on 2/26/07 9:57 PM, John Lee at johnleemk(a)gmail.com wrote:
It's a question of whether we want a "big
tent" of people with different but
similar purposes working together to achieve a result that approximates what
all of them desire, or whether we want a smaller but more dedicated group to
achieving a particular common purpose. I have always been torn between the
two, but I am of the opinion that it wouldn't hurt to turn Wikipedia more to
the latter direction.
Terrific post, John.
I agree with how you are leaning. I don¹t believe it matters how large the
group - although it would seem that a smaller one would be easier to
coordinate. But it does matter a great deal that this group have a common,
specific, and mutually agreed upon purpose or goal. In the case of
Wikipedia, I believe that goal should be to create and maintain a reliable,
unbiased encyclopedia of human knowledge.
At times, there's been a great deal of
misunderstanding about what exactly Wikipedia is.
For the record, I differentiate between Wikipedia and the Wikipedia
Community. Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) is created and maintained by the
Community (the people). Wikipedia needs specific policies and guidelines to
govern its characteristics so should the Community. If there is
ambivalence or downright disagreement about either of these, you have
confusion actually, you have a mess.
It's not an attempt to use
a democracy or anarchy to organise information.
It's not an attempt to prove
that a decentralised approach to organising information works. It's not an
attempt to make information egalitarian by being anti-expert. It's not a
social networking site. It's an encyclopaedia, and everything about
Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, should be related to the purpose of
writing an encyclopaedia.
Well put. And, yes, it is that simple.
Regarding the issue of culture, I'm not sure if that was meant to directly
rebutt anything I said, because I implied that the problem is one of
culture.
No rebuttal was intended.
people had the common sense to respect each other, to accept different
viewpoints, to understand their limitations. That
culture is gone.
I believe it has more to do with emotional makeup than common sense. And,
unfortunately, it appears I have come too late to the Community to have
experienced the culture you say was.
The reason I mentioned that we may have to resort to a software fix is
because I am very skeptical about the possibility of changing our culture.
But wouldn¹t that be like replacing the electrical system of a car whose
engine is shot?
It's not possible to do this without alienating a
lot of longtime editors.
In the end, it's possible that we could massively purge WP of people who
don't share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia, but it's highly
implausible. I believe we can survive without these people, because a lot of
edits are made by anonymous editors, but we will never drive them off,
because it's politically unacceptable to most Wikipedians, even those who do
share the common purpose of building an encyclopaedia.
If the persons (editors) agree to a common purpose and a set of common
cultural values, what could possibly be their argument to keep anyone who
doesn¹t?
Therefore, what has to be done is to find ways to limit the damage our
corroded culture can do. We've tried the policy route, and it's failed
abysmally. It's time to see if article and editor ratings, together with a
more refined approach to blocking, can ameliorate the problem.
* John, I¹m afraid it¹s going to take more that mechanical fixes to halt the
corrosion. It is going to take everyone from the top down finally coming to
terms with the fact that there are flesh and blood, emotional, human beings
at the core of this project each bringing their own learning, life
experiences and day-to-day struggles into the mix. The larger culture we
come from, and have learned from, doesn¹t handle this emotional aspect of
the human being very well. But, perhaps, with some work, the Wikipedia
culture can.
Marc Riddell
--
You can dream of a moment for years, and still somehow miss it when it
comes. You¹ve got to reach through the flames and take it - Or lose it
forever.