Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software, Part 2

32 Comments to Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software, Part 2

It’s awesome that you’re optimistic about the potential to change Wikipedia’s heading; I’m not. This bureaucracy is deeply embedded in Wikipedia’s culture and encouraged by its official policies. These factors reinforce each other, as the power-users will resist change to policy.

The best path forward is to fork Wikipedia. Take the massive amount of content and re-host it, as allowed for by the GNU FDL. Then write new policies that encourage constructive editing, possibly by reducing formal restrictions (as on Everything2 or Ward’s Wiki) or increasing them (as on Citizendium). Perhaps it could even provide a way to diff and sync content with Wikipedia, so improvements from Wikipedia’s massive user base and the fork’s editing culture can flow both ways.

Mark Taylor on 20 March 2010

that had to be said. thanks.

an ex-wikipedian on 20 March 2010

Every user who edited an article should be notified by email when their work is up for deletion, it is only fair that they should be able to defend their work.

bitplane on 20 March 2010

Frankly I gave up on wikipedia a long time ago. It just proves that a large enough group of people will always contain a few who can’t help de-railing the process…

RobM on 20 March 2010

As one member of the admin corps on Wikipedia, I can only sigh and agree with the sentiment of this article. Wikipedia has grown far too bureaucratic, far too rule-bound, far too un-fun. Our block appeal process is byzantine, and any frustration expressed is taken as cause to not lift the ban. I’ve been on Wikipedia a long time, and I’m frequently frustrated by it.

But that is also the worst of that Wikipedia is. There are many, many good sides to the project as well. The quiet satisfaction of writing something that will be used by hundreds of millions of people. Seeing the article you wrote on the front page and getting a hundred thousand views in a day.

I’d like to extend an open invitation to help out. I think getting more involved, not less, is a great idea and the right way to fix things. If you run into problems or find something confusing – contact me, and we’ll work it out.

Henrik on 20 March 2010

“I propose a campaign of logic and reason….To be very clear, constructive debate is what’s warranted here”

I appreciate your thoughts and agree with the huge problem on Wikipedia that you’ve raised, but I don’t think that solution will change anything. We’re talking about anonymous people here. Wikipedia admins are anonymous and have virtually no accountability for their actions.

So, unless some change in policy is made from “higher up” (I guess whoever is on the foundation board), it’s not going to change, and it’s not worth it trying to “play their game.”

Jason Scott has already talked about this, how it’s not worth playing their game. Take it outside, publicize the problem (like you are doing), and play by your own rules, not theirs:
http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia

I just post stuff to a blog or more specialized wiki instead (the former of which Google puts right up there with wikipedia posts), or to Citizendium and so forth. I don’t even bother trying to make edits on Wikipedia. I’ve already uncovered biased editing in my area (education), and it’s no use trying to get into an edit war with some anonymous internet fracktard
http://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/an-argument-for-knols-over-wikipedia-and-citizendium/

Doug Holton on 20 March 2010

I think the root of Wikipedia’s problems is the basic idea of an encyclopedia: that it should be one single “source” for general information about all topics. That may have made sense in the era of print media, but on the Internet it’s just silly. Rather than try to fix Wikipedia as a source for information about open source software, for example, why not just point people to better sources for that topic?

Peter Donis on 20 March 2010

I have been writing for Wikipedia for 6 years, I know just about all of the policies and procedures, and I agree with everything you said. I do not give up on Wikipedia, but it is getting harder and harder. There are so many people there who do not understand the power of an open encyclopedia, and they are relentlessly trying to lock down, delete, add rules, stop new users and articles.

Leif on 20 March 2010

I’ve started a discussion on the Notability talk page at wikipedia about moving from a deletion to a merging policy. Instead of focusing on simply removing an article, more effort should be put into merging that information into larger articles and preserving that information. By creating a new class of articles that will soon no longer exist we might mitigate the damage done by those who seek to outright remove information they see as impure.

Zod on 20 March 2010

Someone could start a Complementary Wikipedia. It has everything that Wikipedia doesn’t have.

