Wikipedia community

[mbz1]

In this post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485145217 Jimbo writes:

Also, to be clear, I think Cla68 is asking me to overrule community consensus, which would be extremely controversial to say the least.

So I'd like to ask what exactly is "wikipedia community" and how in your opinion this community consensus would differ from a general population consensus, for example on the subject of keeping or removing bio of Jim Hawkins from Wikipedia?
Thanks.

[mbz1]

In this post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485145217 Jimbo writes:

Also, to be clear, I think Cla68 is asking me to overrule community consensus, which would be extremely controversial to say the least.

So I'd like to ask what exactly is "wikipedia community" and how in your opinion this community consensus would differ from a general population consensus, for example on the subject of keeping or removing bio of Jim Hawkins from Wikipedia?
Thanks.

Does not let me to edit the post, but I'd like to ask Jimbo a question or two

Jimbo, you are one of a very few wikipedians who are editing under their real names.
Once in a while you even behave as a reasonable person.
Why it is a problem for you to overrule a consensus of anonymous users, most of whom are in their teens?
Or another example: do you believe that an opinion of a user who says at your own talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =473564491
"When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private" should be taken into account in determining consensus of wikipedia community on any topic?

Also Jimbo you said http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =485303629: "We're here to have some fun and do some charitable work for the world "
Will you agree, Jimbo, that "having some fun and doing some charitable work for the world" must not be put in front of protecting well being of real human beings even, if community consensus goes the opposite way because many members of wikipedia community are having some fun only, when they are allowed to bully other wikipedians and/or subjects of BLP?

[Peter Damian]

So I'd like to ask what exactly is "wikipedia community"

That's an intriguing question. It is the most invoked idea on the project. Perhaps like 'God' in the middle ages or 'the will of the people' in dictatorships.

The best definition I've heard is 'people who hang around at ANI' or perhaps 'Jimbo talk page' also.

[EricBarbour]

It's a simple question, but sadly it is a very complicated answer. And that is one of the major reasons why Wikipedia never reforms--
people don't have the patience to understand it and don't want to deal with complex fixes. You can't do it on Wikipedia itself, as I just
got done telling someone else--they hold all the cards, it is a complete waste of time. And trying to talk to Jimbo is an even worse
waste.

[dogbiscuit]

Wikipedia Community: a small group of people who give the answers that people think Jimbo would like to hear.

[thekohser]

...the only way to get through to Wales, I am convinced, is with either a substantial bribe, public mockery, or a gun to the head.

I think you forgot one more way.

[EricBarbour]

Sex only works temporarily with him. He's working on wife #3, isn't he?
He has a tendency to use women and discard them like tissues.
And even better, the (few) militant feminists in the WP scene tolerate this. It really is a sausage-fest.

[Volunteer Marek]

So I'd like to ask what exactly is "wikipedia community"

That's an intriguing question. It is the most invoked idea on the project. Perhaps like 'God' in the middle ages or 'the will of the people' in dictatorships.

The best definition I've heard is 'people who hang around at ANI' or perhaps 'Jimbo talk page' also.

Well, I think what we're getting at here is the difference between the "wikipedia community" and "people who think of themselves as wikipedia community" and people who claim to speak for a "wikipedia community". There is a "wikipedia community" which is just some kind of sum of all the people that participate in it in one way or another (including all the vandals, socks, vandal socks, agenda driven editors, abusive admins and all the rest). Then there's people who claim to speak for ... well, not even THAT community, but for some kind of imagined, Platonic ideal of a wikipedia community.

It's one of those terms that sounds all warm and fuzzy - who doesn't want to be part of a community? - but in practice just serves as an excuse for very individualistic power games and abuse.

So the key is the difference between what the "wikipedia community" really IS, and what people say and pretend that the "wikipedia community" is.

[Volunteer Marek]

To add a little to the above, and to cross reference threads, somewhere else somebody linked to Awbrey's time line of the development of the NOR policy (we actually need more stuff like that which documents how the stupid became the stupid), which made me click on Awbrey's talk page, then the discussion which led to his block and reading that, made me wonder - what was the first time that someone invoked "exhausted community's patience" as reason for a block?

See also

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... ve-dancing
this for an early (?) use of the phrase by Slim Virgin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... oject_spam, though reading the discussion it appears the phrase was already established by then and
this for WR picking it up in Derktar's timeline http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

[iii]

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

This springs to mind.

[Volunteer Marek]

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

This springs to mind.

that post dates the 2006 links above

[EricBarbour]

To add a little to the above, and to cross reference threads, somewhere else somebody linked to Awbrey's time line of the development of the NOR policy (we actually need more stuff like that which documents how the stupid became the stupid), which made me click on Awbrey's talk page, then the discussion which led to his block and reading that, made me wonder - what was the first time that someone invoked "exhausted community's patience" as reason for a block?

That reminds me--can someone poke Jon and get him to write up a timeline, or a summary, or something about his Wikipedia activity?
He had something substantial to add to it, and he was involved in early policy discussions. And now he's "banned", yet still editing.....

[The Joy]

To add a little to the above, and to cross reference threads, somewhere else somebody linked to Awbrey's time line of the development of the NOR policy (we actually need more stuff like that which documents how the stupid became the stupid), which made me click on Awbrey's talk page, then the discussion which led to his block and reading that, made me wonder - what was the first time that someone invoked "exhausted community's patience" as reason for a block?

That reminds me--can someone poke Jon and get him to write up a timeline, or a summary, or something about his Wikipedia activity?
He had something substantial to add to it, and he was involved in early policy discussions. And now he's "banned", yet still editing.....

You see, the thing that I have come to have against Wikipedia is not just that it dissed me personally, but that it disses all of the things that I have learned to care about in the ways of education, information, and inquiry.

And the personal turining point came for me, not merely when I saw the damage that its gangs of vandals and brownshirtpuppets could wreak on articles and policies that had taken months of conscientious dialogue to work out.

No, I understand about fascists -- that is to say, their actions are consistent with their motives. They are trying to make the world safe for their peculiar form of ignorance. And they act in conformity with achieving that end.

No, the critical moment came for me when I saw the secret sympathy and the sheer symbiosis that all of the rest of those mealy-mouthed mock-menschen maintained with these devolutionary degenerates. The critical light dawned on me when I saw the way that these "goodfolk doing nothing" piously turned a blind eye -- and even winked at times -- perhaps spying some mirage of short-term advantage to themselves, but altogether oblivious to the day when these clockwork orangemen would turn on them.

Tic ...

Toc ...

Jonny

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s= ... st&p=22194

Full thread here:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=3609&hl

Jon was spot on. Over five years later, Jon is still spot on!
(On Wikipedia, though, he is spat on. )

[iii]

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

This springs to mind.

that post dates the 2006 links above

Quite right. But if I remember correctly, that was where the idea of centralizing "community ban discussions" really took off.

[Peter Damian]

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

As I have researching the history of Wikipedia with Eric, it is easy to put a precise date on this, namely February 27 2004. See the quotes from Jimbo below (warning, do not read if you are prone to sudden vomiting).

The community is something everyone loves, is indeed a symbol of love itself. The community has almost endless patience for its more wayward characters, just as God has for sinners. I say, 'almost endless', for even the patience of the community comes to an end, particularly if it has just been interviewed by The Economist. And the then the troll is cast out into the outer darkness, with gnashing of dicks and rending of edit summaries and the placing of a red cross on their user page. To say that someone has 'exhausted the community's patience' is truly to say that they are irrecoverably lost. Gravissimum enim peccatum est quod est irremissibile.

Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Wed Feb 25 22:49:16 UTC 2004 Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community, and has great hopes for the future. Plautus has also written to me expressing a desire for change. I will also try to help. In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all. If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried. --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Fri Feb 27 16:36:51 UTC 2004 I've rebanned Plautus satire from Wikipedia, and intend that he should remain so. It's not a matter for mediation anymore, it's a matter for arbitration. Additionally, in light of his behavior last night in sending so many pointless messages to the mailing list, I've banned him from the mailing list.
As to his numerous inquiries about blah blah blah blah blah blah, my only response is that I don't really care. Here's a forum for him to post about his case. Knock yourself out, Plautus. http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=2 [...] Here's where I am this morning: excited, thrilled, on top of the world. Wikipedia is growing fast, we're getting more and more attention for what we're doing, we're maturing as a community, and we have a lot of exciting things going on. Print Wikipedia! Money in the bank for more servers to deal with our growing popularity! Continued strong traffic growth! An amazing group of contributors who are doing amazing things every day. I spent half the day yesterday, and nearly half the day (so far) today dealing with Plautus satire. That's ridiculous. I was interviewed by The Economist yesterday. I talked to people at Yahoo about using our content. I talked to people at a major publisher about publishing our content. I talked to a columnist from the Boston Herald. And the other half of my day, I dealt with Plautus. I'm done. --Jimbo

[Volunteer Marek]

I'm sure the phrase was used earlier on Wikipedia. At what point did some people start invoking "teh community" in a Louis XIV kind of way as a reason to ban hammer people?

As I have researching the history of Wikipedia with Eric, it is easy to put a precise date on this, namely February 27 2004. See the quotes from Jimbo below (warning, do not read if you are prone to sudden vomiting).

The community is something everyone loves, is indeed a symbol of love itself. The community has almost endless patience for its more wayward characters, just as God has for sinners. I say, 'almost endless', for even the patience of the community comes to an end, particularly if it has just been interviewed by The Economist. And the then the troll is cast out into the outer darkness, with gnashing of dicks and rending of edit summaries and the placing of a red cross on their user page. To say that someone has 'exhausted the community's patience' is truly to say that they are irrecoverably lost. Gravissimum enim peccatum est quod est irremissibile.

Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Wed Feb 25 22:49:16 UTC 2004 Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community, and has great hopes for the future. Plautus has also written to me expressing a desire for change. I will also try to help. In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all. If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried. --Jimbo

Jimmy Wales jwales at bomis.com Fri Feb 27 16:36:51 UTC 2004 I've rebanned Plautus satire from Wikipedia, and intend that he should remain so. It's not a matter for mediation anymore, it's a matter for arbitration. Additionally, in light of his behavior last night in sending so many pointless messages to the mailing list, I've banned him from the mailing list.
As to his numerous inquiries about blah blah blah blah blah blah, my only response is that I don't really care. Here's a forum for him to post about his case. Knock yourself out, Plautus. http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=2 [...] Here's where I am this morning: excited, thrilled, on top of the world. Wikipedia is growing fast, we're getting more and more attention for what we're doing, we're maturing as a community, and we have a lot of exciting things going on. Print Wikipedia! Money in the bank for more servers to deal with our growing popularity! Continued strong traffic growth! An amazing group of contributors who are doing amazing things every day. I spent half the day yesterday, and nearly half the day (so far) today dealing with Plautus satire. That's ridiculous. I was interviewed by The Economist yesterday. I talked to people at Yahoo about using our content. I talked to people at a major publisher about publishing our content. I talked to a columnist from the Boston Herald. And the other half of my day, I dealt with Plautus. I'm done. --Jimbo

Who was/is this Plautus character (I mean the editor not the playwright)?

[EricBarbour]

The community is something everyone loves, is indeed a symbol of love itself. The community has almost endless patience for its more wayward characters, just as God has for sinners. I say, 'almost endless', for even the patience of the community comes to an end, particularly if it has just been interviewed by The Economist. And the then the troll is cast out into the outer darkness, with gnashing of dicks and rending of edit summaries and the placing of a red cross on their user page. To say that someone has 'exhausted the community's patience' is truly to say that they are irrecoverably lost. Gravissimum enim peccatum est quod est irremissibile.

Perfectly put. Thank you. I can just imagine someone starting a comic book called "Jimmy Wales, Anti-Pope".

Who was/is this Plautus character (I mean the editor not the playwright)?

