Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing
See Archive 1 for October 8-11, 2008 content.
Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. Jon Awbrey 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. Jon Awbrey 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to Bill of Attainder — a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was problematic when Hammurabi defined it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —Moulton 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.
- Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.
- Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question — If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? Jon Awbrey 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a Drama Engine. —Moulton 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JH: Hammurabic code like this one …
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
JH: That not very helpful … I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. Joehazelton 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". Jon Awbrey 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
Future use of this page
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as expressed here. Thanks, everyone! -- MyWikiBiz 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
Blocked from Wikipedia Review
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been blocked from Wikipedia Review for revealing that long-time poster "Heat" is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer "Homeontherange", a.k.a. Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist: Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).
It also seems probable that the new poster desiredat is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.Proabivouac 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- If you focus too much on criticising Wikipedia Review then it detracts from the aim of the site, which is criticism of Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia Review isn't perfect, of course. As I have said many times, there are 2 main reasons for this: 1) Because WR allowed people to freely comment who were intent on destroying the site and created many arguments based on that (Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people) and 2) Because the founding members of WR were all banned from their own site. The censorship issues are a big issue too, of course. Were you banned by Selina or Somey? Or have we accepted that they are the same person now? Just a theory and all, but I never had concrete evidence that Guy and Poetlister were the same person either, they just seemed to be. Either way, it seems a bit mental. You bent over backwards to help them. You worked with them over the 6 September edition of the Poetlister scandal. You helped to pat their backs over the whole thing. You even agreed to modify your text to blame the whole thing on me, and refused to change it in spite of copious evidence that you were lying. Why would they want to ban you? Sounds like Selina/Somey is suffering from a mental break down and is in the midst of self-destruction mode. Blissyu2 02:25, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