Ryan Dickherber on 20 March 2010

I’ve already given up on Wikipedia. I make the occasional update to a couple of subjects I’m passionate about for the benefit of anyone who finds the page, but that’s it. Too many valuable pages have been lost already

John on 20 March 2010

Our website was also deleted from wikipedia. Reasons? Not a notable website compared to Hattrick. because they said we only have about 13000 active users and not a million like Hattrick. Then they go about “The number of active users, the quality of the game, and what languages it is available in are irrelevant to this discussion. If no reliable publications have ever printed any information about GPRO, then there is nothing about this game that can be included in this encyclopedia”.

This is ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grand_Prix_Racing_Online

I’m pretty sad but I see no way to revert this. I have lost fate in Wikipedia along with many users of our website.

gpro on 21 March 2010

It sucks for admins, too. Good admins. The process most at fault here is probably Articles for Deletion. When that vocal minority patrols all the articles up for deletion (AfD), it’s very hard for an admin close one of the nominations as a KEEP (keep the article) even if there are 2 good arguments for keeping among 5 bad arguments for deleting. Writing a closing argument that sides with the keepers can be difficult, even if they have all the good arguments. If anyone disagrees with your decision, they can take it to another process called Deletion Review (DRV) where the reasons for voting are basically restated. And an admin who closes an AfD can’t close a DRV.

I’ve used 2 acronyms already for our deletion process. There’s also CSD (Criteria for Speedy Deletion); CfD, IfD, TfD, MfD (Categories, Images, Templates, Miscellany for Deletion); PROD (Proposed Deletion)… you can catch some early articles if you’re doing NPP (New Page Patrol). If all else fails you can take your problems to AN or AN/I (Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incidents). Sometimes the suggestion will be to go through DR (dispute resolution), which can include 3O (third opinion), RfC (Request for Comment), MedCab (Mediation Cabal), RfM (Request for Mediation via Mediation Committee), and if it gets real bad, there’s RfAR (Request for Arbitration). If the problem is with a user, you can set up an RfC/U (Request for Comment/Users). Of course, sometimes you’ll get poor admins passing through RfA (Request for Adminship), making the whole thing an exercise in luck.

And if you’re a mediator, you’ll get stuck with arguments concerning V (verifiability), RS (reliable sources (a part of V)), NPOV (neutral point of view), OR (original research), whether something is UNDUE (as in undue weight, a part of NPOV). Of course, it’s hard to mediate if people aren’t following CIVIL or NPA (no personal attacks)… and especially insidious if people aren’t AGFing (Assuming Good Faith).

But sometimes it works out, and you can put an article up at GAN (good article nominees), and even FAR (featured article review).

Admins know all these acronyms by heart, but it’s a difficult learning curve. And after a while people use them as arguments like lawyers (wikilawyering) despite the one rule you only need to know: IAR (Ignore All Rules), which is literally the first rule. But you can’t get by if everyone is throwing around all the other arguments.

Even starting out is hard, because if you begin an article that’s short on sources, and you intend to expand it later, then the chances are someone from NPP (new page patrol) or RC (recent changes) will find it and tag it for speedy deletion. Then an admin will delete it without looking at the article’s history (which would say that the article was literally created 5 minutes ago… this /has/ happened to me and many others).

Even if WP:NOT (Wikipedia is Not…) says we’re not a bureaucracy, well… we are an institution. And we act like one. I agree that arguments need to come from the outside, because WP is pretty immobile. There’s ways to mitigate it from the inside, but that’s about it.

Don’t even get me started with the blocking/banning discussion.

Ugh. Just need to vent.

Xav on 21 March 2010

One needs only to look at Microsoft’s DWM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Window_Manager
To see there exists a bias here. That article is 100% self-sourced (by MSDN) simply BECAUSE they are the only source qualified to write on the matter (I don’t have access to the code to write my own article detailing its workings)
Yet it, and several other similar components of windows are allowed to continue existence only because of their inclusion in a major commercial product.

six on 21 March 2010

You seem to have missed a few more who were blocked because of their terrible act of trying to create discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mclaudt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:0xd34df00d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Necrosporus

Every one because their participation in the initial dwm discussion.

Anonymous on 21 March 2010

As my colleague above points out, there really is a bewildering array of terminology and acronyms that have evolved at Wikipedia.