Sadly, that is a long story. Short form: Plautus was editing science articles. He was also a 9/11 conspiracy nut, an anti-semite (supposedly), and most unacceptable of all, quite prone to fighting with people. And he fought the Raul, and the Raul won (as usual). This was one of the first-ever Arbcom decisions. Plus there was an RFC well afterwards. If that doesn't make you want to punch both Plautus AND Raul in the face, you're probably dead.

[Peter Damian]

I quote from Andrew Lih's long love letter to Wikipedia in book form*

As Wales announced the membership of the two committees [mediation and arbitration], he really wasn't sure how arbitration would work, so he tapped members of the new arbitration committee (Arbcom) to propose a system to him.

Mark Pelligrini, aka User:Raul654, was one of the first arbitrators. He was passionate about serving because he saw firsthand how dysfunctional dispute resolution had become. He saw how the community [my emphasis] tried to sit down to reason with and rehabilitate acerbic users who were clearly miscreants. To him it was too soft an approach, and to Wales this was exactly the type of person he wanted on a diverse committee to decide these things.

Raul654 was well known in the community [my emphasis] as the large, cheery and bombastic computer science graduate student who never shied away from cleaning up messes around Wikipedia. He had taken on obnoxious users in the past and wanted a more systematic way to deal with them.

In 2004,he was ont he case of a prickly user named Plautus Satire, who had vandalized the articles on [[Albert Einstein]], [[Hubble Space Telescope]], and [[Black Hole]] with nonsensical claims. In the Einstein article, he insisted on pushing the idea that the scientist was a fraud [....]

Raul654 was not amused. 'I literally went through every one of his edits and he had ... two that were indisputable good, and the rest were conspiracy theory gibberish'.

While Wikipedians typically try to bend over backwards [my emphasis] to see some good side of the site's users, that's not Raul654's way. He professes he's 'more of a hanging judge'. It took six weeks to kick Plautus Satire off the site, and the Arbitration Committee made it their second-ever case to ban him for a period of one year. As a council of 'last resort' ArbCom's decision would be binding, and Wales liked the process they initiated.

The Wikipedia Revolution 2009, p. 181

[mbz1]

Here are a couple of quotes regarding so called wikipedia community

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =486855038

Like many internet communities, this is a magnet for social outcasts of one colour or another. The bedridden, the housebound, the lonely, the frightened, the hated. This is a good thing. Most outcasts I know are good people, and this provides a place where they can do a lot of unalloyed good in the company of others. But the project needs to face the corollary that there will be an effect on the ethos here. When a bunch of rejects get together and tries to form a society ad hoc, they'll make mistakes that stem from poorly honed social sensitivity. It is highly likely that the social norms regarding each other, our subjects and the world at large (our readership) will be a poor fit for people of normal social sensibility. This matters. It is only just beginning to be addressed, starting with heightened attention to civility, but there's a long way to go, and the more these questions are discussed, the sooner we'll evolve into something that can seamlessly and responsibly engage with the world community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =376761747

There are quite a few mentally ill people who edit Wikipedia. I have been stalked and harassed by more than one person here during my tenure, and while almost all of those folks were eventually indef blocked, after awhile, it gets to be too much. It is emotionally and physically draining. While some were mostly annoying time sinks who seemed to be just desperately seeking the attention they must have lacked in their real lives, others have displayed all the signs of full-blown psychosis, particularly in engaging in cyberstalking both on and off Wiki.

[Peter Damian]

Here are a couple of quotes regarding so called wikipedia community

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =486855038

Like many internet communities, this is a magnet for social outcasts of one colour or another. The bedridden, the housebound, the lonely, the frightened, the hated. This is a good thing. Most outcasts I know are good people, and this provides a place where they can do a lot of unalloyed good in the company of others. But the project needs to face the corollary that there will be an effect on the ethos here. When a bunch of rejects get together and tries to form a society ad hoc, they'll make mistakes that stem from poorly honed social sensitivity. It is highly likely that the social norms regarding each other, our subjects and the world at large (our readership) will be a poor fit for people of normal social sensibility. This matters. It is only just beginning to be addressed, starting with heightened attention to civility, but there's a long way to go, and the more these questions are discussed, the sooner we'll evolve into something that can seamlessly and responsibly engage with the world community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =376761747

There are quite a few mentally ill people who edit Wikipedia. I have been stalked and harassed by more than one person here during my tenure, and while almost all of those folks were eventually indef blocked, after awhile, it gets to be too much. It is emotionally and physically draining. While some were mostly annoying time sinks who seemed to be just desperately seeking the attention they must have lacked in their real lives, others have displayed all the signs of full-blown psychosis, particularly in engaging in cyberstalking both on and off Wiki.

