[p2p-research] is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes

Sun Jan 6 17:20:44 CET 2008

Good points, all.

My own experience drafting a page in wikipedia, and working on it over a few
years, is that Wikipedia does not have an objetcive system of qualification
for content.

A similar pattern is actually happening in the Drupal community, where there
is a kindof quasi-consensus rule over what direction different components
should take in development, with espoused rules of thumb that are not always
applied objectively.

It's my opinion that co-governance systems that can engage multiple
stakeholders more evenly  can help alleviate these issues. One model that
can be deployed quite successfully in communities like Wikipedia, and Drupal
development community, is http://www.aboutus.org/Portal:ConsensusPolls a
process to engage people in the co-construction of decision making, in a
systematic way.

This is an alternative to
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RightToForkThe idea is to
incorporate insights, needs, and motivations into voting. To
synthesize existing community needs into action, by making a "yes" vote
contingent upon mutually satisfactory dynamic plans.

So, the decision to remove or keep content in wikipedia could be more
systematized in fashion such as this. It is my assertion that the quality of
content, and quality of contributions, and enthusiasm of contributors would
all increase, if people felt there was an equitable way to resolve disputes.

On Jan 6, 2008 8:56 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> I have done quite a bit of research (well ... just a few hours), and this
> will be published tomorrow morning:
>
>
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07
>
> text:
>
> The Wikipedia is often hailed as a prime example of peer production and
> peer governance, an example of how a community can self-govern very complex
> processes. Including by me.
>
> But it is also increasingly showing the dark side and pitfalls of purely
> informal approaches, especially when they scale.
>
> Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable because it's work is not done in
> teams, but by individuals with rather weak links. At the same time it is
> also a very complex project, with consolidating social norms and rules, and
> with an elite that knows them, vs. many occasional page writers who are
> ignorant of them. When that system then instaures a scarcity rule, articles
> have to be 'notable' or they can be deleted. It creates a serious imbalance.
>
> While the Wikipedia remains a remarkable achievement, and escapes any easy
> characterization of its qualities because of its sheer vastness, there must
> indeed be hundreds of thousands of volunteers doing good work on articles,
> it has also created a power structure, but it is largely 'invisible',
> opaque, and therefore particularly vulnerable to the well-known tyranny of
> structurelessness <http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Structurelessness>.
>
> Consider the orginal thoughts of Jo Freeman:
>
> "*Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
> 'structureless' group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming
> together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure
> itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible, it may vary over
> time, it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over
> the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities,
> personalities and intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we
> are individuals with different talents, predispositions and backgrounds
> makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis
> whatsoever could we approximate 'structurelessness' and that is not the
> nature of a human group*."
>
> Consider also this warning<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/every-cause-wan.html>
> :
>
> "*Every group of people with an unusual goal - good, bad, or silly - will
> trend toward the cult attractor unless they make a constant effort to resist
> it. You can keep your house cooler than the outdoors, but you have to run
> the air conditioner constantly, and as soon as you turn off the electricity
> - give up the fight against entropy - things will go back to "normal".*
>
> *In the same sense that every thermal differential wants to equalize
> itself, and every computer program wants to become a collection of ad-hoc
> patches, every Cause wants to be a cult. It's a high-entropy state into
> which the system trends, an attractor in human psychology.*
>
> *Cultishness is quantitative, not qualitative. The question is not
> "Cultish, yes or no?" but "How much cultishness and where?*"
>
> The Wikicult <http://www.wikicult.org/index.html> website asserts that
> this stage has already been reached:
>
> "*With the systems, policies, procedures, committees, councils, processes
> and appointed authorities that run Wikipedia, a lot of intrinsic power goes
> around. While most serious contributors devotedly continue to contribute to
> the implied idealism, there are those with the communication and political
> skill to place themselves in the right place at the right time and establish
> even more apparent power. Out of these, a cabal inevitably forms; the rest,
> as they say, is history*."
>
> Specialized sites have sprung up, such as the Wikipedia Review<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/criticisms-of-wikipedia/>,
> monitoring power abuse in general, or in particular cases<http://antisocialmedia.net/>
>
> The Wikipedia Review offers an interesting summary of the various
> criticisms that have been leveled agains the Wikipedia, which I'm
> reproducing here below, but I'm adding links that document these processes
> as well. Spend on time on reading the allegations, their documentation, and
> make up your own mind.
>
> My conclusion though is that major reforms will be needed to insure the
> Wikipedia governance is democratic and remains so.
>
> *1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists,
> and others with special knowledge.*
>
> Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge,
> expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish
> himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly
> credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even
> when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for
> expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert
> editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia
> implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from
> immature and uneducated ones.
>
> Critique of Wikipedia's open source ideology, as opposed to free software
> principles<http://www.anat.org.au/stillopen/blog/2007/08/19/open-source-ideologies/>
>
> *2. Wikipedia's culture of anonymous editing and administration results in
> a lack of responsible authorship and management.*
>
> Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing
> set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of
> interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia's
> adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for
> their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or
> that of others).
>
> *3. Wikipedia's administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful
> elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. *
>
> Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative
> abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being
> enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many
> well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being
> previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been
> banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin's editorial point of view.
> There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly
> independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that
> is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor,
> and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for
> misbehaviour.
>
> Overview of developments<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071216/attacking-the-source/>
>
> The blog Nonbovine ruminations critically monitors<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/>Wikipedia governance
>
> The Wikipedia has stopped growing because of the deletionists: Andrew<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-articles-celebrate/>
> Lih<http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/>; Slate
> <http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/fr/rss/>
>
> Wikipedia's abusive bio-deletion process: case by Tony Judge<http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/bio/wikibios.php>
>
> *4. Wikipedia's numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally
> on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted*.
>
> Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently
> allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia's numerous "policies", such as
> those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal
> information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.
>
> The undemocratic practices of its investigative committee<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html>
>
> A personal experience<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/kicked-out-of-wikicult.html>
>
> The badsites list <http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118> of censored sites
> belonging to Wikipedia's enemies
>
> Lack of transparency and accountability<http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=118>
>
> The Judd Bagley<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/>case
>
> InformationLiberation on Wikipedia's totalitarian universe<http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=24450>
>
> 5. *Wikipedia's quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is
> at best incompetent and at worst corrupt*.
>
> ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent,
> operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access
> to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the
> Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to
> sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is
> discussing in private.
>
> Monitoring of ArbCom's activities<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=28>
>
> Summary of criticisms<http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20071215/ten-reasons-why-the-arbitration-committee-doesnt-matter/>
>
> The case of the secret mailing list for top insiders <http:///>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
>
> *6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible
> for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently
> independent from Wikipedia's remaining founder and his business interests.
> *
>
> The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting
> in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of
> inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and
> (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales' for-profit business
> Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit
> Wikipedia.
>
> The Foundation's budget<http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/foundation-budget.html>
>
> Wikimedia chairwoman rejects demand for transparency<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036559.html>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
>
> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>
> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1-+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
http://blog.socialsynergyweb.com

Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://bfwatch.barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://extinctionlevelevent.com

Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080106/eaaadad6/attachment-0001.html 