But let’s look at Grand Prix Racing Online, why was it deleted? And how could you have saved it?

The basic idea that WP uses to judge whether to have an article is that someone else should have written about the subject before. There should be sources for each and every article. In principle: Anything that can be sourced is in, everything else is out.

So what should the guys who want an article on Grand Prix Racing Online do? Make sure there are sources for the article.

So why is sourcing so important that Wikipedia is willing to throw out thousands of useful articles? Because we need to have a standard which work for everything from articles about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to pseudo-science to open source window managers. Given how large and how used Wikipedia is, we have a responsibility to our readers to, as far as we can, get articles right. Which means that articles should be able to be checked for factual accuracy. And you can’t do that without referencing.

It’s not entirely satisfactory, but it’s more complex than just a bunch of fat admins deleting stuff just for the glee.

Henrik on 21 March 2010

> Given how large and how used Wikipedia is, we have a responsibility to our readers to, as far as we can, get articles right. Which means that articles should be able to be checked for factual accuracy. And you can’t do that without referencing.

True, but you don’t need “notability” to do that.

Anonymous on 21 March 2010

Well, the concept of notability is certainly not unproblematic. Its frequently misunderstood and we end up with arguments like this and pissing a lot of people off. Which sucks, and is the main reason why I think we need to change.

The argument is somewhat long, but “notability” can be viewed as a shortcut to judging the likelihood of verifiability. Basically: If no one has written about it, how can we verify it?

Henrik on 21 March 2010

Notability is important. It documents the general consensus. The problem is to what extent it enforces (or prescribes) it. Every policy and guideline does a bit of both, but if it can become insisting.

And to be fair to this whole discussion, the maintenance of Wikipedia is more complex than deletionism/inclusionism. Just consider our current biographies of living people (BLP) debate. What’s more, much of this could be described as a descriptionist vs. prescriptionist approach to our policies and guidelines. Admins aren’t bad people, and most are held accountable for their actions by the community. The community, as it happens, is largely deletionist. It’s the internet as a whole that isn’t, and that’s at the heart of the problem. The internet has begun to draw us closer together. We are going against that flow.

Xav on 21 March 2010

Having personally given up on any kind of volunteering in 2006 it should be noted that in the early days of Wikipedia there were fewer deletionist arguments, and edit wars often subsided by themselves because “community” members actually communicated, not played the WP game (it is a type of MMOG after all). Now with all the formalities and Wikipedia’s key to success (thanks to the alexa toolbar, early editors who did SEO to many articles and endless page views) Google realized that WP could help it strengthen its web presence and remove valuable online “real estate” from free commercial links and keep the “above the fold” space with Google “sponsors.” I imagine that WP at a $10 Mill per year budget helps Google make at least ten fold that amount, if not more.

To feel you are participating in something that is noble is great, but can any encyclopedia “codify” all knowledge? Very doubtful, especially in a climate where knowledge is growing at such a fast rate. I’ve noticed there is lots that is not covered by WP, especially if it does not interest the mostly young contributors. Really the internet is about information, not knowledge, so Jimbo’s “noble” sentiments may just be good P.R., it works for him and the vapidity of most mainstream media. Is WP useless, no? But it is not the solution either, just another project that shows the pitfalls of collaborating over electronic channels where people don’t have real relationships, IMHO http://alexroshuk.com/2010/02/10/wikipedia-dispute-resolution/

Alex Roshuk on 21 March 2010

henrik> So why is sourcing so important that Wikipedia is willing to throw out thousands of useful articles? Because we need to have a standard which work for everything from articles about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to pseudo-science to open source window managers.

No you don’t. No other editorial board in the world would hold these things to the same standard.

If you know of one, please state your sources.

Asterism on 21 March 2010

Glad to oblige, actually – the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, has a well established, clearly defined refereeing process for unsolicited entries. This has resulted in the development of a widely respected scholarly reference. My grad school professors didn’t even flinch when I cited it. I can’t think of any reference – print, web, or otherwise, that has suffered from demanding higher standards of accountability from its contributors.
Perhaps Wikipedia has suffered from a loss of participation insofar as numbers are concerned. We tend to dwell upon such things way too much though, I think.
I am not trying to start an argument here – I simply think that it’s well within reason to suppport Wikipedia’s attempt to avoid becoming the next bitchpleeze.com.
By the way, I love this site.

