[p2p-research] the wikipedia decline
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 28 03:16:29 CET 2009
>Still, notability suggests pages not be there unless the microcommunity is
above a certain size. But, that is problematical, because without, say the
"Infinity Ltd." sci-fi society page I refer to that was deleted, how can I
join that community of editors? Or at least, viewers?
There are 3 scenarios here, the original wikipedia philosophy, i.e. let the
article exist and it will be irmproved over time, here, it can exist, and it
2: it's deleted, it does not exist, cannot be improved
3. it's threatened by deletion but you don't agree: you need to mobilize,
which is a high treshold activity, this means a lot of threatened pages will
be deleted anywa, same as scenario 2; or, in case of mobilization, it will
exist, but the whole process discourages wider participation because it is
so demanding in time
> How can we do an experiment about what strategy gets the most or best
participation by some standards?
the experiment has been done, the deletionist won, and partcipation
massively declined after installation of deletionist rule and power,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> I hear your argument, and I think it's wrong ...
>> allowing low threshold add-on and verification by a passionate community
>> what I advocate ... which as pre-deletionist days showed, created a lot of
>> or, high treshold add-on and verification, which discourages participation
>> and diminishes the number of eyeballs ...
>> solution 1 is better at fighting spam and errors than strategy 2, (which
>> assuming was chosen because the deletionist followed the same reasoning as
>> you do here)
>> the mistake is that you see the wikipedia as one big thing, instead as a
>> collection of pages that are of interest to many microcommunities, each of
>> them passionate about correcting their pages ..
>> errors, spam and libel will occur in any of the strategies, but has more
>> chance to be corrected in an open participatory environment than in a
>> hierarchical and disempowering one,
> You may well be right, especially about the notion of each page somehow
> being a microcommunity.
> Still, notability suggests pages not be there unless the microcommunity is
> above a certain size. But, that is problematical, because without, say the
> "Infinity Ltd." sci-fi society page I refer to that was deleted, how can I
> join that community of editors? Or at least, viewers?
> How can we do an experiment about what strategy gets the most or best
> participation by some standards?
> Maybe Wikipedia is unconsciously already performing that experiment? :-)
> But maybe they could do it more formally somehow? :-)
> I found it interesting to see this Wikipedia page tied in with the donation
> campaign going on right now:
> "Five facts about Wikipedia — and how you can help keep it free."
> Fact #1: Wikipedia is run by a non-profit organization, the Wikimedia
> Fact #2: Even though Wikipedia is one of the five most visited websites in
> the world, we employ fewer than 35 people.
> Fact #3: We support more than 100,000 volunteers who have contributed 14.3
> million articles in 270 languages.
> Fact #4: We exist so that every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge.
> Fact #5: We depend on support from donors like you to keep Wikipedia
> running, and to keep it free. We ask only once a year – now is the time.
> Consider "Fact #4: We exist so that every single human being can freely
> share in the sum of all knowledge."
> Is that really true? If it is, what does it mean about deletionism? Or
> about making edits harder to make? Also, is "the sum of all knowledge" only
> that which has been published in official publications by credentialed
> experts? If so, Wikipedia has a questionable epistemology built into it.
> Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη - episteme-, "knowledge, science" +
> λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned
> with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the
> * What is knowledge?
> * How is knowledge acquired?
> * What do people know?
> * How do we know what we know?
> Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of
> knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and
> justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as
> well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
> The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James
> Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).
> Maybe some more people at the Wikipedia foundation should read that
> Wikipedia article? :-) "Credentialism" was not mentioned there. Still, maybe
> they have read that page and made a choice of just one school of thought on
> this issue of what knowledge is or how it is justified. Essentially, it
> seems to me that Wikipedia's theory of knowledge has become that knowledge
> is a statement by an "authority", and further, a statement by an authority
> about a subject of broad interest, which is a different epistemology than in
> the freewheeling early days.
> Again, maybe Wikipedia has an "identity crisis" now, more than anything?
> This may have happened in part because of Wikipedia's own success and the
> larger success of the world wide web around it that Wikipedia has been an
> important part of.
> An identity crisis is when an individual loses a sense of personal sameness
> and historical continuity. The term was coined by the psychologist Erik
> Erikson. ...
> The identity is "a subjective sense as well as an observable quality of
> personal sameness and continuity, paired with some belief in the sameness
> and continuity of some shared world image. As a quality of unself-conscious
> living, this can be gloriously obvious in a young person who has found
> himself as he has found his communality. In him we see emerge a unique
> unification of what is irreversibly given--that is, body type and
> temperament, giftedness and vulnerability, infantile models and acquired
> ideals--with the open choices provided in available roles, occupational
> possibilities, values offered, mentors met, friendships made, and first
> sexual encounters (Erikson, 1970)."
> According to Erikson's stages, the onset of the identity crisis is in the
> teenage years, and only individuals who succeed in resolving the crisis will
> be ready to face future challenges in life. But the identity crisis may well
> be recurring, as the changing world demands us to constantly redefine
> ourselves. Erikson suggested that people experience an identity crisis when
> they lose "a sense of personal sameness and historical continuity". Given
> today's rapid development in technology, global economy, dynamics in local
> and world politics, one might expect identity crises to recur more commonly
> now than even thirty years ago, when Erikson formed his theory[citation
> Guess that last sentence is slated for deletionism? :-(
> I'll repeat it for emphasis, and to think about in regards Wikipedia:
> "Given today's rapid development in technology, global economy, dynamics in
> local and world politics, one might expect identity crises to recur more
> commonly now than even thirty years ago, when Erikson formed his theory."
> There, now I said it. Am I expert enough or an authority enough to cite?
> :-) Well, it depends in part on how you feel about epistemology. :-)
> --Paul Fernhout
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch