Average Wikipediocrazy "discussion"

[ericbarbour]

Baby steps, baby steps.

They've had TWENTY-THREE YEARS of "baby steps". The toddler is old enough to VOTE and BUY LIQUOR in all 50 US states.

[Carrite]

Baby steps, baby steps.

They've had TWENTY-THREE YEARS of "baby steps". The toddler is old enough to VOTE and BUY LIQUOR in all 50 US states.

Does the model of WP as a Mass Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game still apply?

Answering my own question: Not really.

Is that because the model was wrong all along or because the toddler has grown up and evolved with the passage of time? Is Wikipedia really "same as it ever was" or has it changed over the years?

How about Biographies of Living People? Is that still as problematic as it ever was, and in the exact same way? Or has thinking and behavior and content on that changed over time?

How about rogue administrators? Are they still as prevalent as they were in, say, 2006 or 2009? Have not administrative standards and behavior evolved over the years?

What about the Jimmy Wales Personality Cult? Is that the same as it was? Has there not been a downgrading of his position and status at the project?

t

[boredbird]

Does the model of WP as a Mass Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game still apply?

Yes. The rules have changed, but not significantly enough to make it a different game.

Two of your three bullet points can be attributed to the growth of bureaucracy meant to regulate user in-game behavior, so if "rogue admins" or the Jimbo personality cult were your main objections then you have a point. But the most compelling criticisms were about content integrity, both quality and bias, and the kinds of people who wield power over outcomes.

[ericbarbour]

Does the model of WP as a Mass Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game still apply?

Yes, but instead of crackpots trying to control content, it is now dominated by vandalism patrollers and deletionists. As a content writer, YOU should be more angry about this.

How about Biographies of Living People? Is that still as problematic as it ever was, and in the exact same way?

NOTHING has changed. I continue to routinely see undeclared paid editing and "autobiographies".

How about rogue administrators? Are they still as prevalent as they were in, say, 2006 or 2009? Have not administrative standards and behavior evolved over the years?

They simply made it more difficult to pass an RFA or get onto Arbcom. More bureaucracy--not BETTER bureaucracy. Abusive admins continue to abuse with near impunity. I continue to suspect that Nihonjoe was forced out mainly because he was friendly with "people we don't like", not because he was doing lots of COI editing.

What about the Jimmy Wales Personality Cult? Is that the same as it was? Has there not been a downgrading of his position and status at the project?

I will give you that one--they became so bureaucratic and paranoid, they forced out their "Dear Leader". The cult no longer has a Fuhrer or a clear focus, a sure indication of its decline.