Bill Olsen on 27 March 2010

Just a quick follow-up. I plan to write about the British historian Norman Cohn for Wikipedia. Will let you know how that goes and if my viewpoint changes any.

Bill Olsen on 27 March 2010

Looks like the Slax distro is next on the list. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slax The article is marked as an “advertisement”, and there is a note about speedy deletion. The deletionists are definitely getting bolder. Seriously, does that article even remotely resemble an advertisement? There are ones out there that are far worse.

Malvern on 27 March 2010

I’ve given up on editing Wikipedia excepting those occasional situations where I’ve run into a picky grammatical error. Why?

Frankly by now I firmly expect every edit I make to be reverted almost immediately, and a copied-and-pasted terse, arrogant, elitist message (naturally one masquerading as being friendly and helpful) being left on my talk page. Wikipedians aren’t the friendliest bunch, and I can count on one hand the number of times I made a non-grammatical edit that wasn’t reverted within five minutes (most of the time because my edits were considered “non constructive” for failing to adhere to Wikipedia’s asinine “readability” guidelines). And don’t get me wrong – it’s not that I’m some moron who doesn’t understand scholarly research. Wikipedia’s guide of style is just apparently moronic.

Wikipedia’s got a number of problems. (One of them is being almost totally dismissed by academia, which leads to an odd catch-22 whereby Wikipedia’s black sheep nature leads it to miss out on getting infused with the academics it needs to be taken seriously by academia. Though that’s not really the fault of Wikipedia or its editors so much as it’s the fault of academia.) The biggest problem – and the one that isn’t excusable – is what you’ve outlined above.

forkbomb on 6 April 2010

Having personally given up on any kind of volunteering in 2006 it should be noted that in the early days of Wikipedia there were fewer deletionist arguments, and edit wars often subsided by themselves because “community” members actually communicated, not played the WP game (it is a type of MMOG after all). Now with all the formalities and Wikipedia’s key to success (thanks to the alexa toolbar, early editors who did SEO to many articles and endless page views) Google realized that WP could help it strengthen its web presence and remove valuable online “real estate” from free commercial links and keep the “above the fold” space with Google “sponsors.” I imagine that WP at a $10 Mill per year budget helps Google make at least ten fold that amount, if not more.

To feel you are participating in something that is noble is great, but can any encyclopedia “codify” all knowledge? Very doubtful, especially in a climate where knowledge is growing at such a fast rate. I’ve noticed there is lots that is not covered by WP, especially if it does not interest the mostly young contributors. Really the internet is about information, not knowledge, so Jimbo’s “noble” sentiments may just be good P.R., it works for him and the vapidity of most mainstream media. Is WP useless, no? But it is not the solution either, just another project that shows the pitfalls of collaborating over electronic channels where people don’t have real relationships, IMHO http://alexroshuk.com/2010/02/10/wikipedia-dispute-resolution/

Steve on 28 May 2010

Sorry but I just to join the campaign for reason and logic but I couldn’t stand to read the epic amount of discussion that’s already on the pages, I wouldn’t have a clue where to start adding my 2 cents and the amount of acronyms used means it would take me hours just to figure out what everyone was referring to.

I never considered wikipedia to be a place where I could cite information from for a scholarly purpose and that isn’t what I want from it either. The moment I can cite from wikipedia is the moment I’ll know its completely useless.

Why not start wikischolar if that’s something that people want? Wikipedia is most useful for things that aren’t entirely ‘notable’.

Anyway, thanks for a brilliant article, you really hit home on exactly how I was feeling. Hopefully those who understand the complexities of the wiki discussions can stem the deletionist plague soon.

PS my two captcha words are conformity and subsume, how fitting hehe

Kris Gesling on 13 June 2010

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

uberVU - social comments
Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software, Part 2 | A … | Open Hacking
Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software, Part 2 | A … | www.ardelahlam.com
Alcance, Repercusiones De La Norma Isp 14001 | Articulos
Wikipedia, Notability, and Open Source Software, Part 2 | A … | www.kotihost.com

Leave a comment