View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:29 pm




Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
The Encyclopedia a small number of people can edit 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:38 pm
Posts: 3
Reply with quote
I notice the more I edit Wikipedia pages, that I come across the same people time and time again. These people will not ever let you change a page significantly unless it conforms to their view and even then rarely. It's funny how from 'the Encyclopedia anyone can edit' we've got to a state where things are exactly the same as they used to be. That is: a small number of people who are not better, or cleverer, or more educated, create the 'truth'. How odd that a project that was supposed to democratize truth ended up doing the opposite. All, how predicable.


Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3222
Reply with quote
Well, what we had before were a small number of experts who wrote encyclopedia entries and an even smaller set of editors who, well, edited it into a cohesive volume. It could be trusted to be the truth, because it was their business model to be seen to be disseminating knowledge.

Now, yes, we have a small number of goobers flinging shit at a communal wall, and calling it an encyclopedia they wrotedited, with nobody much caring if it is true or not, because it's FREEE MAAAAN.


Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:38 pm
Posts: 3
Reply with quote
Are you saying the past was better? Idk. All I know is Wikipedia isn't what it says it is.


Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3222
Reply with quote
peterdavidcarter wrote:
Are you saying the past was better? Idk.
The past what?


Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:08 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:38 pm
Posts: 3
Reply with quote
What I mean about the past version of Wikipedia is: the past economic model which rewarded control of knowledge directly financially. I'm not sure if I feel other motivations and indirect financial motivations (I mean, those don't exist on Wikipedia tho, right ;)) are better or worse... In that sense my major issue is that the whole dream Wikipedia was founded on is still being sold, even though it's pretty obviously false to anyone who takes the time to look beneath the surface. It's not the Encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's an increasingly small number of people's opinions copy pasted over pretty much everything else, even when they don't make coherant sense.


Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:44 pm
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:27 pm
Posts: 35
Reply with quote
peterdavidcarter wrote:
What I mean about the past version of Wikipedia is: the past economic model which rewarded control of knowledge directly financially. I'm not sure if I feel other motivations and indirect financial motivations (I mean, those don't exist on Wikipedia tho, right ;)) are better or worse... In that sense my major issue is that the whole dream Wikipedia was founded on is still being sold, even though it's pretty obviously false to anyone who takes the time to look beneath the surface. It's not the Encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's an increasingly small number of people's opinions copy pasted over pretty much everything else, even when they don't make coherant sense.


You're talking about English Wikipedia specifically? Each language instance is a bit different (and less significant).

It seems to me many people believe in the dream of an open encyclopedia, and become a free worker, until they burn out... But in reality, it's an insider/elitist culture, governed by a few hundred editors (and admins), who spent years to solidify their influence. These editors don't have to make sense: being a high-profile editor implies being right. Policies are interpreted so they are proven right. If that's too hard, there's ultimate policy WP:Ignore all rules :lol: Double standards are so deeply ingrained in WP culture, that people don't even complain. It's the norm.

And it has it's benefits: the most active admins on English WP are online 5*8 or even 7*10 hours a week... one can guess where their income comes from. It's obvious there position is monetized, and the "we are volunteers" ideology is just a facade.


Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2442
Reply with quote
Gaslighted wrote:
You're talking about English Wikipedia specifically? Each language instance is a bit different (and less significant).
.

The money streams on WP-NL are exacte as perverse as you describe. Wikipedia becomes from a hobby a profession in different ways. I mentioned it on WikiRev before, wikipedians become wikimedians and later professional wikimedians and make in this way step after step on the wiki carrier ladder. And often, later, a carrier outside wikipedia when they are high enough on the wiki ladder.
Wikipedia itself become a burden for them, so they start to look for lazy ways to keep there high wiki status in the most easy way. By being a "tuff" sysops, a for ever Arb, by operating a bot. And you have also many what we call zijinstromers, side in streamers, people who have never edited wikipedia but who are attracted by the free lunches and easy to make money. Or they use wikipedia to pimp there career.

And who is standing in there way by being critical they execute in a digital way with there troll arsenal, what is international the same I have noticed. And in this way a complete international destructive wiki industry has formed itself behind wikipedia. With nepotism, corruption, Star Chamber like T&S and Arbcom and Meta stewards, an so on.
And in this way wikipedia destroys and eat itself from inside out. Because for integer editors is no place in this scenario, the wiki industry has become the new goal of Wikipedia.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:59 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 246
Reply with quote
gaslighted wrote:
the most active admins on English WP are online 5*8 or even 7*10 hours a week... one can guess where their income comes from. It's obvious there position is monetized, and the "we are volunteers" ideology is just a facade.


One interesting case is El C. In seven years (from Sept 2009 to Feb 2017) they kept their administrator status despite not making a single edit to an article (and only 14 contributions total). source (actually they were desysopped for a total of 3 months during that time, & had their buttons restored twice)

Since a little before 1 April 2019, they have been averaging over 250 contributions a day and have taken only 3 days off. Their timecard shows they don't take much time off during the week, not even to sleep.

If the Signpost were doing its job they would run a human interest story on the Hebrew-speaking volunteer(s) or employee(s) running that account.

Looks like they were desysopped for cause back in Feb 2006 (by Jimbo). What a strange place.


Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:34 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3222
Reply with quote
Now we know the alternative, whatever its faults, the past model of paying people for knowledge, seems better.


Tue Aug 06, 2019 6:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 351
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Now we know the alternative, whatever its faults, the past model of paying people for knowledge, seems better.

Sad but true.

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:52 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.