Thanks for that. I wanted to write this up at some point, but had lost those two quotes. Do we have any other examples of people who were editing the Wiki and clearly shouldn't have been, and needed help, but got no help?

I suggested to Vandenberg last year that the WMF should be doing far more to help in situations like these. It's damaging to both parties.

[EricBarbour]

Do we have any other examples of people who were editing the Wiki and clearly shouldn't have been, and needed help, but got no help?

Are you joking? MOST of them need help.

That said, I'd remind you of Ambi, Blissyu2, SandyGeorgia, and frankly, FT2 could use some help. Not to mention a number of pedophile editors.

[dogbiscuit]

Do we have any other examples of people who were editing the Wiki and clearly shouldn't have been, and needed help, but got no help?

Are you joking? MOST of them need help.

That said, I'd remind you of Ambi, Blissyu2, SandyGeorgia, and frankly, FT2 could use some help. Not to mention a number of pedophile editors.

I think that the whole addictive nature of Internet activity is a study in itself, but there do seem to be factors in Wikipedia culture that exaggerate the problem over some other places.

You can see all sorts of burnout (lots of "Someone is WRONG on the Internet").

I guess you could compile a list of lost souls where the characteristic is:
- mainstay of the community
- run into some sort of dispute
- get lost in the mire of the dispute
- go a bit mad
- resign or get sanctioned.

If you are a bit mad to start with, the process happens quicker, but I'd suggest that nobody is particularly immune from the potential to be driven a bit mad.

What really drives people mad is the uncaring attitude when people run into trouble. The masses just pile on the problems with the hate, because community care is not part of the project, and the suggestion that editors are not infallible cannot be allowed to be considered - the switch from respected member of community to pariah is pretty much instantaneous - after all madness might be catching.

[Peter Damian]

What really drives people mad is the uncaring attitude when people run into trouble.

There was something in the middlebrow press quite recently about the biological or genetic basis of cults. Humans bond into a group very quickly and naturally - artificially designate them as a group and they will become a group. We have all seen this (e.g. horrible 'awaydays' - you go, hating the idea of it, get sucked in for the time it takes, and almost come to love the people in whatever group you have been stuck in - then return and forget about it straight away).

There was a study mentioned about people who leave the group, and how in an experiment certain members named large sums of money that they would pay to humiliate and hurt the 'traitors'. This is all part of the biology, supposedly.

I never saw myself as part of the WP 'community'. I wonder if this is more a problem with older people. I am very comfortable with the real-life group or sector of society I belong to. I don't have that anxiousness about who I am, where I ought to live, what my personal identity is. I completely identify with that group, which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Indeed I would be embarrassed if anyone knew I was involved with Wikipedia at all.

With the younger members I am not so sure. It seems like it's part of their identity as 'Wikipedians' in some way.

Another thought: to be a Wikipedian it's not enough to do all the things that Wikipedians do. You actually have to admit to being a 'Wikipedian'. Perhaps there should be a sort of ceremony where Wikipedians swear an oath of allegiance with humble manner and solemn demeanour.

[edit - perhaps something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid - ooopsie]

[Peter Damian]

Now channeling Moulton:

This kegare* action most likely serves three interrelated functions in American schools. First, humiliating actions notify members of the social group that the person is to be an object of ridicule. Second, these polluting behaviors dehumanize the individual, lending legitimacy to the abusive actions by members of the victimizing group. Finally, such ritual humiliation of one or a few may tighten the cohesion of the larger social structure (Alexander, 1986).

