curious about who Daniel Brandt was exactly. Here is a Google search. Daniel is evidently both a vocal critic of Wikipedia and had, at one time, a biography on Wikipedia (not written by him). He also, probably during the time he was fighting to try to get his biography deleted off Wikipedia, created the site called http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ There are a few interesting articles there, I liked the one on Plagiarism on Wikipedia. I think he jumps the shark a bit on his page Hive Mind Administrators. On that page, he adds a bit more detail to some of whom he considers the more notorious Wikipedians, but he unaccountably ignores many others who are even more notorious. Possibly his page there is dated.
[Edit]
A better discussion on the most notorious administrators is maintained by the Wikipedia Review at this link "Notable Editors". Also Encyclopedia Dramatica does an excellent job at lampooning and abusing obnoxious Wikipedians through their Wikipedia Portal at this link. If you can stand the constant side-banners for hard and soft porn and stuff. Oh and make sure your pop-up filter is on. And there are some good articles on http://www.wikitruth.info a site now closed and dead, but which is worth looking at. It's been called a hoax site, you decide. The last modification, the goodbye page was evidently last edited in Feb 2009.
[Edit]
On Thanksgiving day (26 Nov 2009), I found a site called www.Wikisynergy.com. I'd never heard of it before, but they as well have a few articles on Wikipedians at this link. The site was apparently put up by one or more people who believe in homeopathy or some similar health beliefs, who were actively opposed by a group of hyper-critical types on Wikipedia. This all resulted in at least one ArbCom (maybe more) and I suppose that's why this new site was created.
[Edit]
Once I encountered some kind of odd page that was apparently an Advisory Council suggested by Jimbo and the board or ArbCom or something that ran for a few months in 2009 or perhaps early 2010, and then died. That's about all I know, but I found it interesting. I also found it interesting that the membership was appointed, not elected. Perhaps that's why it died, community resistance to that sort of high-handed move.
On another note there is a Strategy Wiki at this link, which is apparently supported, in principle by the Wikimedia Foundation since it is, in fact, a subdomain. I've contributed a bit to it, we'll see where it goes.