On the moral bankruptcy of Wikipedia’s anonymous admins

[Notvelty]

They are corrupt creeps, and so-called anonymity is frequently a weapon. Look at the behavior of that sniveling hypocrite Chris Owen (aka Chriso/Prioryman), who has rounded up the posse for a good old fashioned lynching today (mentioned also in the "youreallycan thread, but I think this comment belongs here). Why? Because youreallycan etc... wrote about "Cirt" (long term likely paid editor and defamer of Scientologists and Rick Santorum) here:

"No one should be able to hide behind a pseudonym and violate the projects goals and neutrality - Its not outing in any way to expose a project violator, its good for the project to expose such violators. Who is he? If anyone knows, please expose him."

Horrors! A senior writer at Wikipedia might be identified. Mr. Owen doesn't really care about any of this. It is all about destroying the "enemy" (for added fun, it appears that frequent liar is going to the well again, claiming he doesn't have an account here). For the rest? A lot of that too. The response is about half burn the witch so far, half "how do we know if 'youreallycan' is the witch in question?"

Doug Weller, who appears to be a bit of a self-styled Judge Roy Bean kook but is at least self identified writes: "That's completely unacceptable. If no one else does it soon, I think I will indefinitely block him. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)"

"Soliciting outing is clearly wrong," writes editor "Worm," who is clearly a paid up cult member ("clearly wrong?" Do they know how insane that sounds). etc... etc...

What a pathetic, dysfunctional cesspool. The best that can be said is that many of them think they're doing the right thing. But Owen is as repulsive a four-flushing manipulator as I've come across on the internet, which is saying something.

Anonymity as a default position is evidence of a sick culture. In healthy ones, it should be granted only in rare cases where it's deemed necessary. If you join a church, or a cooking club, or a sports team, or a real world academic project, etc. etc... you are expected to identify yourself.

It strikes me the Owen's antics are remarkably similar to those of the scientologists he rightly deplores.

[Peter Damian]

Is this along the lines of theory that the reason Jesus had 12 apostles, a petit jury has 12 members and that football teams (in their initial historical forms) had 11 to 15 members is because these are the numbers that made up prehistorical human bands?
I must admit I have core group of about that number that of other editors I interact with (are "wiki-friends" with, if you must) on a long term basis. (I'm comfortably in the top 1000 - 2000 for both edits and articles, by the way.)

Well there's Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number which is a supposed limit to the number of people with whom you can have a stable social relationship (=150). At the other end there is the recommended maximum number for a working party, i.e. a group of people able to get anything useful done, which is about 8. Then there is the limit for full committees or boards, which is between 12 and 20. The British Cabinet currently has about 20 members.

[Randy from Boise]

It strikes me the Owen's antics are remarkably similar to those of the scientologists he rightly deplores.

Are you saying he parades around in a sailor suit???

RfB

[HRIP7]

Having seen 15 minutes of The Tube this week, I thought that there is an analogy there. The theme was fare dodging on the London Underground, and there was the typical shrug of the shoulders "It's London, everyone does it." from someone caught not paying.

It strikes me that there is a similar crowd activity at play - a perceived anonymity, a lack of interaction with the majority of fellow travellers, a sense of right regardless of the real moral position. It is repeated around the world, the default position for paying a fare on a train of a human being is not fundamentally good, but, certainly amongst a wide swathe of society, the assumption appears to be that if they believe they will not get caught, they will try not paying - and don't have a problem with it, more are even aggrieved at being caught. Any train system that relies on honesty is backed up by a punishment system and it is the punishment system that enforces honesty, not human nature.

Anyone who relies on honesty needs to understand what the trade-off is and there are no real downsides to Wikipedia dishonesty - even if you are a named and shamed real life person except in the case of public figures.

I used to think people are fundamentally good. After a few years of Wikipedia editing, I had to concede to myself that I was wrong.

That's not to say that people aren't fundamentally good in some sense – they are – just that I had never observed so much pettiness and vindictiveness before.

Thanks, Wikipedia.

[Kelly Martin]

I used to think people are fundamentally good. After a few years of Wikipedia editing, I had to concede to myself that I was wrong.

That's not to say that people aren't fundamentally good in some sense – they are – just that I had never observed so much pettiness and vindictiveness before.

There are at least two possibilities that are consistent with both (at least most) people being fundamentally good, and the observed behavior: One, that most people are fundamentally good, and something about Wikipedia selectively attracts the ones that aren't; the other, that something about Wikipedia has a tendency to suppress the fundamentally good tendencies in people while at the same time enhancing their baser instinct.

Either way, it's clear that Wikipedia, despite their purported mission, is a net social negative. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that it gets preferential tax treatment.

[EricBarbour]

I used to think people are fundamentally good. After a few years of Wikipedia editing, I had to concede to myself that I was wrong.

That's not to say that people aren't fundamentally good in some sense – they are – just that I had never observed so much pettiness and vindictiveness before.

There are at least two possibilities that are consistent with both (at least most) people being fundamentally good, and the observed behavior: One, that most people are fundamentally good, and something about Wikipedia selectively attracts the ones that aren't; the other, that something about Wikipedia has a tendency to suppress the fundamentally good tendencies in people while at the same time enhancing their baser instinct.

Either way, it's clear that Wikipedia, despite their purported mission, is a net social negative. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that it gets preferential tax treatment.

Those are good quotes. I'm going to save them on the wiki for "posterity". We need a nice cache of quotes like that, from actual Wikipedia editors.

[Anroth]

something about the internet has a tendency to suppress the fundamentally good tendencies in people while at the same time enhancing their baser instinct.

