dogbiscuit wrote:
From the other thread.
Isn't the fundamental issue that Wikipedia represents a wider sickness with the world - the rise of the inverted snobbery of the man in the street having more wisdom than the accredited expert?
That ill also afflicts Wikipediocracy to some extent, those who actually know something have to tolerate being treated as equals with the ignorant. It has become a sin to believe that the masses do not have the knowledge to contribute as equals to any discussion and issues resulting have to be tiptoed around.
If you want to get to the root of Wikipedia's problems, you have to look at the rapid transition of culture that has been inflicted upon us by the Internet (as a shorthand for the mix of modern media combined with the social media). It's a toxic mix of opinions being treated as facts, the right to holding a wrong opinion being held above the need to resolve issues correctly, a failure to grasp the fundamentals of the rights of free speech vs the extremist view that somehow extreme free speech lets the ignorant masses sort out the wheat from the chaff, the chase for clicks being more important than the need to inform correctly (I'm looking at the BBC which is in rapid decline becoming demand driven).
I've dipped into the forums for a read over the past few weeks and really found the contents uninspiring (but then again, that's why I left, and that realisation that Wikipedia was just a facet of a wider problem afflicting the modern world).
On that basis, looking back to discussions on the idea of the blog being more important than the forum, then I think you have to consider a closed, by invitation membership, where only those considered to make net contributions to the state of knowledge are given the space to promote their thinking. To pick an example, Vigilant refuses to suffer fools gladly, and back in the day would be taken to task for his vicious put downs, yet underneath the harsh exterior, he has shown himself a capable commentator on WMF technology. I suspect in a closed environment, his style of discourse would be quite different.
So:
1) You cannot disconnect the ills of Wikipedia from the wider ills of the world that to me appear to be driven by the cult of ignorance. Therefore, a focus on Wikipedia criticism will ultimately fail to diagnose the wider issues facing us.
2) Wikipedia just surfaced the cult of stupidity sooner and more clearly than media and politics.
3) The corrupt business practices of Jimbo (serial scam companies where he earns with no interest in the success of the venture) are worth following.
4) Consider a different structure of an editorial board and contributors rather than a debating shop. I'm not convinced that there is any benefit to the many eyes on Wikipedia - the core data and information has been gathered.
5) The forum can serve as a recruiting ground, but I think that the signal to noise ratio is extremely high. I think that the cult of extreme free speech has infected this site - historically being very reluctant to shut down disruptive members. Far more vicious moderation of members who are noise is required.
6) However, much you point out the stupidity of Wikipedia, the masses will ultimately not grasp the issue, or realise that they themselves are the target, because it challenges their right to believe that their opinions on everything are as valid as the next person's. Who, then, is the target of any generated wisdom of this site?
My 2d worth.
Implicit is that Trumpism & Brexit is part of the current debacle of the collapse of critical thinking as something to be aspired to.
Having been poked by Mr V, I think it would be sensible for people to spend a few minutes asking themselves what they are attempting to achieve. Myself, it was hoping to expose to the world how corrupt Wikipedia was, but when you realise that the world really doesn't give a shit as long as there is a proper documentation of Love Island episodes then it seems a rather pointless task and as government has abrogated its responsibility to lead and hides behind populism as the determinant of policy I struggle to see what the audience is. How do you link with other groups coming at the same problem from different perspectives?
I think the question of "what are you trying to achieve" is important. Incidentally, this is one problem with Wikipedia, as someone else (I think Greybeard) mentions
elsewhere: there is no "goal function" on Wikipedia.
I think the forum and blog can perform different functions.
- The forum can be used present tidbits of interesting stuff, write rants, argue about stuff and generally shoot the breeze.
- Blog posts would have specific authors, should be focused, and in my view are better aimed at the general public. Why should they be aimed at the general public? Because there is no other option. Sure, the general public is apathetic about Wikipedia. But the general public is apathetic about most ills in the world. One never really knows how, when or where some particular spark can spread. One often needs to keep plugging the same ideas over and over again, to different audiences and at different points in time.
I see Tim's
post which suggests that the site should be aimed at other Wikipedians. That is fine as a partial strategy: some posts can be aimed at Wikipedians. But in general, I don't think an approach aimed solely at Wikipedians is likely to go anywhere. Besides, if one only aims to reach Wikipedians, why not write for the Signpost? Most Wikipedians are, generally speaking, fine with the way Wikipedia works. They may complain about this or that aspect, but their "revealed preference" suggests that they consider it a worthwhile project to contribute to. Wikipedians can sometimes have insights into particular things (because familiarity can breed contempt). But should they be the only audience? I don't think so.
In general, I do not see a contradiction between "elitism" and "populism". Both can co-exist. Some people do know better than others about specific topics. And there is no reason why their arguments can't come to the fore. I recently read a
book called
The Enigma of Reason. It views human reason in evolutionary terms and advances an "interactionist approach". Briefly, human reason is lazy and biased, and most individual reasoners are not particularly good at finding out the truth. Incidentally, this applies to both experts and laypeople. However, if we conceive of reason as justifying ourselves to a community of people, who generally share common goals or operate in a good environment, reason can work well at identifying and amplifying the best arguments. My own view is that to the extent Wikipedia works at all, it is due to this phenomenon.
