[WikiEN-l] Anet Dartmouth

Wed Aug 25 20:07:18 UTC 2004

Geoff Burling wrote:

>This issue with Darmouth brings into the present a something I've thought
>about concerning Wikipedia for some time.
>
>On the one side, there is a real concern for the quality of content, which
>is clearly under attack from many quarters. Wackos who believe that it is
>electrical radiation that imposes the speed of light as the ultimate limit
>of acceleration, who insist that the Wikipedian philosphy of accepting all
>POVs means that we have to include their own "unique" POV; people who are
>obsessed at defending their national pride by insisting that a fellow
>citizen actually invented the toaster; the trolls who enjoy stirring the
>pot by seing just how plausible they can make an unreasonable argument
>sound; & countless individuals who believe that the act of reverting any
>edit trumps any argument, no matter how well argued.
>
I generally agree with this assessment, but something is missing here in 
the context of the Dartmouth controversy.  These disputes tend to fall 
into a number of consistent themes.  This one did not involve wacko 
science or political partisanship.  Instead it was an issue of whether 
the articles were important enough to include in Wikipedia.  There were 
a significant number of articles involved, presumably one from each 
class member.  The person leading the deletion squad may have engaged in 
discussions with one of the students.  (I don't know for sure that he 
did),  From there he sought to apply that discussion to all the others 
who may not have had a fair chance to defend their articles.

What is important is much more difficult to define.  With wacko science 
it is fairly easy to point to an underlying fallacy in the proponent's 
thinking.  With political dissension there are often two (at least) 
clearly identifiable and opposing points of view.  What are the 
objective criteria for determining what is important?  Dartmouth is one 
college in a relatively unpopulous state of the United States.  The 
number of people to whom this material is personally important is bound 
to be small.  It will be even smaller for the high schools that some 
have sought to include.  It will still be small for the university that 
has the highest enrollment in the world.

The "Wiki is not paper" principle favours a much broader interpretation 
of important.  We are not restricted by the physical limitations of a 
paper encyclopedia.  We can afford to bring importance to a more local 
level.

>Bah! If I don't recognize the contributor -- or even more clearly, if that
>person is editting from an IP number -- I'll just consider her/him/it a
>troublemaker, list the articles that person produces on VfD & revert all of
>her/his/its edits as "vandalism".
>
The first question that should precede the cry of "vandalism" should be, 
"Is this person acting in good faith?"  It's understandable that a lot 
of the common vandalism will come from IP numbers, and that we should 
continue to view those contributions with some suspicion, but that's not 
an excuse for failing to read their articles objectively.

>On the other side, there is the low barrier of entry to Wikipedia that
>Academia lacks -- allowing the well-read amateur to add vital new information
>that might not make it into other fora because it does not have (1) the
>right credentials attached; (2) observe the right prevalent orthodoxy; or
>(3) simply needs a little more coaching -- which an isolated amateur or
>"info-nerd" won't find any other way. There is something admittedly daunting
>about Academia & profesional research that intimidates beginners -- who
>too often discover that the professionals realy aren't that professional
>in terms of resources, behavior, or analysis.
>
The low barrier is one of our most valuable features, and probably the 
feature most responsible for Wikipedia's phenomenal growth.

I have shared your view of "professionals" since long before I ever 
heard of Wikipedia.  We may have set our sights on the academics, but 
they are not the only problematical professionals.  The intimidation is 
far more widespread, and what we are doing is only the beginning of this 
revolution.  I am amazed and amused when I see someone on this list 
prefacing his comments about copyright with "but IANAL".

>However Wikipedia, by its "less than perfect, but better than it was
>before" approach helps to demolish this elitist misconception.
>
>One of the vital dynamics to Wikipedia is fact that to make any edit stick,
>one has to be willing to engage in a conversation about it. One has to not
>only convince an audience that a given POV is plausible, but that the
>person advocating it is credible & reasonable. Unfortunately, not all who
>come to add to Wikipedia are willing to engage in a conversation about their
>contributions (nationalists being a prime example of this reluctance, but
>everyone is guilty of this reluctance at one time or another), but hopefully
>those of us who understand the importance of this dynamic will continue to
>advocate it, & keep Wikipedia vibrant despite all of the pressures against
>it.
>
I accept that dynamic, but it needs to be bilateral.  Even if we assume 
that the newbie has grasped the mechanics of Wikipedia to the point 
where he knows how talk pages function, he needs to be made to feel that 
his ideas are treated with respect.  There's a big difference between 
enterring a discussion as equals on the article's talk page in a one on 
one conversation, and the immediate need to defend one's views on a VfD 
page.  Before the newbie knows what's happening he is already facing a 
half-dozen votes to delete his article, many of which are accompanied by 
rude comments that trivialize his efforts.  He knows nothing about the 
status and influence of the voters beyond the fact that they have been 
around longer than he has.  Sysops in particular need the patience to 
realize that they may have gone over the same arguments many times with 
many people, but that this is the first time that they have done it with 
this particular individual.

>And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal
>is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the
>rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be
>willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial
>exchange between them.
>
Ideally yes, but there is still a significant segment of Western 
Civilization that has yet to learn this.  Those who use their membership 
in a Western Civilization as an argument in support of their POV have 
not learned it.

Ec