Nothing to do with Wikipedia. And its not enhancing their baser instinct. Its just people showing their real personality. Not the one they hide face-to-face. People on the internet are generally dicks. They know even if they are using their real name, they are unlikely to get comeback for something that would result in a punch in the face in a pub, or a reprimand from their manager at work.

[rd232]

something about the internet has a tendency to suppress the fundamentally good tendencies in people while at the same time enhancing their baser instinct.

Nothing to do with Wikipedia. And its not enhancing their baser instinct. Its just people showing their real personality. Not the one they hide face-to-face. People on the internet are generally dicks. They know even if they are using their real name, they are unlikely to get comeback for something that would result in a punch in the face in a pub, or a reprimand from their manager at work.

Its just people showing their real personality. - I can't agree with that. It's people exhibiting different behaviour in a radically different environment, I think (text-only, no audio-visual cues, often people you'll never meet or contact in other ways... it's at the extreme thin end of the social contract wedge). Think Stanford Prison Experiment for how big those environmental effects on behaviour can be.

[Anroth]

Its just people showing their real personality. - I can't agree with that. It's people exhibiting different behaviour in a radically different environment, I think (text-only, no audio-visual cues, often people you'll never meet or contact in other ways... it's at the extreme thin end of the social contract wedge). Think Stanford Prison Experiment for how big those environmental effects on behaviour can be.

Except the prison environment is an enclosed system constraining and directing behavior. The internet is not, the internet frees up people from social constraint. Which is not a good thing in general, however in specific cases its great for evaluating a person. Look at some of the members here, we have purportedly educated and intelligent people resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks regularly. Rather than actually engaging in reasonable discussion. Look at your treatment in the Climeg thread, there is a difference between forcefully expressing an opinion and discussing it, and yapping like a little spoilt dog.

Their behavior may be different because its a radically different environment, but that does not invalidate that their behavior is how they would behave if they think they can get away with it.

The more power someone has, the less likely they are to be called on their behavior, the less likely they are to be called on it, the more they let their natural impulses run free. The internet is the ultimate in freedom from oversight, everyone can be a untouchable god. So people let their ideal/real personality shine through in ways they wouldnt if constrained elsewhere.

Perhaps you are more leniant than I am, however I have been online since the days of BBSs. People who are nice and civil on the internet tend to be nice and civil off. People who are dicks on the internet are still dicks in person. They just attempt to hide it because of the social constraint.

[EricBarbour]

People who are nice and civil on the internet tend to be nice and civil off. People who are dicks on the internet are still dicks in person. They just attempt to hide it because of the social constraint.

I should quote you.

[dogbiscuit]

Perhaps you are more leniant than I am, however I have been online since the days of BBSs. People who are nice and civil on the internet tend to be nice and civil off. People who are dicks on the internet are still dicks in person. They just attempt to hide it because of the social constraint.

However, also being from the world of BBSs, there was always an understanding that these were civilised places and people could be persuaded to moderate their behaviour and they normally did. They were private places where you had the privilege of partaking, much like Compu$erve forums.

The big step change was Internet Newsgroups where there was an almost written law that they were entirely lawless, and rudeness, bullying and so on were part of the game. The Internet in general has not recovered from that attitude and the newsgroup free-for-all has been adopted as the right way to run the Internet without any clear rationale as to why lawlessness should be the right way - though with lots of spurious philosophical bullshit is produced around freedom and openness.

[thekohser]

Look at some of the members here, we have purportedly educated and intelligent people resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks regularly.

...<very next sentence>... and yapping like a little spoilt dog.

[Anroth]

However, also being from the world of BBSs, there was always an understanding that these were civilised places and people could be persuaded to moderate their behaviour and they normally did. They were private places where you had the privilege of partaking, much like Compu$erve forums.

The big step change was Internet Newsgroups where there was an almost written law that they were entirely lawless, and rudeness, bullying and so on were part of the game. The Internet in general has not recovered from that attitude and the newsgroup free-for-all has been adopted as the right way to run the Internet without any clear rationale as to why lawlessness should be the right way - though with lots of spurious philosophical bullshit is produced around freedom and openness.

Ye gods, compuserve... *shudder*. I agree re the BBS. But my point was not that they cant moderate their behavior, its that their behavior is who they really are.

Usenet is still alive and well. Its called 4chan (Yes I know its still actually alive) Sadly we cant kick people off the internet.

[Anroth]

Look at some of the members here, we have purportedly educated and intelligent people resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks regularly.

...<very next sentence>... and yapping like a little spoilt dog.

Not really ironic. But then as an American I wouldnt expect you to understand that. (See what I did there?)

Resorting to insults to 'win' an argument when you have no intelligent comeback to an opposing position is a different kettle of fish than describing someones bad behavior in less than complimentary terms. If someone acts like an idiot, and you tell them they are acting like an idiot and why, you might be considered insulting them under general civility norms, but thats correcting behavior. If someone is trying to have a meaningful discussion and the best you can come up with is calling them names, then its you who is being the idiot. This sort of laxity in pointing out and correctly identifying incivility on wikipedia (and here) is why arguments on the internet end up being the screaming child & donkey.

"Your argument is invalid because you are a tool" is not the same as "Stop acting like a spoilt child and engage like an adult."

[thekohser]

Look at some of the members here, we have purportedly educated and intelligent people resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks regularly.

...<very next sentence>... and yapping like a little spoilt dog.

Not really ironic. But then as an American I wouldnt expect you to understand that. (See what I did there?)

We didn't have a "hypocrisy" smilie, so I went with the "irony" one. I had a feeling someone would feel the need to call me out on it. I'm devastated.