Banning an individual from participation in his or her community is the most extreme form of dehumanization, short of execution—that is, killing an individual’s personhood or reality. In some groups, such as the Old Order Amish, banning or shunning (Meidung in German) prevents individuals from pursuing their livelihood, to the extent that a traditional way of life is dependent upon social relationships (Gruter, 1986).

Similarly, when joining armies, fraternal organizations, political movements, or religious orders, new members must frequently be separated from aspects of their past lives and formally embrace the mission and beliefs of the new association. The rites and actions involved, qualitatively similar to humiliation rituals, are termed hazing or aggressive conversion. Aggressive conversion includes three phases. First, one must become isolated from the past life and from significant others. Second, the former self is exorcised “through humiliation and guilt” (Taff & Boglioli, 1993, p. 2116). In a final phase, the initiate assumes the group identity and worldview.

http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol ... tuals.html

*Kegare - archaic Japanese for the process of marking individuals for abuse as outsiders by forcing them to execute a humiliating, public act in which dehumanizing symbolism is often implied.

[dogbiscuit]

What really drives people mad is the uncaring attitude when people run into trouble.

There was something in the middlebrow press quite recently about the biological or genetic basis of cults. Humans bond into a group very quickly and naturally - artificially designate them as a group and they will become a group. We have all seen this (e.g. horrible 'awaydays' - you go, hating the idea of it, get sucked in for the time it takes, and almost come to love the people in whatever group you have been stuck in - then return and forget about it straight away).

There was a study mentioned about people who leave the group, and how in an experiment certain members named large sums of money that they would pay to humiliate and hurt the 'traitors'. This is all part of the biology, supposedly.

I never saw myself as part of the WP 'community'. I wonder if this is more a problem with older people. I am very comfortable with the real-life group or sector of society I belong to. I don't have that anxiousness about who I am, where I ought to live, what my personal identity is. I completely identify with that group, which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Indeed I would be embarrassed if anyone knew I was involved with Wikipedia at all.

With the younger members I am not so sure. It seems like it's part of their identity as 'Wikipedians' in some way.

Another thought: to be a Wikipedian it's not enough to do all the things that Wikipedians do. You actually have to admit to being a 'Wikipedian'. Perhaps there should be a sort of ceremony where Wikipedians swear an oath of allegiance with humble manner and solemn demeanour.

I think the interesting thing is that there are True Wikipedians and other editors and the two intermix. However, as soon as you criticise True Wikipedia or Wikipedians, it marks you out as a problematic editor and an outcast. There are subtleties in how Wikipedia operates where people unwittingly cast themselves out from the group as the mob is very fickle and uses code and signals to determine who is in or out. In other words, the interesting feature is that membership is dynamically crowd-sourced on an almost edit by edit basis.

If i go back a few years, on editing policy pages, trying to make some basic changes (like just because a media source is deemed reliable it doesn't mean that all their outpourings can be treated in the same way) it became very clear that those who were not in the in-crowd simply were not allowed to participate, however many hoops and however much consensus was gained on a talk page. Any actual change was reverted, yet in-crowd members could swoop in and say "Yes, policy is wrong and it needs to say this" and their changes would be applied without discussion.

So yes, you are right, there is a rite of passage that True Wikipedians appear to go through, and it would be far better for all involved if this was open and above board rather than pretending that there were not a multi-tiered membership.

[Volunteer Marek]

Now channeling Moulton:

This kegare* action most likely serves three interrelated functions in American schools. First, humiliating actions notify members of the social group that the person is to be an object of ridicule. Second, these polluting behaviors dehumanize the individual, lending legitimacy to the abusive actions by members of the victimizing group. Finally, such ritual humiliation of one or a few may tighten the cohesion of the larger social structure (Alexander, 1986).

Banning an individual from participation in his or her community is the most extreme form of dehumanization, short of execution—that is, killing an individual’s personhood or reality. In some groups, such as the Old Order Amish, banning or shunning (Meidung in German) prevents individuals from pursuing their livelihood, to the extent that a traditional way of life is dependent upon social relationships (Gruter, 1986).

