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

Mon Jan 7 04:22:56 CET 2008

Hi Sam,

thanks for considering putting this as a comment as well.

I actually stayed clear on most of the content criticisms, which are
summarized in the same wikipedia review article. I agree much less with
those, and I have my own proposal on it, which rests on separating the
continuing operation of collective writing by the full community (no
privilege for experts), but having a separate talk page for experts only, so
that they can advice the writers. This avoids crowding out by experts, can
inspire the peer writers ,and at the same time, gives an alternative source
for comparison ...

here is the summary of content critiques:

*Wikipedia Content*

1. *Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased
information.*Whether through vandalism, subtle disinformation, or the
prolonged battling
over biased accounts, many of Wikipedia's articles are unsuitable for
scholarly use. Because of poor standards of sourcing and citation, it is
often difficult to determine the origin of statements made in Wikipedia in
order to determine their correctness. Pursuit of biased points of view by
powerful administrators is considered a particular problem, as opposing
voices are often permanantly banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's culture of
disrespect for expertise and scholarship (see below) make it difficult to
trust anything there.

2. *Wikipedia's articles are used to spread gossip, abet character
assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public.* So-called
"Biographies of Living Persons" are often the result of attempts by powerful
but anonymous editors and administrators at humiliating or belittling those
real-world people with whom they disagree. Wikipedia's "anyone can edit"
culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread
widely through the Internet. When the family, friends, associates, or
subjects of these biographies attempt to correct errors or insert balance,
they are often banned from Wikipedia for "Conflicts of Interest". Subjects
of these hatchet jobs usually must resort to legal action to get the
articles removed or corrected, a course not available to all.

3. *Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly
disciplines.* Wikipedia contains more articles, of greater depth, on
television shows, toy and cartoon characters, and other emphemera of popular
culture than on many prominent historical figures, events, and places.
Massive effort is spent on documenting fictional places and characters
rather than science, history, and literature.

4. *Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and
denies attribution to contributions.* Wikipedia contains no provision to
ensure that the content it hosts is not the work of another, or that content
it hosts is properly attributed to its author. It contains thousands of
photographs, drawings, pages of text and other content that is blatantly
plagiarized from other authors without permission.

5. *Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results,
spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own
site.*Wikipedia is searched by Google and is usually one of the top
results. Its
database is scraped by spammers and other sites, so misinformation, even
when corrected on Wikipedia, has a long life elsewhere on the network, as a
result of Wikipedia's lack of controls.

On Jan 6, 2008 11:20 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

-- 
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080107/83acfc82/attachment-0001.html 