Similarly, when joining armies, fraternal organizations, political movements, or religious orders, new members must frequently be separated from aspects of their past lives and formally embrace the mission and beliefs of the new association. The rites and actions involved, qualitatively similar to humiliation rituals, are termed hazing or aggressive conversion. Aggressive conversion includes three phases. First, one must become isolated from the past life and from significant others. Second, the former self is exorcised “through humiliation and guilt” (Taff & Boglioli, 1993, p. 2116). In a final phase, the initiate assumes the group identity and worldview.

http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol ... tuals.html

*Kegare - archaic Japanese for the process of marking individuals for abuse as outsiders by forcing them to execute a humiliating, public act in which dehumanizing symbolism is often implied.

I've mentioned before that probably the most appropriate analogy for what happens in these banning events, where someone goes from respected/appreciated to pariah in less than six posts, is the idea of a pecking party from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest http://www.shmoop.com/one-flew-over-cuc ... ymbol.html. And, like the Wikipedians themselves, the inmates of Nurse Ratchet's hospital are volunteers - they are there because they wish to be, they can leave anytime, and because in a way they enjoy that very aspect of the atmosphere, however much they complain about it - which is their "true" mental illness.

[mbz1]

Now channeling Moulton:

This kegare* action most likely serves three interrelated functions in American schools. First, humiliating actions notify members of the social group that the person is to be an object of ridicule. Second, these polluting behaviors dehumanize the individual, lending legitimacy to the abusive actions by members of the victimizing group. Finally, such ritual humiliation of one or a few may tighten the cohesion of the larger social structure (Alexander, 1986).

Banning an individual from participation in his or her community is the most extreme form of dehumanization, short of execution—that is, killing an individual’s personhood or reality. In some groups, such as the Old Order Amish, banning or shunning (Meidung in German) prevents individuals from pursuing their livelihood, to the extent that a traditional way of life is dependent upon social relationships (Gruter, 1986).

Similarly, when joining armies, fraternal organizations, political movements, or religious orders, new members must frequently be separated from aspects of their past lives and formally embrace the mission and beliefs of the new association. The rites and actions involved, qualitatively similar to humiliation rituals, are termed hazing or aggressive conversion. Aggressive conversion includes three phases. First, one must become isolated from the past life and from significant others. Second, the former self is exorcised “through humiliation and guilt” (Taff & Boglioli, 1993, p. 2116). In a final phase, the initiate assumes the group identity and worldview.

http://www.cyc-net.org/cyc-online/cycol ... tuals.html

*Kegare - archaic Japanese for the process of marking individuals for abuse as outsiders by forcing them to execute a humiliating, public act in which dehumanizing symbolism is often implied.

Thanks, it is a great link. This description of excommunications ("Banning an individual from participation in his or her community is the most extreme form of dehumanization, short of execution—that is, killing an individual’s personhood or reality") demonstrates how sick wikipedia community is.

BTW I wonder, if during the ages there was any other community that excommunicated their members without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves, or wikipedia community that does it at a regular basis is the sickest of the sick.

[Peter Damian]

BTW I wonder, if during the ages there was any other community that excommunicated their members without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves, or wikipedia community that does it at a regular basis is the sickest of the sick.

Now we really are channeling Moulton.

[EricBarbour]

The point is, I think: call Wikipedia a "sick society", if you must. But you have to admit, it is very similar to other "cult-like" or
paramilitary organizations, using the same methods to insure compliance by its peer group. Cults, fraternities, boot camp,
hacker legions, what's the real difference?

[mbz1]

1656, Amsterdam

After the judgment of the Angels, and with that of the saints, we excommunicate, expel, curse, and damn Baruch de Espinoza with the consent of God

2012, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... and_blocks

An editor who is "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as a "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. For the duration of their ban they are no longer considered a member of the editing community, which affects how their actions are treated.

1656, Amsterdam

... the Lord will not pardon him

2012, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... iscussions

While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene.

1656, Amsterdam

We command that none should communicate with him orally or in writing

2012, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Beback

This user is banned from editing Wikipedia.
Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking.

1656, Amsterdam

, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him

2012, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ed_editors

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying)

1656, Amsterdam

, or read anything composed by him.

2012, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BannedMeansBanned

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban